preparation of detailed project report...

Preparation of Detailed Project Report (DPR)

IMPLEMENTATION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

PROJECT Situation Analysis Report cum Pre feasibility Report

Cluster V-Koraput and Sunabeda

December, 2015

Prepared By

GLOBAL TECH ENVIRO EXPERTS Pvt. Ltd.

C-23, B.J.B NAGAR, BHUBANESWAR-14

Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)

GTEEPL

2

TABLE OF CONTENT

CHAPTER-I ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 7

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 7

1.1 BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................................................................... 7

1 .1 .1 NATION AL SC EN ARIO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1 .1 .2 SCENA RIO IN OD ISHA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

1.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................. 9

1.3 PROJECT RATIONALE ................................................................................................................................................... 10

1.4 SCOPE OF WORK ............................................................................................................................................................. 10

CHAPTER -II ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 12

Project Area Profile ............................................................................................................................................................................. 12

2.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................................. 12

Exhibit 1: Map of District Koraput ................................................................................................................................. 13

2.2 LOCAL AND REGIONAL LINKAGE ........................................................................................................................... 14

Exhibit 2: Ward Wise Map of Koraput NAC ............................................................................................................... 14

Exhibit 3: Location Map of Koraput-Sunabeda Region ......................................................................................... 15

Exhibit 4: Koraput-Sunabeda Regional Linkage ...................................................................................................... 16

Exhibit 5: Map of Sunabeda NAC .................................................................................................................................... 16

Table 2.1: Salient features of Koraput & Sunabeda Municipalities ................................................................. 17

2.3 TOPOGRAPHY................................................................................................................................................................... 18

Exhibit 6: Topographical Map of Koraput .................................................................................................................. 18

2.4 CLIMATE ............................................................................................................................................................................. 19

2.5 GEOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................................................ 19

2.6 DEMOGRAPHY & GROWTH ........................................................................................................................................ 20

Table 2.2: Population Growth Rate for Odisha vs Koraput Distt. .................................................................... 20

2.7 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE ........................................................................................................................................... 20

Table 2.3: Population of Koraput town during 2001-2011 ................................................................................ 20

Table 2.4: Population of Sunabeda town during 2001-2011 ............................................................................. 21

Table 2.5: Population growth trends of Cluster V towns (1971-2011) ......................................................... 21

Figure 1 Population Trends in Sunabeda And Koraput Towns (1971-2011) ............................................ 22

Table 2.6: Ward wise Population of Koraput ............................................................................................................ 22

Table 2.7 Ward wise Population in Sunabeda .......................................................................................................... 23

2.8 EXISTING SLUMS ............................................................................................................................................................ 24

Table 2.8: Existing Slum Details in Sunabeda ........................................................................................................... 24

Table 2.9: Types of different housing settlements in Koraput .......................................................................... 25


GTEEPL

3

Table 2.10: Types of Different Housing Settlements in the ULBs in Sunabeda .......................................... 25

2.9 POPULATION PROJECTIONS ..................................................................................................................................... 25

Table 2.11: Projected Population For Koraput By Best Fit Method ................................................................ 26

Table 2.12: Projected Population for Sunabeda using various Methods ...................................................... 27

Table 2.13: Summary of CAGR for various methods .............................................................................................. 27

2.10 ADMINISTRATION AND DELIVERY OF MUNICIPAL SERVICES ................................................................. 27

CHAPTER -III .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 30

Assessment Of Existing SWM System.......................................................................................................................................... 30

3.1 OVERVIEW OF SWM SYSTEM IN ODISHA ........................................................................................................... 30

3.3 EXISTING SWM SYSTEM OF CLUSTER CITIES ................................................................................................... 31

3.3 .1 WA STE GEN ERA TION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Table 3.1a: Source wise waste generation details in Koraput (as per ULB) ............................................... 32

Table 3.1b: Source wise waste generation details in Koraput (field survey) ............................................. 32

Table 3.2a: Source wise waste generation details in Sunabeda........................................................................ 33

Table 3.2b: Source wise waste generation details in Sunabeda (field survey) .......................................... 33

3.3 .2 PHYSIC AL WASTE C OM POSITI ON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Table 3.3: Physical Composition analysis of MSW - Koraput ............................................................................. 35

Table 3.4: Physical Composition analysis of MSW - Sunabeda.......................................................................... 35

Table 3.5: Physical Waste composition Analysis for Cluster – V ( Koraput & Sunabeda) ..................... 35

Table 3.6: Chemical Composition analysis of MSW – Cluster V ........................................................................ 36

3.3 .3 EXISTIN G WASTE M AN AG EMEN T SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

3.3 .4 SEGR EGA TION AN D STOR AGE SYSTEM .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

3.3 .5 E XISTING WA ST E C OLLEC TION SYSTEM IN CL USTER – V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

3.3.5.1 WASTE COLLECTION PRACTICE IN KORAPUT: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Table 3.7: Details of waste bins in Koraput ............................................................................................................... 39

Table 3.8(A): Ward wise details of sanitation workers & bins in Koraput .................................................. 39

Table 3.8(b): sanitation workers engaged in street sweeping in cluster v .................................................. 40

3.3.5.2 WASTE COLLECTION PRACTICE IN SUNABEDA: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Table 3.9: Details of waste collection points/bins in Sunabeda ....................................................................... 41

3.3.5.3 Waste collection System in Markets/institutions ............................................................................ 41

Table 3.10: Details of market & commercial waste in Koraput ........................................................................ 41

Table 3.11: Details of market & commercial waste in Sunabeda ..................................................................... 42

3.3.5.4 Waste Collection Practice in Slums of CLuster V ............................................................................. 42

3.3.5.5 Street sweeping & Drain cleaning in Cluster V ................................................................................. 43

3.3 .6 EXISTIN G W ASTE TRAN SPOR TA TION SYSTEM IN CLUSTER V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

3.3.6.1 Waste Transportation System in Koraput ........................................................................................... 44

Table 3.12: Details of waste C&T equipments in Koraput ................................................................................... 44


GTEEPL

4

3.3.6.2 WASTE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IN SUNABEDA: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Table 3.12: Details of waste C&T equipments in Sunabeda ............................................................................... 45

3.3 .7 EXISTIN G WASTE TREA T MEN T & DISPOSAL SYST EM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Figure 3.1: Map Of The Earlier Proposed Landfill Site In Sunabeda ............................................................... 46

Figure 3.2: (Not to Scale )Map Of The Landfill Site In Koraput ......................................................................... 47

Figure 3.3: 1mt contour Interval for merged Plot Nos. 59 & 111 at Chindri .............................................. 48

3.3 .8 WA STE REUSE AN D R EC OVE RY SYSTE M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

3.3.8.1 Recycling ........................................................................................................................................................... 49

3.4 INITIATIVES OF ULBS OF CLUSTER V ................................................................................................................... 49

3.5 SPECIAL WASTE MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................ 50

3.6 MAJOR ISSUES .................................................................................................................................................................. 50

3.7 POSITIVE ASPECTS ........................................................................................................................................................ 52

3.8 GAP ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................................................. 52

Table 3. 1: Gap Analysis of SWM In Cluster – V (Koraput & Sunabeda NAC)............................................ 53

CHAPTER -IV .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 55

Site Suitability Assessment .............................................................................................................................................................. 55

4.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................................. 55

4.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED SITE .............................................................................................................. 55

Table 4.1: Features of Proposed Site............................................................................................................................. 56

4.3 SITE EVALUATION CRITERIA ................................................................................................................................... 57

Table 4.2: Sensitivity Index (As per CPCB) ................................................................................................................ 58

4.3 .1 ASSIGN ING IM POR TAN CE TO ATTR IBUTE S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

4.3 .2 DEVELOPM EN T OF SITE SEN SITIVITY INDEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

4.3 .3 PR OPOSED SITE A SSESS MEN T A S PER C PHEE O R E QUIREME NTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Table 4.3 Compliance with CPHEEO Manual ............................................................................................................. 60

Table 4.4: Site Evaluation Assessment ......................................................................................................................... 61

4.4 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION OF THE SITE ............................................................................................... 63

CHAPTER -V ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 69

Concept Of The Solid Waste Management System ................................................................................................................ 69

5.1 DESIGN CRITERIA FOR SWM SYSTEM .................................................................................................................. 69

5.2 CONCEPT FOR AN INTEGRATED MSW MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IN CLUSTER V .............................. 70

Figure 5.1: Concept plan for solid waste management of Cluster V ............................................................... 71

Table 5.1: Waste Volume Projections for Cluster V ................................................................................................ 71

5.2 .1 C ONC EPT FOR WASTE SEGRE G ATION & COLLE CTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Table 5.2: Summary of the MSW Management at the Primary Collection Level ....................................... 72

Table 5.3: Infrastructure Required ................................................................................................................................ 73

5.2 .3 WA STE PR OC ESSI NG & TE CHN OL OG Y ASSE SSMEN T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73


GTEEPL

5

Table5.5: Comaprison matrix for various waste processing technologies .................................................. 76

Table 5.6: Waste Log for Cluster V ................................................................................................................................. 80

Figure 5.2: Proposed Material balance for regional SWM facility of Cluster V ......................................... 80

5.3 DISPOSAL OF THE REJECTS - SANITARY LANDFILLING .............................................................................. 81

Table 5.7: Waste Volumes for SLF for 15 years ....................................................................................................... 82

5.3 .1 LINER SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

5.3 .2 BOTTOM L INER SYSTE M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

5.3 .3 . SIDE SOIL B UND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

5.3 .4 . SL OPE STABIL ITY A SPE CTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

5.3 .5 LEACHATE DRAINAGE , C OLLE CTION & REM OVAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

5.3 .7 LEACHATE MANAG EME NT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

5.3 .8 SURFA CE WA TER DR AINA GE SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

5.4 CONSTRUCTION OF ISWM FACILITY .................................................................................................................... 86

5.5. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE .......................................................................................................................... 87

5.6 AREA REQUIREMENT FOR THE REGIONAL SWM FACILITY ...................................................................... 90

Table 5.8: Area requirement for the Regional Waste Processing facility and SLF ................................... 90

Table 5.9: Area details for landfill .................................................................................................................................. 90

Table 5.10 Area details for waste processing facility ............................................................................................ 90

5.7 SOLUTION TO THE MIXED BIO-MEDICAL WASTE PRESENT IN CLUSTER – V .................................. 91

5.8 SUITABLE SAFEGUARD & POLLUTION CONTROL MEASURES ................................................................. 92

CHAPTER -VI .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 93

Environmental & Social Impacts ................................................................................................................................................... 93

6.1 ENVIRONMENT & SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT .......................................................................................... 93

6.2 REGULATION IN SWM ........................................................................................................................................................... 93

6.2 .1 SWM RUL E 2000 & DRAF T SWM R ULE 201 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

6.2 .2 OTHER RE LEVAN T REGUL ATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

6.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF MSW .................................................................................................................. 96

6.4 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ........................................................................................................... 97

Table 5.1 Overall Monitoring Programme .................................................................................................................. 97

CHAPTER -VII ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 100

Project cost & Implementation Mechanism ........................................................................................................................... 100

7.1 ULB FINANCIAL STATUS OF CLUSTER V TOWNS.......................................................................................... 100

7.2 FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT OF SUNABEDA NAC ............................................................................................... 100

Table 7.1: Total Expenditure of Sunabeda NAC (in Rs. Lakh) .......................................................................... 100

Table 7.2: Total Receipts of Sunabeda NAC (in Rs. Lakh) .................................................................................. 100

Table 7.3: Break-up of Revenues (in Rs. Lakh) ...................................................................................................... 101

Table 7.4: Total Expenditure of Sunabeda NAC (in Rs. Lakh) .......................................................................... 101


GTEEPL

6

7.3 FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT OF KORAPUT NAC ................................................................................................. 102

Table 7.5: Total Receipts of Koraput NAC (in Rs. Lakh) ..................................................................................... 102

7.4 KEY FINANCIAL ASPECTS AND ISSUES .............................................................................................................. 102

7.5 CAPITAL INVESTMENT FOR SWM PROJECT .................................................................................................... 103

Table 7.6: Preliminary Cost estimate of SWM Project ........................................................................................ 103

Table 7.7: Preliminary Cost estimate C&T system ................................................................................................ 104

Table 7.8: Preliminary Cost estimate Regional waste processing facility .................................................. 104

Table 7.9: Preliminary Cost estimate of regional SLF ......................................................................................... 105

7.6 POTENTIAL REVENUE STREAMS FOR SWM PROJECT ............................................................................... 106

7.6 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY ............................................................................................................................. 106

7.7 PROJECT FUNDING ...................................................................................................................................................... 108

Table 16.14 Funding Pattern for Integrated MSW Project ............................................................................... 108

7.8 JUSTIFICATION OF MODE OF OPERATION ....................................................................................................... 111

Annexure 1: Sampling locations of Household survey in Koraput municipality for waste

quantification ........................................................................................................................................................................ 113

Sampling locations for waste composition analysis in Cluster V ................................................................... 116

Annexure 2: Details of waste characterisation analysis for Cluster V ......................................................... 117

Characterization of MSW Samples from Koraput: ................................................................................................ 119

Chemical Characterization of Samples: ..................................................................................................................... 122

Chemical Analysis Result: ................................................................................................................................................ 123

ANNEXURE 3: BALANCE SHEETS OF KORAPUT NAC (2012-15) .................................................................. 124

Annexure 4: OUIDF Cluster V: Financial modelling calculations for IRR & Tipping fee ...................... 130


GTEEPL

7

CHAPTER-I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

1.1.1 NATIONAL SCENARIO

The problem of municipal solid waste management (MSWM) has acquired an alarming

dimension in the India during the last few decades. The quantity of solid waste generated

has increased significantly and its characteristics have changed as a result of the change in

the peoples‟ lifestyles due to swift industrialization and urbanization. Various studies have

indicated that solid waste generated by the million plus Indian cities varies from 1200 TPD

in medium sized cities such as Ahmedabad and Pune to a maximum of 6000-7000 TPD in

mega cities such as Delhi and Mumbai, with the per capita solid waste generation rate

ranging from 300 to 650 grams per day. As per CPCB estimates, around 57 million tons per

annum of MSW is presently generated in the country, which is likely to increase to the

volume over 150 million tons of waste a year by 2025.

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) management in India is a state subject as per the Indian

constitution 74th Constitutional Amendment Act and it is one of the most important

obligatory functions of the ULBs. At the central level, the Ministry of Environment and

Forests and Climate change (MoEF & CC) of the government of India has issued MSW

(Management and Handling) Rules in the year 2000 for municipal solid waste management

(MSWM), making it mandatory for the urban local bodies (ULBs) to improve the systems of

waste management as envisaged in the rules, in a given time frame ending 31st December,

2003. These rules lay out procedures for waste collection, segregation, storage,

transportation, processing and disposal. The responsibility for implementation of these rules

lies with the Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD), which also developed a manual on

MSWM in 2000 to complement the MSW Rules.

Despite the Notification of MSW Rules as early as in the year 2000, the local bodies are still

not being able to achieve satisfactory source segregation of MSW. With the objective to

motivate the ULBs to improve the sanitation services in the city, the MoUD developed the

National Urban Sanitation Policy (NUSP) in 2008 and has set the service level benchmarks

for MSW Management as part of the overall Sanitation status in a town. And, now there is

another initiative of Govt. of India, Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM), towards achieving the

status of “Clean India” in all the urban centres of the country by October 2019.

National Green Tribunal also stipulates ULBs to follow NGT‟s provisions in order to avoid

adverse environmental effects of MSW activities.


GTEEPL

8

1.1.2 SCENARIO IN ODISHA

The scenario in Odisha is no different from the rest of the country. Odisha has a total

population of 4.2 Crore, as per Census 2011. There are 111 Urban Local Bodies in Odisha

comprising of 5 Municipal Corporations, 45Municipalities and 61 Notified Area Councils in

the state. These ULBs generate approximately 1800 TPD of municipal waste. The MSW

generated in these ULBs are not managed properly resulting in degradation of the

environment. The ULBs are yet to fully comply with MSW Rules 2000.

State Government has initiated various steps for implementation of integrated Solid Waste

Management projects in various ULBs as per MSW Rules 2000. As a first step towards it,

land was allotted to ULBs to gradually implement the SWM project involving processing of

bio-degradable and scientific disposal of processed and inert non-recyclable waste. Most of

the ULBs have provided approach road to the sites and have secured the site with a

compound wall. However, processing facility has not been set up in any of the ULBs. The

waste is dumped in the site without processing and scientific land fill.

The small towns of the Odisha state do not have adequate capacity to develop waste

treatment & disposal facility on their own. Further, such small scale projects cannot be

developed as attractive PPP project. At the same time, improving urban municipal solid

waste management in small towns of the region is imperative and urgent. Therefore, a

multi-pronged approach is proposed involving:

Development of a regional level solid waste management project by combining small

size neighbouring ULBs t form a cluster;

Door-to-door Collection, transportation, processing and disposal as per MSW

Management & Handling Rules, 2000;

Ensuring involvement of neighbouring ULBs who lack the technical as well as

financial capacity to conduct the MSWM independently;

Larger community involvement in both improving the systems as well as harnessing

the power of markets.

The State Government of Odisha has initiated various steps for implementation of

integrated Solid Waste Management projects in various ULBs as per MSW Rules 2000. With

the initiatives of the state govt., more than 60% of the ULBs have SPCB authorized sites for

waste processing and disposal. Further, the State Government has taken initiatives for

implementation of SWM projects in various ULBs in PPP mode including those of

Bhubaneswar& Cuttack, Berhampur, Sambalpur, Paradeep and many coastal towns, as

well.

The state has further created a special fund, OUIDF, to extend support to ULBs in the form

of loan and grant for urban infrastructure project financing besides offering project

development assistance such as preparation of DPR, capacity building etc. In this context,

around 32 ULBs across the state have been combined to form 10 clusters for implementation

of Municipal Solid Waste Management project, as per MSW Rules 2000. In most of the ULBs

in each cluster, the distance is between 25 and 35 Km. The cluster under study consisting of


GTEEPL

9

Koraput & Sunabeda is also included in this. In this chapter, the existing situation of waste

management in the Cluster V, comprising the towns of Koraput and Sunabeda is provided.

It is proposed to upgrade the collection and transportation infrastructure of each of the

ULBs. Further, where the waste generation is more than 10 TPD standalone processing

facility will be set up in each of the ULBs. If the waste generation is less than 10 TPD,

processing facility proposed to be set up in nearest neighbouring ULB shall be utilized.

Landfill will be common for all the ULBs within a cluster.

For processing of bio-degradable waste mechanical composting is proposed. RDF facility

will be set up wherever commercially feasible on a standalone basis. Recyclables will be

segregated and by engaging SHGs, rag pickers and Khabadiwallas. Balance waste from the

composting plant, inert and other waste will be sent to landfill.

1.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND

Koraput and Sunabeda are the main towns in the Koraput district with the current

population of about half a lakh people in each town. The existing solid waste management

system of the region needs significant improvement. The region does not have any scientific

methods of waste treatment and disposal, which is one of the main requirements of MSW

handling rules (2000) of the GoI. The current Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) management

situation in Koraput Region (Koraput and Sunabeda-Cluster V), requires further

improvement to achieve service standard as per the service level benchmarking system

introduced by MoUD. Key improvement required is appended as follows:

Improvement in waste collecting efficiency by way of bringing in more efficiency

in primary and secondary waste collection

Introduction of covered vehicles for waste transportation;

Introduction of personal protection Equipment to be used by workers engaged in

MSW Management service;

Establishment of Regional waste management facility at central location

including waste processing facility and Sanitary landfill ;

Improvement if drain cleaning frequency;

Improvement in frequency of MSW decanting;

Facilitating segregation at source by way of increasing awareness to city

residents;

Strict compliance to MSW Rule 2000

Leveraging on the technical and management expertise by bringing in greater

private sector participation;

Identifying the robust contract structure and ensuring proper bid/ contract

management for proper risk-responsibility allocation between various

stakeholders involved;


GTEEPL

10

1.3 PROJECT RATIONALE

The project‟s geographical coverage is providing MSW Management services to major urban

clusters within the radius of 20km of Koraput. This project will directly impact over 1 Lakh

people.

The project involves setting up an Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM) for door-to-

door collection of solid waste from Koraput and Sunabeda ULBs, and transportation of solid

waste to a common processing and landfill site to be situated at Chindri in Koraput Hence,

collected solid waste will be processed and disposed in accordance with the „MSW

(Management and Handling) Rules, 2000 at Koraput.

The project area has agricultural ecosystem and the waste can be processed to bio compost,

which will not only reduce the dependency on chemical fertilizer but also be

environmentally friendly. Also, the project will have positive environmental impact by

improving the fertility of the soil in long run.

The Regional prospective of the project has been brought to make the “Disposal System” i.e.

“Land Fill” accessible to smaller ULBs, otherwise smaller “Land Fill“ site on standalone

basis is unsustainable for smaller ULBs. This project will provide a replicable model for

waste management that can be applied in other urban areas of various states across the

country.

The project will help governments (mostly local level) increase the efficiency of urban

service delivery and municipal waste management, promote the private participation

efforts, and support local economic development. Thus the project would establish an

environmentally sound and potentially efficient cluster level waste management program

that would also effectively reduce the GHG emissions.

1.4 SCOPE OF WORK

The scope of work mainly comprises the following:

Study of existing SWM practice in each ULB including Door to door collection practice,

Placement of community bins, Street sweeping practice, waste quantification and

characterisation, inventory of municipal assets & manpower

Study of environmental problems caused by the existing practices like

contamination of wet lands/lakes/ponds/tanks/as disposal sites, ground water

contamination, air pollution, decrease value of properties, effect on the ecosystem

and damages to landscapes due to soil erosion, etc.

Assessment of suitability of land fill site in compliance with the State Pollution Control

Board, soil survey & analysis as required for design of processing plant and land fill


GTEEPL

11

Survey analysis and recommendation of a suitable SWM system in accordance with

MSW Rules 2000, population projection for the next 15 years, a road map for the source

segregation and source collection, reclamation of existing dumping yards

Examine feasibility of setting up common facilities for processing and landfill for 2 or

more ULBs, land adequacy, etc.

Proposed organization for collection, transportation, processing and disposal and

utilization of existing manpower deployed currently for SWM services.

Propose collection and transportation system integrating with the existing SWM system.

Carry out economic analysis and financial analysis and Viability gap analysis

Prepare a pre-feasibility report covering the above aspects

Preparation of DPR in accordance with MSW Rules 2000, NUSP 2008, CPHEEO manuals,

O&M practices & latest service level benchmark advisories of MoUD, covering detailed

designs and drawings, estimates for the work such as waste collection and

transportation, construction of processing plant and landfill and all associated civil

works, Designs and drawings with calculations; Detailed cost estimates , Operation &

Maintenance plan and proposed tariff structure, Proposed organization structure and

institutional framework

Social cost benefit analysis, Social Environmental Impact Assessment Study, Climate

Change Adaption

Prepare Social Environmental Impact Assessment Report and necessary Environmental

Management plans (EMP) & Resettlement Action plans (RAP) as required. The RAP

shall address rehabilitation and resettlement issues, if any. Impact of climate change on

the project shall be adequately addressed.

Project implementation scheduling (Including PERT &CPM)

List out the statutory requirements (like registrations, clearances etc.) to operationalize

the system

Consultant shall be responsible for providing all necessary assistance in obtaining

Environmental Clearance including required documentation, representation to Pollution

Control Board, SEIAA and follow up

Provide transaction support for engagement of a private operator through EPC/ PPP

mode

Propose IEC activities, surveillance and enforcement mechanism and cost of

implementation of same

Prepare tender documents including detailed engineering design & drawing, technical

specifications, Bill of Quantities (BOQ) as per latest schedule of rates of Works

Department, Govt. of Odisha

THIS IS THE SITUATION ANALYSIS REPORT CUM PRE-FEASIBILITY REPORT, BEING SUBMITTED

FOR CLUSTER V.


GTEEPL

12

Koraput District

Koraput is the 3rd biggest district in terms

of size 15th biggest in terms of population

Koraput is the 7th urbanized district in the

state having about 16.81 per cent of its

population living in urban areas while

about 14.99 per cent of state population

live in urban areas

24th densely populated district in the state

Koraput has 7th rank in terms of sex ratio

in the state

106 uninhabited villages in the district and

5 villages are having a population of more

than 5000

The headquarters of Boriguma police

station is the most populated village (

7,458 ) in the district

The economy of the district is mainly

dependent upon cultivation. Out of each

100 workers in the district 73 are engaged

in agricultural

Boipariguda police station has the highest

number of Boipariguda police station is

having the highest number of villages (323)

in the district and villages (323) in the

district

Sunabeda police station has the lowest

number of villages (2) in the district

CHAPTER -II

PROJECT AREA PROFILE

2.1 INTRODUCTION

Koraput District

Koraput district was formed along with other districts

with effect from 01.04.1936 at the time of formation of

the State of Odisha. It is situated in the southern part of

Odisha. Jeypore is one of the biggest towns situated at a

distance of 22 Kms from Koraput. It was earlier knows

as Joypor which connotes “the city of victory” in the

ancient time. The Maharaja of Jeypore was

administrating justice with the help of a Coterie of

intellectuals prior to establishment of any Courts.

The erstwhile Koraput district was comprised of four

districts i.e. Nabarangpur, Rayagada, Malkangiri and

Koraput.

Koraput

Koraput is a township in the state of Odisha, India,

located in the valleys of the Koraput district. The origin

of the name of Koraput is veiled in obscurity. It is

believed that the present name is the form of “Karaka

Pentho”. The ward Karaka depicts “Hail-stone”.

Another lore indicates that the town previously a small

village was named after a Militia called “KhoraNaiko”

for his faithful service to the then Nandapur Kings. Later, the name has been abbreviated to

the new name” Koraput”.

The district is bound by Rayagada in the east, Bastar district of Chhatisgarh in the west and

Nabarangpur district in the south. As far as the history of the district is concerned, the

region of Koraput existed far back in the 3rd century BC when it belonged to the valiant and

dreaded Atavika people. The region was ruled by several dynasties, like Satavahans,

Ikshvakus, Nalas, Ganga kings and kings of Suryavanshi, who dominated the Koraput

region before the arrival of British. Finally Koraput became a district in the year 1936.

Koraput town is the head quarter of Koraput district. This town is connected with other

districts of Odisha as well as many places outside the states like Vizia Nagaramwaltair and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odisha

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koraput


GTEEPL

13

Raipur by NH-43. The main commercial center of district is situated at the distance of 22 km

& the industrial town Rayagada is 114 km away.

EXHIBIT 1: MAP OF DISTRICT KORAPUT

Sunabeda

Sunabeda is a township also located in the valleys of the Koraput region near Koraput. It is

situated around 1,000 meters above sea level. The geographical area of Sunabeda Notified

Area Council (NAC) is 37.4 sq km.

Prior to its creation, Sunabeda was known as old Sunabeda which was occupied by native

tribal community. It was inhospitable due to its extreme weather. No civic amenities were

available. Post 1971 war a shelter camp for the Bangladeshi refugees was constructed. The

main town was created around 1965, mainly as a settlement for the aircraft manufacturing

company Hindustan Aeronautics (HAL) with the project named Aero Engine Factory Project.

After that Sunabeda became a planned and organized township. The Odisha Small

Industries Corporation established the Odisha Timber and Engineering Works. Then the

Kolab dam was constructed a catchment formed around Sunabeda in the form of a big lake.

Few of these Bengali people took to fishing and today Sunabeda is a centre for making

fishing boats and nets for which fishermen from as far as Malkangiri come to Sunabeda for

buying their provisions.

The growth of the Sunabeda town has been dependent on the coming and going of the

various industries, mainly Hindustan Aeronautical (HAL). In late eighties setting up of the

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koraput

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindustan_Aeronautics


GTEEPL

14

NAD and NALCO in Damanjodi kept the overall situation alive in Sunabeda and

Semiliguda. Things started looking brighter after SU-30 came up with a new division in

HAL. Subsequent coming of CRPF COBRA Battalion HQ, Central University, IGNOU are

hoped to provide some growth to the area.

There are basically three areas in Sunabeda defined as Sunabeda - I, II, III, these being AEF

Colony, the HAL Township and the NAC (Notified Area Council) respectively.

2.2 LOCAL AND REGIONAL LINKAGE

Koraput

Koraput is located at 18.82°N 82.72°E. It has an average elevation of 870 metres (2854 feet).

This district is also bestowed with waterfalls like Duduma, Bagra and Khandahati. It also

contains the largest mountain of Odisha, called Deomali along with Chandragiri mountain.

The Ward wise map of Koraput Municipality is shown in Figure below.

EXHIBIT 2: WARD WISE MAP OF KORAPUT NAC

Till 1971 there were only 15 wards under the Koraput NAC. Then they were increased to 25

and now there are 30 wards with some changes in the geographical boundary of the NAC.

https://tools.wmflabs.org/geohack/geohack.php?pagename=Koraput&params=18.82_N_82.72_E_

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deomali_(mountain)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandragiri


GTEEPL

15

EXHIBIT 3: LOCATION MAP OF KORAPUT-SUNABEDA REGION


GTEEPL

16

EXHIBIT 4: KORAPUT-SUNABEDA REGIONAL LINKAGE

Sunabeda

There are basically three areas in Sunabeda defined as Sunabeda - I, II, III, these being AEF

Colony, the HAL Township and the NAC (Notified Area Council) respectively.

EXHIBIT 5: MAP OF SUNABEDA NAC


GTEEPL

17

Sunabeda lies at 18.73 degree North latitude and 82.83 degree east longitude. Sunabeda is

located 20 kilometres east of Koraput. The National Highway-43 running over the

mountains and forest make the journey to Sunabeda an unforgettable experience.

TABLE 2.1: SALIENT FEATURES OF KORAPUT & SUNABEDA MUNICIPALITIES

Koraput NAC Sunabeda NAC

Area, sq km ( Census, 2011) 61.07 37.4

Area, sqkm ( As per NAC, 2015) 56.62 34.41

Population of Municipal Area,

Census 2011

47468 50394

Population, current, as per actuals in

ULB

50952 60472

Floating Population per day 5000 -

Number of Revenue/Urban Villages 03 (Raillykumbha,

Rangaballi kumabha ,

Chindri (Wards 15,17,16)

07 (31 hamlets)

Number of Wards 21 25

Number of Slums ( as per NAC) 25 23

Slum Population (Census, 2011) 12822 14568

No. of Markets 2 (Hatapada & Sai

Niketan)

10

No. of Commercial units/complexes 14 complex (319 stalls) 46

Road Length, km

Total Pucca Road 93.32km 168.55km

CC Road 43.87 km 84.40 km

BT Road 49.45 km 84.15 km

Total Kuccha Road 263.5 km 79.7 km

Metal Road 65.1 km 6.05 km

Earthen Road 198.4 km 61.65 km

No. of Households (Census 2011) 11379 12444

Literacy Rate (Census 2011) 49.87

Sex ratio (Census 2011) ;Male: Female 1:1.031

Covered Pucca Drain 0.95

Main Storm water Drain length 120 m

Uncovered Pucca Drain 2.6 km

Kachha Drain 4.0 km

Natural drain 2.25 km

Source: Koraput & Sunabeda Municipalities & Baseline Survey


GTEEPL

18

2.3 TOPOGRAPHY

Koraput District

The Koraput district has many rivers and perennial streams. Notable among them are the

Vansadhara and the Nagavali in present Rayagada district and the Indravati, the Kolab and

the Machkund flowing in the present Nabarangpur, Koraput and Malkangiri districts. The

district is reported to be rich in mineral deposits.

This district is also bestowed with waterfalls like Duduma, Bagra and Khandahati. It also

contains the largest mountain of Odisha, called Deomali along with Chandragiri mountain.

The District has vast expanse of mountain ranges along with hill streams which ultimately

drain into Indravati.

The Koraput Municipality is located on a section of the Eastern Ghats gives a wavy form of

topography. The topography of Koraput is characterized by natural features like, Rolling

hills, vast stretches of green forest and undulating valleys which presents a sharp contrast to

the adjoining coastal plains.

The major portion of the land area in Sunabeda covers hilly areas and characterised by

reddish stony soil. The plain region having brownish black soil is suitable for growing

paddy and vegetables. The soil of the river banks and deltaic area is sandy loam. Overall, the

EXHIBIT 6: TOPOGRAPHICAL MAP OF KORAPUT

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deomali_(mountain)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandragiri


GTEEPL

19

total area is of hilly terrain. There are several topographic slopes within the jurisdiction area.

2.4 CLIMATE

Koraput district experiences minimum 120celsius and maximum 380 Celsius temperature.

The town experiences mainly three seasons i.e. summer, winter and rainy. Summer occurs

from April to June, rainy season is from June to October and winter season is from

November to March. Winter season in Koraput district is longer than other parts of Odisha.

The average rainfall is measured around 1505.8 mm (Average) rainfall.

2.5 GEOLOGY

In Koraput District, the Proterozoic rocks are represented by the Eastern ghats granulite belt

comprising of khondalite, charnockite, migmatite, anorthosite and alkaline rocks accounting

for the mineralization of bauxite, manganese, graphite and gemstones.

The physiographic evolution of the region has been controlled by diastrophism experienced

by the region. Orissa has the biggest bauxite deposits in India, with the formation of laterite

and bauxite.

The local Stratigraphic succession is as follows:

Laterite Younger alluvium Older alluvium Baripada beds Unconformity ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Gondwana rocks Eparchean unconformity Vindhyan rocks Unconformity Kolhan group Unconformity ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Gangpur group and their equivalents Basic intrusives and traps Ultra basici intrusion Granitic intrusions Iron ore super group and its equivalents Older Metamorphics and their equivalents (?) position not definite Unconformity ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Other intrusive (Nepheline syenite, Anorthosite, Carbonite, Granite, Pegmatite etc.) Intrusions of granites (more than one at different times)


GTEEPL

20

Unconformity ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Eastern Ghats super group (khondalite-charnockite super group) Older granite gneisses (basement, later granitised)

2.6 DEMOGRAPHY & GROWTH

Odisha is one of the major states of India both in terms of area and population. The state has

witnessed the growth rate of rural & urban population during 2001-11 as 19% and 29%,

respectively. For district wise distribution, the growth rate of rural population is 4.8% and

urban is 6.65%, which is much less that the national average. This is due to the fact that, due

to less growth in opportunity and migration to industrial areas, the growth is been restricted

for Koraput district, in which both towns of Cluster V are located.

TABLE 2.2: POPULATION GROWTH RATE FOR ODISHA VS KORAPUT DISTT.

Source: Census2001-2011 Data

2.7 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE

Koraput

The population growth in this area is less than the national and state averages, which is

mostly attributable to lack of primary health care, mal-nutrition, pre-mature pregnancy and

higher infant death rate. This condition is gradually changing over time, for which a positive

growth of population is observed in this area with less mortality. However labor migration

is a perennial problem of the area as there are not enough opportunities either for education

or for jobs or for agricultural entrepreneurship.

TABLE 2.3: POPULATION OF KORAPUT TOWN DURING 2001-2011

Population 2001 2011

Total Male Female Total Male Female

Total Population 39548 20555 18993 47468 24553 22915

Region Percentage Decadal Growth Rate (%)

Rural Urban

Odisha 19 29

Koraput District 4.8 6.65


GTEEPL

21

Total Population

(SC)

5981 3065 2916 8245 4184 4061

Total Population

(ST)

7767 3893 3874 9690 5005 4685

Total Workers 12626 10014 2612 17546 12876 4670

Main Workers 11325 9252 2073 15846 12182 3664

Marginal Workers 1301 762 539 1700 694 1006

Non-Workers 26922 10541 16381 29922 11677 18245

Source: Census 2001, 2011

Sunabeda

It is estimated that although the growth of population in Sunabeda is slow, as per the ULB

estimate, on an average the population is likely to grow at a rate of 2% per annum for next

40 years, as the probability of migrated working class on retirement are supposed to come

back for their final settlement at Sunabeda Township. In addition to this with the

implementation of modern amenities and infrastructure, it will attract more people to settle

in Sunabeda in future

TABLE 2.4: POPULATION OF SUNABEDA TOWN DURING 2001-2011

Population 2001 2011

Total Male Female Total Male Female

Total Population 58884 30306 28578 50394 26016 24378

Total Population (SC) 10998 5466 5532 11412 5673 5739

Total Population (ST) 10983 5503 5480 7119 3574 3545

Total Workers 19403 15245 4158 18014 14205 3809

Main Workers 16855 14148 2707 16866 13709 3157

Marginal Workers 2548 1097 1451 1148 496 652

Non-Workers 39481 15061 24420 32380 11811 20569

Source: Census 2001, 2011

The depleting population with negative growth is attributed to the migration of non-

workers and workers mostly dependent on the Sunebeda-MIG Factory, which was shut

down long ago. Further, due to some permanent migration, the number of households as

recorded in the 2011 Census reduced.

Further, the population growth trends during last few decades in both the towns of the

Cluster V, are presented in table below.

TABLE 2.5: POPULATION GROWTH TRENDS OF CLUSTER V TOWNS (1971-2011)


GTEEPL

22

0

3.74%

2.66%

1.15%

-1.54%

-0.04

-0.02

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

1971 1981 1991 2001 2011

Population Sunabeda

Population Koraput

CAGR Sunabeda

CAGR Koraput

Year Population

Sunabeda

Population

Koraput

CAGR

Sunabeda

CAGR

Koraput

1971 27980 21505 - 11.17%

1981 40375 31665 3.74% 3.95%

1991 52507 34924 2.66% 0.98%

2001 58884 39548 1.15% 1.25%

2011 50394 47468 -1.54% 1.84%

FIGURE 1 POPULATION TRENDS IN SUNABEDA AND KORAPUT TOWNS (1971-2011)

TABLE 2.6: WARD WISE POPULATION OF KORAPUT

Ward No. Type Number of HH Population

Koraput (NAC) WN-01 Urban 1260 5094



Koraput (NAC) WN.-04 Urban 689 2819









GTEEPL

23





Total 11379 47468

Source: Census 2011 Data

TABLE 2.7 WARD WISE POPULATION IN SUNABEDA

Ward No. Total

population

No. of

Households

Remarks

1 3057 710

2 2209 521

3 2970 628

4 2093 499

5 1096 245

6 1446 316

7 2945 555

8 1647 356

9 1818 571

10 1444 456

These Wards are under HAL

Jurisdiction, thus not under the

Sunabeda Municipality. Total

House Hold count 4249

11 2156 539

2 2359 621

13 1547 436

14 1471 461

15 2088 642

16 1415 456

17 2561 638

18 2769 647

19 3146 722

20 2260 547

21 1934 436

22 2768 671

23 3195 768

Total 50394 12444



GTEEPL

24

Floating Population

Floating population in both towns is around 5000 daily, it is very less in comparison to other

towns of similar profile as both towns are located in remote areas and they do not have good

connectivity with regional transport system.

2.8 EXISTING SLUMS

There are 25 slums distributed across 21 wards of the Koraput Municipality with the slum

population of 12822 whereas in Sunabeda there are around 23 slums with the population of

around 14568 residing in 3697 households (Census, 2011).

TABLE 2.8: EXISTING SLUM DETAILS IN SUNABEDA

Ward No Name of the Slum No of Slum Slum Population Total

Household Male Female

1 Church Colony 257 566 526 1092

Kalahandi Colony 187 380 328 708

3 Ganjam Colony 425 956 835 179

Hanuman Market 77 158 134 292

Bapuji Colony 161 348 334 682

5 Old Sunabeda 78 152 136 288

Driver Colony 104 226 192 418

6 Chikapar-I 180 372 356 728

'Chikapar- II 140 289 253 542

7 Rajib Colony 207 447 398 845

8 Maliguda 110 226 202 428

Jadaguda 140 289 230 519

11 Biju Colony 122 252 234 486

17 Minarao Camp 82 157 137 294

Kodigaon 151 287 247 534

Bileiguda 58 134 95 229

18 Kakigoan 283 564 526 1090

19 Gopabandhu Nagar 126 289 243 532

20 Alamguda 60 116 102 218

21 Harizan Sahi 212 469 456 925

22 Janiguda 157 307 256 563

23 Petkona 200 368 321 689

Talagadaba Sahi 180 369 306 675

Total 3697 7721 6847 14,568


GTEEPL

25

TABLE 2.9: TYPES OF DIFFERENT HOUSING SETTLEMENTS IN KORAPUT

Types Total No. of Types Wards

JJ colony/ 2 36

Resettlement colony Nil Nil

Unauthorized colony 11 1,3,5,7,8,11,19

Unauthorized regularized colony

1 4

Planned development 9 7 & 18 to 25

Old town/central Nil Nil

Urban village 9 2,3,8,9,19,20,21,& 25


TABLE 2.10: TYPES OF DIFFERENT HOUSING SETTLEMENTS IN THE ULBS IN SUNABEDA

Types Number/Ward

Unauthorized colony Dheposahi , Paraja sahi -4

Unauthorized regularized

colony

Banabharati-7

Planned development Pujariput , Post Office Road-2 ,5

Old town/central Old Koraput-13

Urban village Raillykumbha , Rangaballi kumabha ,

Chindri -15 ,17,16

2.9 POPULATION PROJECTIONS

Based on the past trend of population growth in Sunabeda and Koraput, population

projections for next three decades have been worked out by various methods. It is noted

that, due to geographical constrains and rough terrain the growth of the city is restricted. In

Sunabeda town there was negative growth rate during 2001-2011 due to some permanent

migration, there was a reduced HH number for 2011 census record. Further due to

redistribution of sub-division and block boundaries between 2000-2008 the number of

households and the total population is reduced as compared to 2001 census.

The population growth in Koraput town is less than the national and state averages, which

is mostly attributable to lack of primary health care, mal-nutrition, pre-mature pregnancy

and higher infant death rate. This condition is been gradually changing over the time, for

which a positive growth of population is observed Hence, with these constraints the

estimated growth rate of population (CAGR) is initially calculated for Sunabeda and

Koraput town for next three decades.


GTEEPL

26

Various statistical methods as prescribed in the CPHEEO guidelines including decadal

growth, Arithmetic increase method, declining growth rate method, incremental increase

method, Geometrical Increase method, best fit method have been used to find out most

suitable method for population projections for both towns of the cluster V. Koraput town

has been showing gradual growth trend during the last few decades. Hence, best fit method

which is primarily a 2nd order degree Polynomial Method has been used for its population

projection (Table 2.11). However, in case of Sunabeda, due to reduction in its population

during the last decade, usual projection methods cannot be applied. The future population

projections for Sunabeda using various methods are presented in the Table 2.12. The CAGR

projections for various methods have also been presented in the table 2.13. In alignment with

the ULB estimates, the method predicting around 2% CAGR, has been recommended for

population projection of Sunabeda, which is Geometrical increase method.

TABLE 2.11: PROJECTED POPULATION FOR KORAPUT BY BEST FIT METHOD

Year 2nd order degree Polynomial Method

CAGR (%)

1981 31665

1991 34924 0.98%

2001 39458 1.23%

2011 47468 1.87%

2016 52013 1.85%

2021 57236 1.93%

2026 63043 1.95%

2031 69432 1.95%

2036 76404 1.93%

2041 83958 1.90%

2046 92095 1.87%

-40000

10000

60000

110000

160000

1981 1991 2001 2011 2021 2031 2041 2051 2061 2071

Po

pu

lati

on

Year

Population projection for Koraput using Polynomial method


GTEEPL

27

TABLE 2.12: PROJECTED POPULATION FOR SUNABEDA USING VARIOUS METHODS

Year Arithmetic increase method

Geometrical increase method

Simple graph method

Semi-Log method Decadal growth method

1981 40375 40375 40375 40375 40375

1991 52507 52507 52507 52507 52507

2001 58884 58884 58884 58884 58884

2011 50,394 50,394 50,394 50,394 50,394

2016 53,196 55,619 52,344 52,178 56,221

2021 55,998 61,386 51,815 51,645 62,721

2026 58,799 67,750 51,287 51,117 69,973

2031 61,601 74,775 50,759 50,595 78,063

2036 64,403 82,528 50,231 50,078 87,089

2041 67,205 91,084 49,702 49,566 97,158

2046 70,006 100,528 49,174 49,060 108,391

TABLE 2.13: SUMMARY OF CAGR FOR VARIOUS METHODS

Year Arithmetic

increase

Incremental

increase

Geometric

al increase

Declining

growth

rate

Simple

graph

Semi-

Log

Decadal

growth

2016 1.09% 0.08% 1.99% -1.75% 0.76% 0.70% 2.21%

2021 1.03% -0.62% 1.99% -1.93% -0.20% -0.21% 2.21%

2026 0.98% -1.38% 1.99% -2.14% -0.20% -0.21% 2.21%

2031 0.94% -2.30% 1.99% -2.40% -0.21% -0.21% 2.21%

2036 0.89% -3.57% 1.99% -2.74% -0.21% -0.21% 2.21%

2041 0.86% -5.61% 1.99% -3.18% -0.21% -0.21% 2.21%

2.10 ADMINISTRATION AND DELIVERY OF MUNICIPAL SERVICES

Koraput

The Koraput Municipality is headed by Chairperson as operational head and the EO

(Executive Officer) as administrative head with the staff structure as below. There are 42

sweepers and 1 Sanitation worker (zamadar) in the municipality, out of which 28 are

involved in waste management services. Additional 65 workers of private agency are

involved in providing waste management services in the town.


GTEEPL

28

Sunabeda

The team of Sunabeda is headed by the Chairperson as operational head and EO (Executive

Officer) as administrative head and with the staff structure as below. Apart from 21

sweepers in the municipality, there are 43 contractual workers involved in providing waste

management services in the town.


GTEEPL

29


GTEEPL

30

CHAPTER -III

ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING SWM SYSTEM

3.1 OVERVIEW OF SWM SYSTEM IN ODISHA

The state of Odisha with the total population of around 42 million has around 14% urban

population residing in 111 Urban Local Bodies (Census of India, 2000). Most of the urban

population of Odisha resides in small towns with less than 1 lakh population generating

nearly 2000 tons of municipal solid waste (MSW) on daily basis. Similar to other states of the

country, most of the ULBs of Odisha are unable to deliver the services of MSW management

in their towns very effectively. This has led to environmental degradation, air pollution,

ground water table pollution and poses grave health hazards.

MSW Rules 2000 designates the Urban Local Bodies as solely responsible to manage solid

waste in their area and dictates that “within the territorial area of the municipality, be

responsible for the implementation of the provisions of these rules, and for any

infrastructure development for collection, storage, segregation, transportation, processing

and disposal of municipal solid wastes”. However, the ULBs of Odisha are yet to fully

comply with MSW Rules 2000.

According to the report in SWM in ULBs in Odisha by the state government1, the collection

& transportation components of the waste management services are either handled by the

ULBs themselves or in some towns; local self-help groups (SHGs), NGOs or private

operators have been engaged. However, due to lack of robust contractual arrangements and

absence of an effective monitoring system at ULB level, these arrangements have yet to

show significant improvements. The components of waste treatment & scientific disposal

are totally absent in majority of the ULBs, with the general practice of waste dumping at the

local waste disposal sites/ drains/low lying areas etc. without any processing or treatment.

This has led to environmental degradation, air pollution, ground water table pollution and

poses grave health hazards.

The State Government of Odisha has initiated various steps for implementation of

integrated Solid Waste Management projects in various ULBs as per MSW Rules 2000. With

the initiatives of the state govt., more than 60% of the ULBs have SPCB authorized sites for

waste processing and disposal. Further, the State Government has taken initiatives for

implementation of SWM projects in various ULBs in PPP mode including the ULBs of

Bhubaneswar& Cuttack, Berhampur, Sambalpur, Paradeep and many coastal towns, as

well.

1 Report on SWM in Urban local bodies in Odisha, submitted by H&UD department, Govt of Odisha, in

pursuance of the orders of Hon’ble NGT dt 15/01/2015


GTEEPL

31

The state has further created a special fund, OUIDF, to extend support to ULBs in the form

of loan and grant for urban infrastructure project financing besides offering project

development assistance such as preparation of DPR, capacity building etc. In this context,

around 32 ULBs across the state have been combined to form 10 clusters for implementation

of Municipal Solid Waste Management project, as per MSW Rules 2000. In this chapter, the

existing situation of waste management in the Cluster V, comprising the towns of Koraput

and Sunabeda is provided.

3.3 EXISTING SWM SYSTEM OF CLUSTER CITIES

The management of solid waste is one of the major challenges to the town of the Cluster – V

i.e. Koraput and Sunabeda municipality.

There are different types of waste generation

sources in Koraput and Sunabeda cities,

contributing to the municipal solid waste.

These sources include:

Households;

Commercial establishments &

Markets;

Street waste;

Drain silt & drain cleaning waste;

Hotel/Restaurant, Hospital and

Institutions;

Slaughter house, Fruit & vegetable

markets; and

Parks & Gardens

3.3.1 WASTE GENERATION

Based on the field investigations and

discussions with the ULBs of the Cluster - V

i.e. Koraput & Sunabeda muncipality, the

current estimated daily volumes of solid

waste generation in each town are almost same, i.e. around 30 MT. However, our estimates

as per the waste quantification exercise carried out during the field visit, the municipality of

Sunabeda is generating only 23.3 MT on daily basis and Koraput is generating around

27.9MT per day. Details of the household samples collected from both towns of the cluster

for seven continuous days for waste quantification are provided in the Annexure 1. Source

wise details of waste volumes generated in both towns are provided in Tables 3.1 (a&b) and

3.2 (a&b), respectively. For estimation of waste volumes, waste sampling was done for

Waste littering in Cluster V towns

Bishnu Temple waste in Koraput


GTEEPL

32

representative households and commercial units. Whereas for other sources, an estimate has

been made based on discussions with the waste generators and ULB officials. Based on

waste sampling in the city for seven days and discussions with the municipality staff, an

estimate of total waste generation from both towns has been made and presented in the

tables 3.1 and 3.2, respectively. Details of the households from which waste sampling was

done are provided in Annexure 1.

With the current population of 51038 (2015) of Koraput and estimated waste quantity of 27.9

MT per day, the current per capita waste generation rate for the town has worked out to be

around 546 gram per capita per day (gpcd). Similarly, for Sunabeda, based on current

population of 54533 (2015) generating 23.3 MT waste, per capita waste generation rate is 430

gpcd. For waste projections for the cluster, it is recommended to use the average value of

490 gpcd as both towns have similar profile with the annual growth rate of 1.3% per

annum.

TABLE 3.1A: SOURCE WISE WASTE GENERATION DETAILS IN KORAPUT (AS PER ULB)

Categories Total waste generation (in Tons per day)

Method of collection & disposal

Residential 10.5 Door to door collection & disposal by Tractor

Slums 3.8 -do-

Market 2.0 Disposal by Tractor

Schools/Colleges 0.3 -do-

Hospitals 0.1 -do-

Drain silt 10.0 -do-

Fruit & vegetable market

2.0 -do-

Hotels/restaurants 0.8 -do-

Institutional – Offices, govt. buildings etc

0.3 -do-

Marriage halls 0.2 -do-

Total 30.0 M.T

TABLE 3.1B: SOURCE WISE WASTE GENERATION DETAILS IN KORAPUT (FIELD SURVEY)

SI. No. Type of Waste Generator

Number Quantity of waste per unit (Kg/day)

Total quantity of waste generated (Kg/day)

1 Households 11379 1.2 13654.8

2 Commercial Units 24 5.2 124.8

3 Major hotel and resorts 3 45 135

4 Small hotels 102 15 1530

5 Markets 14 55.2 772.8

6 Hostels 4 104 416


GTEEPL

33

7 Institutions 36 3.5 126

8 Vegetable shops 31 12 372

9 Meat shops/slaughter houses

6 10 60

10 Religious Place 5 25.2 126

11 Construction waste (Development Area)

5 105 525

12 Street sweeping & Drain cleaning

10000

13 Private Shop 26 1.5 39

TOTAL 27881.4

TABLE 3.2A: SOURCE WISE WASTE GENERATION DETAILS IN SUNABEDA

Categories Total waste generation (in Tons per day)

Method of collection & disposal

Residential 12.5 Door to door collection & disposal by Tractor

Slums 2.5 -do-

Market 2.3 Disposal by Tractor

Schools/Colleges 0.5 -do-

Hospitals 0.4 -do-

Drain silt 8.5 -do-

Fruit & vegetable market

2 -do-

Hotels/restaurants 0.8 -do-

Institutional – Offices, govt. buildings etc

0.3 -do-

Marriage halls 0.2 -do-

Total 30.0 M.T

TABLE 3.2B: SOURCE WISE WASTE GENERATION DETAILS IN SUNABEDA (FIELD SURVEY)

SI. No. Type of Waste Generator



1 Households 12444 1.3 16177.2


3 Major hotel and resorts

2 110 220

4 Small hotels 25 7.3 182.5

5 Markets 10 75.5 755


GTEEPL

34

6 Hostels 4 22 88


8 Vegetable shops 24 10.2 244.8


5 10.5 52.5

10 Religious Place 3 25.2 75.6

11 Construction waste (Development Area)

2 85 170

12 Street sweeping & Drain cleaning

6500

13 Private Shop 26 2.8 72.8

14 Office 18 2.2 39.6

TOTAL 24737.4

3.3.2 PHYSICAL WASTE COMPOSITION

According to the baseline survey and sample analysis, the tables below provide the detail of

the physical composition analysis of the MSW in the towns of Koraput and Sunabeda,

respectively.

Overall 25 samples were collected from the

local waste dumping locations in the city on

a daily basis between 6:00 AM to 8:30 AM

during the month of October, 2015.

Additionally, one composite sample was

collected as a representative sample of the

total municipality dump for an average 7

days‟ dumped garbage. Details of the waste

characterisation results (physical

composition) along with the sampling

locations are provided in Annexure 2. For

chemical analysis, around eight samples

were collected from both towns of the

cluster. Details of the chemical analysis for

each collected sample are presented in the

Annexure 2. It may be noted that all the

collected samples were composite samples

(5 kg packs) collected using quarter cone

sampling method, with the representation

of the respective wards.

Being the towns of similar profile in terms

of size, location and economic status, it has been found that the physical composition of the

Waste sampling in Cluster V (fresh waste sample)

Waste sampling at the Koraput ( 7 days dump heap)


GTEEPL

35

waste in both towns is quite similar. Hence, cluster based physical composition analysis of

the waste into three main components: organic (for composting), recyclable for recovery,

inert for only landfilling and others for special treatments, is provided in Table 3.5

TABLE 3.3: PHYSICAL COMPOSITION ANALYSIS OF MSW - KORAPUT

TABLE 3.4: PHYSICAL COMPOSITION ANALYSIS OF MSW - SUNABEDA

TABLE 3.5: PHYSICAL WASTE COMPOSITION ANALYSIS FOR CLUSTER – V ( KORAPUT & SUNABEDA)

S.N. Physical Waste Description Fractions by Wt. (%)

1 Inert material 7.96

2 Organic matter (biodegradable and green waste) 41.125

SN Physical Waste Description Content Fractions By Wt. (%)

1 Inert (Sand, dust, ash, stone, ceramics, construction debris etc.)

6.93

2 Biodegradable organic matters (Food waste, vegetable/fruit waste, green leaves, animal excreta, slaughter waste etc.)

36.80

3 Other organic matters (Straw, woody waste, dry leaves) 3.10

4 Metal 2.88

5 Paper 7.94

6 Drain Silt & Misc 14.51

7 Plastics 27.84

Total 100.000

Bulk density (ton/cum) 0.313

SN Physical Waste Description Content Fractions By Wt. (%)

1 Inert (Sand, dust, ash, stone, ceramics, construction debris etc.)

8.99

2 Biodegradable organic matters (Food waste, vegetable/fruit waste, green leaves, animal excreta, slaughter waste etc.)

38.62

3 Other organic matters (Straw, bamboo, woody waste, dry leaves)

3.73

4 Metal 2.46

5 Paper 8.42

6 Drain Silt & Misc 5.03

7 Plastics 32.75

Total 100.00

Bulk density (ton/cum) 0.296


GTEEPL

36

3 Reusable/ recyclables (Metal, paper, glass, plastic, textile, rubber etc.)

41.145

4 Others (including Drain Silt) 9.77

Total 100

TABLE 3.6: CHEMICAL COMPOSITION ANALYSIS OF MSW – CLUSTER V

Parameter Unit value

Moisture Content % 31.73

Total Carbon % 9.66

Fixed Carbon % 0.33

Ash Content % 20.913

Phosphorous mg/kg 12.038

Sulphur mg/kg 120.250

Iron mg/kg 0.438

Cupper mg/kg 1.775

Mercury mg/kg not detected

Zinc mg/kg 2.213

Lead mg/kg 2.488

Arsenic mg/kg 0.014

Calorific Value Kcal/kg 637

The Chemical Compositions of MSW Samples of individual ULBs are given in Annexure 2.

3.3.3 EXISTING WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Like other municipalities of Odisha, the towns of Koraput and Sunabeda in cluster V, are

facing serious problems of MSW management. The poor level of management of MSW has

not only contributed for the urban

environmental

degradation, but it has also polluted the

Indravati River of Koraput. Out of total 21

Wards of the Koraput city and 25 Wards

of Sunabeda (including 8 wards under

HAL jurisdiction), few wards have rural

characteristics. Most of the people living

in these rural wards are managing wastes

on their own, using digging and burning

methods. On the other hand, there are few

fully urbanized wards located in both the towns with high population density, producing

significant amount of municipal solid waste that needs to be properly managed.

Manual waste collection without any PPE in Cluster V


GTEEPL

37

Presently, solid waste management practices in Cluster – V i.e. Koraput & Sunabeda are of

mixed nature with the privatization of waste collection in all twenty one wards (ward no.1-

21 Koraput) and Sunabeda seventeen wards ( 1- 9 & 18 – 25), with the responsibility of

remaining wards lying with the HAL. In Koraput, a Cuttack based private party,

M/s Manju Services, Telenga Bazar, is responsible for waste collection services. Whereas in

Sunabeda, the contract for door to door waste collection is awarded to a proprietor, Ramesh

Khare.

Both towns of the cluster have inadequate and improper system for waste collection and

transportation. The waste is collected with the help of Wheel barrow, Push cart and tractor

trolley and taken to the collection points which are not well defined in Sunabeda, hence low

lying areas are being used for dumping. Whereas Koraput has an identified dumping

ground at Chindri (Ward no. 17), there is no appropriate arrangement for transportation of

waste which is partly & temporarily dumped near the low lying areas of the Sunabeda town

in random manner.

The principle of 3R (Reduce, Reuse and Recycle) for SWM has not been found to be followed

as a common practice in both the towns, with very few people being observed to sell some

recyclable goods (like metal and papers) and make compost at an individual level.

Currently practicing way of waste

management is by burning in most of the

wards in both Koraput and Sunabeda

additional to the collection from

municipality. It is clear that waste

collection facility in the municipality is

still not covering significant portions in

the Koraput and Sunabeda Municipalities.

Apart from Various unscientific waste

management practices including open

burning of waste, burying without any

liner system, and indiscriminate dumping

in drains or vacant plots have been found

to be prevalent in both towns. Throw, collect by municipality, composting and other) in the

different wards of the municipality are still prevalent.

Both Koraput and Sunabeda municipality has not provisioned any system for collecting and

managing medical wastes separately and the waste is managed by the generator themselves,

which we observed while collecting fresh waste from common points and from the tractor

trolleys, where infectious and hazardous waste is burned and the ash is buried. Remaining

hospitals and clinics bury their waste. Sometimes such waste is mixed with municipal waste

and disposed in the open dumping site of Chindri (Ward 17) of Koraput Municipality.

Open burning of waste in Cluster V (Sunabeda)


GTEEPL

38

3.3.4 SEGREGATION AND STORAGE SYSTEM

There is no proper storage system of household, commercial and institutional wastes. There

has been hardly segregating wastes except few have separate salable wastes like papers and

metals and they sold it to the Kabadiwalas or Home collector. The segregation of waste is

least practiced by the household of Koraput and Sunabeda municipality. It is estimated that

only about 5-10 % of the total household has practiced the segregation of the waste in

municipality. Even the knowledge of the municipality executives and operating staff

members are also limited on the subject.

3.3.5 EXISTING WASTE COLLECTION SYSTEM IN CLUSTER – V

3.3.5.1 Waste Collection Practice in Koraput:

All the garbage is collected manually by

engaged sweepers of Municipality and out-

sourced agency. Currently, the city has

door to door waste collection system being

outsourced to a private agency. However,

it was observed that only 85% of total road

length of the city (356.83km) is covered

through door to door services, which is

301.5km. The private service provider

collects the mixed waste from households

on daily basis, every morning. There is no

practice of waste segregation at source or at

any stage of waste collection &

transportation in the town. There are

around 58 RCC bins kept by ULB in the

city, apart from 532 small capacity litter

bins (Table 3.7). It is noted that due to poor

maintenance system the cement bins are

not in very good condition and the plastic

bins are mostly burnt by the locals during

winter season. The placing of bins in the

city has been done randomly. Ward wise

details of number of bins is presented in

Table 3.8.

Barrows and 14 push carts are used for primary collection of garbage from selective wards.

Entire fleet of vehicles and equipments including pushcarts, bins, tractor trolleys is owned

by the municipality.There are around 93 workers engaged in waste collection services (28

no. municipality staff and 65 from private agency) with the ward wise detail being provided

in Table 3.8.

RCC circular bins in Koraput

Small litter bins in Koraput


GTEEPL

39

Due to highly undulating topography and narrow road conditions, tricycle primary carrier

systems are not a viable solution. Based on the lane length and population, there should be a

local secondary dumping station at each cross-road junctions or at both the ends of each

street, from which the tractor / dumper / compactor can pick up the garbage on a daily

basis. There is no user fee mechanism in the town with regard to waste collection services.

TABLE 3.7: DETAILS OF WASTE BINS IN KORAPUT

S No. Description Specification (Shape & Size)

Quantity

1 RCC Bins (Circular with open mouth/ Rectangular with open top and one side door)

1.5 cum – Circular 3 cum – Rectangular

58

2 Trolleys: 3 cum 3 Nos.

3 Plastic Containers 25 ltr 185 Nos

4 Static Dust Bins 125 ltr 247 Nos.

5 Static Dust bins 150 Ltr 100 Nos.

TABLE 3.8(A): WARD WISE DETAILS OF SANITATION WORKERS & BINS IN KORAPUT

Ward No. No. of Open Bins

No. of Sanitary Workers involved

Private/NGO Municipal Staff

1 2 4

2 6 5

3 3 4

4 4 4

5 2 5

6 3 4

7 4 7

8 3 5

9 2 5

10 2 4

11 3 4

12 2 4

13 2 5

14 2 5

15 2 4

16 3 4

17 3 4

18 2 4

19 2 4


GTEEPL

40

20 2 4

21 4 4

Total 58

TABLE 3.8(B): SANITATION WORKERS ENGAGED IN STREET SWEEPING IN CLUSTER V

Municipality Contractor Total

Koraput Municipality 28 65 93

Sunabeda NAC 8 60 68

There was no distinct distribution of workers in street sweeping at Sunabeda, as the major

share is been with the contractor. However, the employees and contractors are responsible

for rendering their service in all 17 wards (Excluding the 8 wards under HAL Authority).

3.3.5.2 Waste Collection Practice in Sunabeda:

In Sunabeda also, all the garbage in the 17 wards of the municipality is collected manually

by engaged sweepers of Municipality

and out-sourced agency. Currently, the

city has door to door waste collection

system being outsourced to a private

agency. The private service provider

collects the mixed waste from households

on daily basis using pushcarts. The

municipality had earlier purchased 35

tricycles for door to door collection of

waste but due to vary narrow road access

and hilly terrain, the system of waste

collection using tricycles could not

succeed.

There is no practice of waste segregation

at source or at any stage of waste

collection & transportation in the town.

There are around 35 bins/waste storage

points in the city, apart from 340 small

capacity litter bins (Table 3.9). Due to

highly undulating topography and

narrow road conditions of the town,

primary collection of waste by tri-cycles

is not possible. Therefore, initially the

ULB decided to keep around 350 plastic

storage bins of 200ltr capacity in each

Overflowing bins in Sunabeda

RCC type waste collection points in Sunabeda


GTEEPL

41

lane within its command area, where the residents could deposit their waste to be picked up

on daily basis by the tractor trailer and disposed off at the designated dump site. However

due to cultural mismatch, these bins were used by locals to burn the dry garden waste and

ancillary MSW fractions. Subsequently, as an alternative solution, the ULB decided to

construct around 65 rectangular permanent structures at street intersection points, out of

which now, only 35 exists. There are also 12 open transit points all across the command area

where open waste disposal is a regular practice. Additionally, about 8 closed containers of

3m3 capacity have been placed around business centers and institutional area for temporary

storage of their waste.

TABLE 3.9: DETAILS OF WASTE COLLECTION POINTS/BINS IN SUNABEDA

S No. Category of Container Specification Quantity

1 Metallic bins/waste disposal points

1.5 cum/RCC constructed open locations

35

2 Litter bins/containers 150l/240 l capacity)

340

3.3.5.3 WASTE COLLECTION SYSTEM IN MARKETS/INSTITUTIONS

According to the manual on “Municipal Solid Waste Management” prepared by MoUD, the ULB should provide door to door collection service to all shops and establishments in the city on daily basis. However, the existing system for waste collection in the markets and institutions of Cluster V towns is community bin based system. KORAPUT: In Koraput there are around 14 markets with two main markets, namely, Hatapada & Sai niketan. Based on waste sampling of various shops in the city for seven days and discussions with the municipality staff, an estimate of total waste generation from the market/commercial complexes has been made and presented in the following table. It is estimated that in Koraput, around 1.91 tons of the market/commercial waste is generated on the daily basis (Table 3.10). The generated waste is disposed by the generators in the nearest community bin placed by the ULB. During field visit, around 8 no. of community bins were identified by the Consultants in the Markets/ Commercial areas of Koraput. The waste from these bins is collected by the sanitation staff in the tractor trolleys on daily basis and disposed in the dump site.

TABLE 3.10: DETAILS OF MARKET & COMMERCIAL WASTE IN KORAPUT

SI. No.

Type of Waste Generator




2 Markets 14 55.2 772.8


GTEEPL

42

3 Hostels 4 104 416




6 10 60


TOTAL 1910.6

SUNABEDA:

In Sunabeda, there are 10 main markets and 111 small shops, commercial units, offcies and institutions, as described in the following table. Based on waste sampling of various shops in the city for seven days and discussions with the municipality staff, it is estimated that around 1.41 tons of municipal solid waste is generated from the market/commercial units of Sunabeda The waste is disposed by the generators in the nearest community bin placed by the ULB. During field visit, it was observed that there are no dedicated bins kept in the city for market waste. Only 2 no. of community bins were identified by the Consultants in the proper markets areas of Sunabeda. Otherwise the waste is disposed by the generators in any nearest placed community bin or on the road side. The waste from these bins/ road side is collected by the sanitation staff in the tractor trolleys on daily basis and disposed at the dump site.

TABLE 3.11: DETAILS OF MARKET & COMMERCIAL WASTE IN SUNABEDA

Type of Waste Generator Number Quantity of waste per unit (Kg/day)


Commercial Units 24 5.2 124.8

Markets 10 75.5 755

Hostels 4 22 88

Institutions 10 3.5 35

Vegetable shops 24 10.2 244.8

Meat shops /slaughter houses

5 10.5 52.5

Private Shop 26 2.8 72.8

Office 18 2.2 39.6

TOTAL 1412.5

3.3.5.4 WASTE COLLECTION PRACTICE IN SLUMS OF CLUSTER V

There are 25 slums distributed across 21 wards of the Koraput Municipality with the slum

population of 12822 which is around 27% of the total population of the city (Census, 2011)..

In Sunabeda the slum population is around 29% of the total population, residing in 3697

households in 23 slums with the population of around 14568 (Census, 2011).


GTEEPL

43

During field visits, it was observed that there

is hardly any door to door waste collection

system in the slum areas of both towns of

Koraput & Sunabeda. Due to very poor access

to the households because of narrow roads

and hilly topography, movement of tricycles

or auto rickshaws is not possible in most of

the slum localities. At a very few locations, the

community bins are placed at road

intersections in an isolated corner in slums, where the residents can bring and dump their

daily garbage. However, most of the residents throw the waste randomly on road side and

into the drains. As per the ULBs, the garbage from the community bins is collected by tractor

trolleys on daily basis. However, during field visit, the waste was found to be littered all

across these localities.

3.3.5.5 STREET SWEEPING & DRAIN CLEANING IN CLUSTER V

Total road length in Koraput is 356.83km whereas Sunabeda has about 248.25km road

length. Out of this 210.83 km of total road length in Koraput and 180.55 km of total road

length in Sunabeda is serviced for Street Sweeping. The street sweeping is carried out daily

in the morning by the municipal staff/ private agency workers, as per the ward wise detail

provided in the following table. Likewise, the concerned agency is also required to carry out

cleaning of open roadside drains, which is usually carried out on monthly basis. These waste

streams are generally collected on the road side and picked up the tractor trolley for further

transport to the disposal site. The ULBs do not maintain any data on the quantity of street

sweeping and drain sludge waste neither do they have the practice of segregating these

streams from the rest of the MSW. These practices can be attributed to lack of infrastructure,

SWM expertise and lack of interest towards safe disposal in sanitary landfill.

3.3.6 EXISTING WASTE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IN CLUSTER V

According to both the ULBs of Cluster V, around 80% of the town area is covered by tractors

trailers for waste pick up & its final disposal, during morning hours starting from 6:00am,

from the designated open collection points/ bins. The waste thus collected, is transported by

the tractor trolleys to the dumping site at Chindri in Koraput city, which is 9 km from the

city. However, there is no designated place at Sunabeda municipality for waste disposal.

Waste dumping in slum area of Koraput

Waste dumping in slum area of Sunabeda


GTEEPL

44

Hence, low lying areas and open spaces are

being utilized for dumping the daily collected

waste by the contractors.

However, many points were still found to be

overflowing with waste during the site visit.

Also the waste collection system was not found

to be very effective in the rural wards and slum

areas of the towns. Details of the existing system

for waste transportation in both towns of

Koraput and Sunabeda is presented in the

section below:

3.3.6.1 WASTE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IN KORAPUT

The NAC of Koraput has 3 nos. of tractors of 1.8 Ton capacity each, to collect waste from the

various parts of the city including residential and market areas (Table 3.11). Out of 3

tractors, only 1 tractor is owned by the municipality and two are on lease from private party.

Each tractor makes 4 daily trips during morning time to transfer the waste from bins/open

points to the low laying areas on the township periphery. The NAC officials claim to transfer

around 21.6 tons of waste on daily basis using these tractors. However, in absence of any

weighbridge and any kind of record keeping, these values may not be considered to be very

accurate. Based on the vehicle carrying capacity, no. of daily trips and assuming 70% fill

capacity, around 15 tons of waste is estimated to be sent to the disposal site. During field

visit, it was also observed that all the tractors are 4-5 year old and though in working

condition, need proper maintenance and upkeep. .

TABLE 3.12: DETAILS OF WASTE C&T EQUIPMENTS IN KORAPUT

S.No Type of vehicles

No. of vehicles

Total Trips/day Capacity (Tons)

Garbage carried/day in Tons

1 Tractor with Trailer

3 12 1.8 T 21.6 TPD

Assuming 70% carrying capacity of tractors 15.2 TPD

2 Wheel Barrow 10 20 0.05 T 1.00 TPD

3 Push Cart 14 14 0.02 T 0.28 TPD

Source: Koraput Municipality

3.3.6.2 Waste Transportation System in Sunabeda:

The NAC of Sunabeda has 4 nos. of tractors of 1.8 Ton capacity each and 2 dumper placers,

to collect waste from the various parts of the city including residential and market areas

(Table 3.12). Out of 4 tractors, 2 tractors owned by the municipality are not functional and

two are on lease from private party. Around 13 number of trips are made on daily basis by

Waste tractor in Sunabeda


GTEEPL

45

both functional tractors and dumper placers , combined together, during morning time to

transfer the waste from bins/open points to the existing dumpsite at Chindri, which is

around 9km away from the city centre. The NAC officials claim to transfer around 30 tons of

waste on daily basis. However, in absence of any weighbridge and any kind of record

keeping, these values may not be considered to be very accurate. Assuming 70% carrying

capacity, the total waste transfer and disposal could be estimated to be around 16.4 Tons.

During field visit, it was also observed that leased tractors are in good condition.

TABLE 3.12: DETAILS OF WASTE C&T EQUIPMENTS IN SUNABEDA

Type of vehicles No. of vehicles

Total Trips/ day

Capacity (tons)

Garbage carried/day

Tractor 04 Nos. (02 break down)

13 Trip per day

1.8 30.00 TPD (as per ULB estimate); 16.4 TPD ( our estimate) Dumper-Placers 02

Tricycles 12 Not used

Wheel barrows 35 Used for street waste collection

Push Carts 8 Old rusted condition

Source: Sunabeda Municipality

3.3.7 EXISTING WASTE TREATMENT & DISPOSAL SYSTEM

As already mentioned in this chapter, both the towns of the cluster V do not have any

system for waste treatment and its disposal in scientific manner. Currently, the waste is

disposed in the low lying areas and other open spaces in the towns.

In Koraput, the collected waste is being dumped at Chindri (ward no. 17) in Koraput, which

is also the designated site for setting up an integrated waste processing and disposal facility.

The site with an area of 10 acre, is being used for waste dumping, since its identification in

the year 2012 and it is expected to be used for more years. For developing landfill site,

Municipality searched various sites but finally zeroed in to Chindri in of Koraput

Municipality which is proposed as Sanitary Landfill site and its Environmental Impact

Assessment is under process which is also the part of preparation of the Detailed Project

report.

There is also a temporary arrangement for waste disposal at Sunabeda for waste disposal.

The land designated for MSW disposal earlier was out of the Municipality jurisdiction,

therefore a new site is identified for disposal of solid waste. The revenue map of the earlier

proposed site is provided in the Figure 4.1, which shows that it is around 5 acre of land. The

new location is not finalized yet, therefore the land details are not available for the same. This is to

note that out of 25 wards, eight wards come under HAL jurisdiction, for which the

collection, transportation and disposal of MSW is being dealt by HAL authority.

Considering the volume of waste and nearness to the Koraput identified landfill site, it is

suggested to transport all the MSW of Sunabeda to Koraput landfill site for necessary


GTEEPL

46

processing. It is also felt by the Consultants that since Koraput site of 10 acre is adequate

for both towns of cluster V for 15 years and also Sunabeda is within 20km from Koraput,

the waste can be directly sent to Koraput without need of any kind of waste transfer station

at Sunabeda.

The details of the previously selected landfill site details are as follows:

Mouza: Janiguda

Khata No.: 53; Plot No.: 324/395 4.20 Acre

Khata No.: 54; Plot No.: 332 0.80 Acre

Total 5.00 Acre

FIGURE 3.1: MAP OF THE EARLIER PROPOSED LANDFILL SITE IN SUNABEDA

The Koraput Municipality had initially identified a site at Chindri (ward 17 of Karaput) for

new solid waste management center, but it is being used as open dumping ground. This site


GTEEPL

47

at Chindri has been proposed for development of sanitary landfill. The area of the proposed

site is 10 acre which is at a distance of 7 km from the core city area of Koraput city and 25 km

from Sunabeda Municipality. However, the municipality has to fulfill some very strict

preconditions for using the site as a waste processing center.

The overall footprint of the present land is around 10 Acres. Average slope of the even

portion of site varies from 2% to 5% based on the topography of the site. Out of this

approximately 3 acres of land is allocated for the Waste Processing Facility. The net land

available for the development of the Engineered Sanitary Landfill facility is 7 acres. The first

phase of the facility planned is expected to take care of the inert for approximately 15 years.

FIGURE 3.2: (NOT TO SCALE )MAP OF THE LANDFILL SITE IN KORAPUT

Based on the Plot Nos. 59 and 111as two plots in Chindri has landuse type as Anabadi and

hence is chosen for the landfill site. Although the total area is more than 80 Acres, but only

10 acres to the west boundary is been acquired for the purpose. The 1mt interval contour for

the said area indicates that the east and west has a slope difference of approx. 40 mt.

Therefore considering the extreme western end of these plots as comparatively flat area, it

can be utilized for the processing plant. The rest of the area has steep slope on the east side,

for which they can be better used for landfill cells on appropriate structural design.

N


GTEEPL

48

FIGURE 3.3: 1MT CONTOUR INTERVAL FOR MERGED PLOT NOS. 59 & 111 AT CHINDRI


GTEEPL

49

3.3.8 WASTE REUSE AND RECOVERY SYSTEM

3.3.8.1 RECYCLING

Recycling at the household level is practiced only for newspapers and metals in both the

municipality of Koraput and Sunabeda of Cluster – V. But individual scavengers scrap

dealers and private entrepreneurs are involved in recycling of inorganic waste. Municipality

has approximately 10 -15 scavengers and scrap dealers involved in recycling . It is estimated

that such scavengers and scrap dealers involving in recycling of the inorganic wastes in

municipality have been in increasing trend in absence of Scientific Processing and Disposal

Facility. During field visits, around 5 groups of ragpickers and 1 kabadiwala were identified

in Koraput and 2 groups of ragpickers and 1 kabadiwala were identified in Sunabeda.

3.4 INITIATIVES OF ULBS OF CLUSTER V

Despite various attempts of solid waste collection, pickup and disposal for maintaining

urban cleanliness, the municipalities have been conducting few activities for improvement

in the overall environmental status of the municipal region, which may not be adequate but

can be considered as a small step by the municipality for improvement of the existing

system.

Some of the important ongoing activities are as follows.

a) Daily cleaning of municipal region

b) Tree plantation on either side of road

c) Construction and preservation of parks

d) Launching of construction of slaughter house

e) Selection and proposal of landfill site

f) Conduction of various training and awareness programs for mobilization of waste as

a resource and distribution of compost bins.

g) Interest and involvement of various organizations in waste management

h) Environmental cleanliness program started in communities and schools

i) Involvement of private sector organizations and communities in waste management .

As already mentioned that door to door waste collection services are managed by a

Cuttack based private operator M/s Manju Services in Koraput, In Sunabeda,

proprieter, Ramesh Khare is involved. However, no NGO is actively involved in

waste related services except few self help groups working at community level in

both towns.


GTEEPL

50

3.5 SPECIAL WASTE MANAGEMENT

Both the ULBs of the cluster V have not yet provisioned a system for collecting and

managing medical wastes separately and the waste is managed by the generators only.

Sometimes the hazardous bio medical wastes are mixed with the municipal wastes and

disposed in the dumping site.

Also, both the ULBs do not have any provisions for the collection of the construction and

demolition (C&D) waste. Disposal of C&D waste has become a challenge in the present

scenario of rapid urbanization in all urban centres of the country. The major concern which

lies with the C&D waste is the presence of heavy metals, volatile organic carbon, etc. due to

high use of paints, varnishes etc., in the building industry. However, as things stand

currently in the country, C&D waste is inert and does not smell, therefore, it is not perceived

to pose immediate public health risk. This could be one of the reasons for the ULBs to not

keep any well-defined system or infrastructure for its safe disposal. Currently, in both the

ULBs, it is collected and disposed with the MSW and hence, adversely affects the waste

quality by increase in its inert content. Presently, there is no accurate data for assessment of

C&D waste generation volumes in both towns of the cluster. While the municipality has

managed the dead animals found in the road side.

3.6 MAJOR ISSUES

PARTIAL SEGREGATION OF WASTE

It is encouraging to note that salvaging recyclable materials for sale to waste purchaser is a

traditional practice in both the Municipality like other municipalities of Odisha. Many

informal entrepreneurs are active in collecting recyclable materials and selling it for

conversion of these into useful products. However, lot of recyclable material continues to be

disposed off on the streets, which lands up at the dump site. The practice of segregation of

recyclable materials a source of waste generation needs to be promoted to ensure that entire

solid waste is segregated into organic, recyclable and inert components at source at

households and establishments level. This requires a massive awareness campaign to

educate the masses on need of segregation of waste at source.

Collection of waste has not covered all parts of municipalities. Attempts have been found to

improve the collection efficiency by introducing door-to-door collection service in a few

wards of market areas and high density residential areas. Rest of the wards get very

irregular service with the result, waste is found deposited on streets, into drains or in open

spaces. The collection service needs to be improved in urbanized wards of all the cities

through CBO, NGO and Private Sector participation. Both Municipalities have areas of rural

characteristics (low density, adequate open space in household premises), where

composting needs to be promoted home and only inorganic waste can be collected at fixed

intervals of once or twice of week.


GTEEPL

51

NO FACILITY FOR SAFE DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE

Even improvement in collection and transportation is gradually taking place, the processing

and final disposal of waste remains a major problem for most of the municipalities, which is

also valid for both Municipalities. All the waste collected is dumped on the only identified

dumping site in Koraput municipality unscientifically posing a serious problem of

environmental pollution and threat to public health. Treatment and safe disposal of residual

waste need to be addressed in a much planned manner.

LACK OF PUBLIC AWARENESS

For efficient delivery of SWM services, public participation is very essential. This is lacking

in both Municipality as well. Information, Education & communication (IEC) experts needs

to be hired to design IEC campaign and carrying out citywide awareness campaign on a

continuing basis as an integral part of SWM service to ensure community participation.

EXTENSIVE USE OF PLASTICS

Use of plastics is increasing in day to life of people. Plastic waste is also constitutes a

significant amount in total waste composition of both Municipality. Increasing proportion of

this Non-Bio-Degradable waste is posing threat to environment of both Municipalities. This

should be discouraged to use and promote recycling as well. Both municipalities have

shown very higher trend of plastic usage with respect to Indian Scenario constituting almost

30% of total MSWM generation on daily basis by % composition.

INSTITUTIONAL & FINANCIAL WEAKNESS

Solid waste management is more a managerial issue than the technical. It requires proper

planning, budgeting and implementation strategy to ensure that the services are provided in

an uninterrupted manner. Planning for manpower, material, equipment and finances is

essential for covering all sections of the society and the ever growing population. Both the

ULBs of Koraput and Sunabeda have to plan for replacement of tools, equipment & vehicles

on completion of their useful life and to develop and augment the capacity of treatment and

disposal facilities from time to time by creating sinking fund, i.e. A fund that is built from

year to year over a period of time to provide for replacement of vehicles, equipment, plants

etc. after their useful life. Most of the Local Bodies lack this capability of advance planning

and financial resources to maintain the service levels at the desired standards. Training &

capacity building of Municipal staff in planning and budgeting is, therefore, very essential.

There is a need of dedicated solid waste management staff in both towns, especially

Sanitary Inspectors ( atleast 1 for every 50,000 persons of the city to manage its sanitation

aspects.


GTEEPL

52

LACK OF IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

The implementation of solid Waste Management need to be strategized to ensure that SWM

services are provided in a synchronized manner and community, CBO, NGO and private

sector participation is promoted to make the services efficient, cost effective and sustainable.

Training for municipal staffs is essential in designing implementation strategy which

currently is lacking.

LACK OF IN-HOUSE CAPABILITIES AND TECHNICAL KNOW-HOW

The in-house capabilities of local bodies are not adequate. They do not have adequate

trained manpower as well as technical and managerial know-how. This issue needs to be

resolved through training and capacity building, induction of professionals and adopting

PPP models for service delivery to minimize manpower requirement.

3.7 POSITIVE ASPECTS

HIGH PROPORTION OF ORGANIC MATTER

The MSW generated in the cluster towns has high proportion of organic matter. This waste

can be recycled to produce compost/biogas for the benefit of the society.

PRESENCE OF INFORMAL SECTOR IN RECYCLING

There is an informal sector of recyclers who salvage recyclable materials from MSW. This

sector can be encouraged to recover the re-usable and recyclable material from resource and

intermediate stages of waste transfer, treatment and disposal.

COMMUNITY/ NGO/ PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN SWM

Both the ULBs have involved private sector in SWM which is an indication of PPP initiatives

by them that should prove to be of greater help to them in implementation of PPP project for

other waste management related services.

3.8 GAP ANALYSIS

Overall, the solid waste management system of both ULBs has been observed to be

inadequate and there are various issues that need to be addressed to improve the existing

system in the cluster V towns. Based on the above discussions on issues and positive aspects

regarding SWM in both Municipalities, the major issues identified as Gap Analysis are as

follows:


GTEEPL

53

TABLE 3. 1: GAP ANALYSIS OF SWM IN CLUSTER – V (KORAPUT & SUNABEDA NAC)

Component Remarks

Generation Waste from all categories including households, hotels, restaurants, commercial establishments, markets, temples, institutions, drain silt, street sweepings is mixed.

Very few waste collection points, 100% of the city is not covered

Waste is found to be lying on road side and in drains.

Waste reduction at source is not practiced much. For example: composting and recycling is not much practicing at source to reduce waste at source.

Segregation at

Source

Absence of segregation of waste at the source of generation in most of the households, commercial and institution establishments.

Primary Collection Inadequate number and placing of community bins across both towns

Poor maintenance of bins

Unhealthy and unhygienic waste disposal practices followed by most of the generators. In some of the wards, waste is disposed by digging or burning at household level

Secondary

Collection

Insufficient number of collection points.

Most of the collection points are open points on the roadside and unhygienic.

Absence of provision to dump the waste in segregated manner.

Poor maintenance of collection points.

Erratic capacities of the collection points

Mixing of drain silt with the waste.

Manual lifting of the waste from the collection points leading to spilling of waste.

Street Sweeping Inefficient& inadequate street sweeping operations.

The process of street sweeping of waste is still in primitive nature in the City. The sanitary workers sweep the streets using brooms to make small heaps of solid waste.

Transportation Inadequacy of equipment‟s and vehicles for waste collection & transportation

Absence of arrangement for lifting of waste from congested by lanes of markets and remote areas of the city.

Absence of the weigh bridge to record the waste quantity & inadequate system for data recording.

Community

Participation

Community participation is generally absent except a very small scale programme of composting & waste collection initiatives by community development organizations

Public Awareness Absence of significant educational programs, public awareness, campaigns, NGO activities for public awareness on solid waste management, significance of recycling, reuse and segregation of MSW.


GTEEPL

54

The people do not have the habit of depositing the wastes properly into the bins or open areas though they carry the wastes up to these areas. Most of the citizens, just throw the wastes around the bins or open areas adding wastes to the street sweepings.

Treatment

&Disposal

Absence of waste processing practices, all the waste is dumped randomly without any recycling and processing, except a very small scale composting plant.

Absence of scientific final disposal of wastes.

Absence of Weigh Bridge in the city.

Institutional

Mechanism Lack of co-ordination between the ULB in Sunabeda with HAL

towards integration of their operations for MSW transport and disposal. As a result, not able to derive benefit of scale towards safe treatment and disposal of the combined waste loads by way of a combined facility.

Lack of enforcement measures & No bylaws for separate collection and disposal of construction debris which leads to mixing of inert fraction with other domestic waste.

Poor human resources management,

Absence of occupational health and safety measures for the sanitary workers, lack of monitoring/ management information system and subsequent evaluation / remedial measures, etc.

Lack of enforcement measures

Lack of capacity development of municipal staffs in SWM

Lack of authority to make financial and administrative decisions,

Inadequate stakeholder coordination (public and private sectors)


GTEEPL

55

CHAPTER -IV

SITE SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT

4.1 INTRODUCTION

After many deliberations of various sites in Koraput and Sunabeda during last few years,

one piece of 10 acre land at Chindri, in ward no 17 of Koraput Municipality, was finally

selected for development of regional waste processing and disposal facility for Cluster V.

The site is only 7 km from the main city of Koraput and around 25km from Sunabeda. It is to

be noted that at present, Sunabeda NAC has only proposed a site, for which the land

acquisition is yet to be initiated.

Presently the MSW of Koraput Municipality is being dumped on this site since last two-

three years without any processing. Though this site is also not particularly suitable for

MSW disposal, as the contour difference is more than 15-20 meters in one-third of its patch

but out of 10 acres, 6-7 acres can be utilized for setting up the Processing and disposal

facility and most importantly there is no other site is available for this purpose. The

constraints of finding a suitable high-level land which is free of habitation are appreciated.

The land needs to be protected from the storm water during rains due to steep slopes and

adequate measures are to be adopted for a safe and environmentally sustainable disposal of

MSW at this site.

4.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED SITE

The proposed site for integrated facility development is located at Chindri in Koraput

municipal area in ward no. 17. The site is observed to be open land with seasonal

agricultural activities. It has also been observed that agricultural activities are predominant

in and around the site.

An approach road of length around 1.5

km originating from Chindri village

provides access to the site. An overview

of the Landfill site from the extreme

Northern boundary indicates the steep

slope of the site. The land use around the

site is observed to be agricultural and

residential. Some trees have been

observed within and around the site.

Overview of the Proposed site from North, Chindri Koraput


GTEEPL

56

The type of soil in the site has been observed to be sandy Clay and silty clay. The terrain is

low lying with high undulations.

Presence of excess amounts of oxides of

iron imparts red colours to the soil. The

texture is light and type is of

Ustrorthents, in which the clay fraction is

dominated by Kaolinite & Illites.

Property wise, these soils are strongly to

moderately acidic with low to medium

organic matter status and poor water

retentive capacity. Medium and low land

soils adjacent to uplands suffer from iron

toxicity due to literal movement of

soluble iron from upper ridges due to weathering and erosion. The ground water levels at

the site are observed to be shallow with ground water encountered at 3m below the ground.

The salient features of the site are presented in Table 4.1.

TABLE 4.1: FEATURES OF PROPOSED SITE

Features Details

Land use Elevated couch with lot of undulations within the site area of 10 acres. The land is generally lies idle, but occasionally used for minor cultivation and grazing

Major crops in the study area

Occasionally paddy cultivation around However, there is no indication that the site is being cultivated.

Nearest Highway National Highway-43 9 km away

Access Road detail, if any The road is metalled and paved up to chindri, while about 1.5 km road leading to both the sites is unpaved

Nearest Railway Station Koraput – ~10 km

Nearest Airport Vizag Airport ~140 km

Nearest Town/City Koraput City 7 km from the site

Major Settlements No major settlements in and around the site

Minor settlements Minor settlements in the form of hutment are 2.5 – 4.0 km away from the site near Chindri village

Water bodies and dams, canals

No such water bodies within 1 -2 Km from site

Hills and Mountains (within or around the area)

This is basically a hilly terrain and it is surrounded by small hills and mountains on the North – western side or the entry side

Reserve forests No reserved forest

Ecologically sensitive zones(within 10 km)

Not observed any

Monuments (within 10 km) Not observed any

Sensitive Receptors Not observed any

Socio-economic Since the area has hilly terrain, some minor agricultural activities have been observed. Occasional paddy

Overview of the Proposed site from west, Chindri Koraput


GTEEPL

57

farming has also been reported in some patches. No lands in the vicinity of site are used for residential purposes except few hutments.

Major important industries within 10 km

Not observed any

4.3 SITE EVALUATION CRITERIA

Attributes are divided in to four categories and these are given below.

1. Receptor related

2. Pathway Related

Vehicle Entry Gate to the SLF Facility facing NW direction

Another opening farther down the length of the road facing boundary towards the extreme N direction indicating the NE boundary conditions

NE Boundary conditions without any boundary wall and having steep slope towards the NE direction.

Eastern open boundary exposing the road on the farther east direction.


GTEEPL

58

3. Waste characteristics related

4. Waste management practice related

A set of 34 attributes has been considered for ranking exercise. The attributes are

listed below:

1. Accessibility related

2. Environmental related

3. Socio-economic related

4. Waste Management Practice related

5. Climatological related

6. Geological related

TABLE 4.2: SENSITIVITY INDEX (AS PER CPCB)

S. No.

Attribute 0.0-0.25 0.25-0.5 0.5-0.75 0.75-1.0

Accessibility Related

1. Type of road National highway

State highway

local road No road

2. Distance from collection area

< 10 km 10-20 km 20-25 km > 25 km

Receptor Related

3. Population within 500 m

0 to 100 100 to 250 250 to 1000 > 1000

4. Distance to nearest drinking water source

> 5000 m 2500 to 5000 m

1000 to 2500 m

< 1000 m

5. Use of site by nearby Residents

Not used Occasional Moderate Regular

6. Distance to nearest building

> 3000 m 1500 to 3000 m

500 to 1500 m

< 500 m

7. Land use/Zoning Completely remote (zoning not applicable)

Agricultural Commercial or industrial

Residential

8. Decrease in property value with respect to distance

> 5000 m 2500 to 5000 m

1000 to 2500 m

< 1000 m

9. Public utility facility within 2 kms

Commercial and industrial area

National heritage

Hospital Air port

10. Public acceptability

Fully accepted Acceptance with suggestions

Acceptance with major changes

Non acceptance

Environmental Related


GTEEPL

59

11. Critical environment

Not a critical environment

Pristine natural areas

Wetlands, flood plains, and preserved areas

Major habitat of endangered or threatened species

12. Distance to nearest surface water

> 8000 m 1500 to 8000 m

500 to 1500 m

< 500 m

13. Depth to ground water >30m 15 to 30 m 5 to 15 m < 5m

14. Contamination Air, water or food contamination

Biota- contamination

Soil contamination only

No contamination

15. Water quality Highly polluted Polluted Potable Confirming to standard

16. Air quality Highly polluted Polluted Confirming to industrial standards

Confirming to residential standards

17. Soil quality Highly contaminated

Contaminated

Average No contamination

Socio-economic Related

18. Health No problem Moderate High Severe

19. Job opportunities

High Moderate Low Very low

20. Odour No odour Moderate odour

High odour Intensive foul odour

21. Vision Site not seen Site partly seen (25%)

Site partly seen (75%)

Site fully seen

Waste Management Practice Related

22. Waste quantity/day

< 250 tonnes 250 to 1000 tonnes

1000 to 2000 tonnes

> 2000 tonnes

23. Life of site > 20 years 10-20 years 2-10 years < 2 years

Climatological Related

24. Precipitation effectiveness index*

< 31 31 to 63 63 to 127 > 127

25. Climatic features contributing to Air pollution

No problem Moderate High Severe

Geological Related

26. Soil permeability

> 1 X 10-1 cm/sec.

1 X 10-1 to 1 x 10-7 cm/sec.

1 X 10-1 – 1 X 10-5 cm/sec.

< 1 X 10-7 cm/sec.

27. Depth to bedrock

>20 m 10 to 20 m 3 to 10m <3m

28. Susceptibility to erosion and run-off

Not susceptible Potential Moderate Severe


GTEEPL

60

29. Physical characteristics of rock

Massive Weathered Highly weathered

30. Depth of soil layer

>5m 2-5 m 1-2 m <1m

31. Slope pattern < 1% 1-2% 2-5% > 10%

32. Seismicity Zone I Zone II Zone III Zone IV & V

4.3.1 ASSIGNING IMPORTANCE TO ATTRIBUTES

All the rating parameters do not assess the same magnitude of potential environmental

impact. Consequently, a numerical value called weightage has been assigned to each

parameter in accordance with the relative magnitude of the impact it assess using ranked

pair wise comparison technique based on Delphi within the institute,

importance/weightage to the categories and then to individual attributes were assigned.

4.3.2 DEVELOPMENT OF SITE SENSITIVITY INDEX

For each of the attributes, four level sensitivity scales has been considered ranging from 0

(Indicating no potential hazard) to 1 (Indicating highest potential hazard). The rating

parameters and sensitivity levels are listed in table 4.2.

4.3.3 PROPOSED SITE ASSESSMENT AS PER CPHEEO REQUIREMENTS

The following table brings out the compliance of the proposed site at Chindri, Koraput with

regard to the requirements stipulated by CPHEEO manual for municipal land fill facilities

TABLE 4.3 COMPLIANCE WITH CPHEEO MANUAL

Sr. No.

Criteria CPHEEO Manual requirements

Description of the site Compliance by Proposed site

1 Lake/Pond 200 m away from the Lake/Pond

No lake or Pond within 2 km from Site

Complies

2 River/streams 100 m away from the river/stream

No small or large stream observed within the site

Complies

3. Flood plain No land fill within a 100 year flood plain

Not in a flood plain Complies

4 Highway Away from 200 m NHAI/State

NH 43, 10 km away complies

5 Public parks 300 m away from public parks

No parks within 3 km Complies

6 Wet lands No landfill within wet lands.

No Wet land Complies


GTEEPL

61

7 Habitation 500 m away from the notified habitation area

No habitations observed within 500 m from the site

Complies

8 Ground water table

Ground water table > 2m.

Yes more than 3 m Complies

9 Critical habitat area

No landfill within the Critical habitat area. It is defined as the area in which 1 or more endangered species live.

No critical habitat Complies

10 Air ports No landfill within 20 km

Vizag airport –140 km Complies

11 Water supply schemes/ wells.

Minimum 500 m away

There are no schemes/wells in the area.

Complies

12 Coastal regulatory zone

Should not be sited Not applicable Not applicable

13 Unstable zone No landfill Not applicable -

14 Buffer zone As prescribed by regulatory

None prescribed Not applicable

15 Nalahs Not prescribed None prescribed

16 Check dams Not prescribed - -

From the above table, it can be seen from the above that out of 11 applicable criteria, the site

complies for all items as given by CPHEEO manual.

Based on the attributes related to the site, the corresponding site sensitivity index is found

out and presented in table 4.4. The value of the site sensitivity index multiplied by

corresponding weightage results in score for each of the attributes as given below:

TABLE 4.4: SITE EVALUATION ASSESSMENT

S. No.

Attribute Attribute measurement

Score for the site

Sub total

TOTAL

1. Type of road Village Road 0.5

2. Distance from collection area 7 km 0.1

Total

0.6

Accessibility Related

3. Population within 500 m 0-10 0.1

4. Distance to nearest drinking water source

2500 m (Chindri Village)

0.25

5. Use of site by nearby residents

Not being used 0


GTEEPL

62

6. Distance to nearest building

>2.0 Km 0.3

7. Land use/Zoning Agricultural 0.35

8. Decrease in property value with respect to distance

> 5 km 0

9. Public utility facility within 2 kms

Nothing 0

10. Public acceptability

Not Known 0

Total 1.0

Environmental Related

11. Critical environment Hilly Terrain 0

12. Distance to nearest surface water

2500-8000 m 0.4

13. Depth to ground water

>3.0 meters 1

14. Contamination No contamination 1

15. Water quality Potable 0.75

16. Air quality Not Known (But perception is confirming the standards)

0.75

17. Soil quality Not contaminated 1

Total

4.9

Socio – economic Related

18. Health No Problem 0

19. Job opportunities Very Low 0.75

20. Odour Odour is There – As dumping is being done within the site

0.5

21. Vision Site is Fully Seen 1

Total 2.25

Waste Management Practice Related

22. Waste quantity/day < 30 tonnes 0

23. Life of site >25 years 0.25

Total

Climatologically Related

24. Precipitation effectiveness index

Not Known 0.5

25. Climatic features contributing No Problem 0


GTEEPL

63

to Air pollution

Total 0.75

Geological Related

26. Soil permeability Sandy & Silty clay 0.5

27. Depth to bedrock >9 m 0.5

28. Susceptibility to erosion and run-off

Highly Susceptible - 0.75

29. Physical characteristics of rock

Not Known 0.5

30. Depth of soil layer > 2 m 0.35

31. Slope pattern >10% 1

32. Seismicity

Zone III & IV 0.75

Total 4.35

Grand Total 13.85

The following table given the interpretation of the total score and the ranking of the site

<30% less sensitive to the impacts (Preferable)

30% to 75% Moderate

>75% highly sensitive to the Impacts (undesirable)

By ranking exercise as carried out above, the proposed site scored a total score of 13.85,

which is 43.2%. This score when compared to ranking of the site, indicates that the hazard

potential of the site is Moderate.

4.4 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION OF THE SITE

The detailed Geo-technical investigation work carried out by boring / drilling up to 10.0 m

depth below N.G.L or refusal and conducting standard penetration test (SPT) & Collection

of undisturbed sample (UDS) at the two locations. The Laboratory tests for the sample

collected are:

Determination of Grain size analysis

Determination of soil moisture content

Determination of liquid limit

Determination of plastic limit

Determination of specific gravity

Determination of Allowable Bearing Pressure of Rock.


GTEEPL

64

1. SAFE BEARING CAPACITY (SBC)

Borehole Depth in metres. Net Safe Bearing

Capacity in T/m2.

Gross Safe Bearing

Capacity in T/m2.

BH – 01 1.5 15.31 16.76

3.0 31.95 34.95

BH – 02 1.5 15.74 17.17

3.0 34.07 37.07

2. ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURE (ABP)

The allowable bearing pressure has been calculated as per IS: 2131& IS: 8009 (part-1) at

different depth from the existing ground level.

Borehole Depth in mtrs.

Allowable Bearing Pressure in T/m2

25mm

Settlement

40mm

Settlement

75mm

Settlement

BH – 01

3.00 7.81 12.49 23.42

4.50 9.38 15.01 28.15

6.00 11.74 18.79 35.23

7.50 25.91 41.45 77.73

Borehole Depth in mtrs.

Allowable Bearing Pressure in T/m2

25mm

Settlement

40mm

Settlement

75mm

Settlement

BH – 02

3.00 11.45 18.32 34.34

4.50 11.73 18.77 35.19

6.00 27.44 43.90 82.31

3. ANALYSIS OF THE SUB-SOIL INVESTIGATION

LAYER- 1

The layer starts 0.0m to 1.50m consists of poorly graded clayey sand. The soil sample in this

layer was tested and results are summarized. The average weight was Gravel- 13%, Sand-


GTEEPL

65

53%, and Silt & Clay- 40%. The engineering classification of the soil is SC as per IS: 1498-

1970.

LAYER- 2

The layer starts form 3.0m to 6.0m consists of poorly graded silty sand. The soil sample in

this layer was tested and results are summarized. The average weight was Gravel- 0%, Sand-

67%, and Silt & Clay- 33%. The engineering classification of the soil is SM as per IS: 1498-

1970.

LAYER- 3

The layer starts form 7.50m to 10.0m consists of poorly graded sand. The soil sample in this


89%, and Silt & Clay- 03%. The engineering classification of the soil is SP as per IS: 1498-

1970.

Borehole No. - 02 was have explored up to a depth of 10.0m the sub soil strata of the

Borehole is summarized as follows.

LAYER- 1

The layer starts 0.0m to 1.50m consists of poorly graded clayey sand. The soil sample in this


52%, and Silt & Clay- 40%. The engineering classification of the soil is SC as per IS: 1498-

1970.

LAYER- 2

The layer starts form 3.0m to 6.0m consists of poorly graded silty sand. The soil sample in

this layer was tested and results are summarized. The average weight was Gravel- 0%, Sand-

70%, and Silt & Clay- 30%. The engineering classification of the soil is SM as per IS: 1498-

1970.

LAYER- 3

The layer starts form 7.50m to 9.0m consists of poorly graded sand. The soil sample in this


88%, and Silt & Clay- 04%. The engineering classification of the soil is SP as per IS: 1498-

1970.

The detailed Soil profile of the test boreholes are as given below:


GTEEPL

66

N1 - N2 - N3

0.00

04-05-07 SPT Sample

05-05-08 SPT Sample

06-07-09 SPT Sample

>50 SPT Sample

Poorly graded

silty sand

Poorly graded

sand

BORE HOLE - 01

Type of SoilSoil

Profile

Depth

in mtrs. SPT Value "N" Depth Plot

N Type of

Sample

Core

Recovery

(%)

R.Q.D

(%)

Poorly graded

clayey sand

12

13

16

50

WL: 3.0m

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

SC

SM

SP


GTEEPL

67

N1 - N2 - N3

0.00

05-07-08 SPT Sample

06-08-08 SPT Sample

>50 SPT Sample

BORE HOLE - 02

Type of SoilSoil

Profile

Depth

in mtrs. SPT Value "N" Depth Plot

N Type of

Sample

Core

Recovery

(%)

R.Q.D

(%)

Poorly graded

clayey sand

Poorly graded

clayey sand

Poorly graded

sand

Broken Boulder

pieces

15

16

50

WL: 3.20m

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

ROCK

SC

SM

SP


GTEEPL

68

4. FOUNDATION & RECOMMENDATION

Based on the field and laboratory investigation, the following recommendations are made:

1. The stratum encountered in different boreholes at different depths is presented in

respective soil profile sheets.

2. The water table was encountered at 3 m depth in the boreholes.

3. The depth of foundation shall be decided based on bearing capacity and uplift

resistance required.

4. As per site condition, visual observations of soil samples at site, field bore log record,

local geology of the area, type of sample received, laboratory classification of soil

samples and based on the experience of our Geotechnical Expert, it is recommended

to provide open foundation.

5. The recommended safe bearing capacity for the footing is computed based on footing

size as specified for suggested foundations are given below. It is feasible to provide

open foundations. Open foundations can be placed at a depth of 3.0m below the

existing ground level. However for heavily loaded structures the foundation depth

can be increased as per the design load.

6. The SBC at 1.5m depth is 16T/m2 & at 3.0m depth is 37T/m2 is recommended for the

foundation design based on the calculations and the experience

5. CONCLUSION

With the N value between 12-15 it is indicative of the soil strength as compacted and best

suitable for any foundation work. Further due to groundwater table occurring below 3mt.

Depth is also good for any foundation condition at the site.

Hence, the site is quite adequate with holding capacity of the 25 years’ projected quantity

of SW from both Koraput and Sunabeda ULBs.


GTEEPL

69

CHAPTER -V

CONCEPT OF THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

5.1 DESIGN CRITERIA FOR SWM SYSTEM

There are certain criteria on which a SWM system could be designed. These are based on the

existing practices followed in developed countries and the rules and regulations. The waste

management paradigm being followed by ULBs across the country comprises a hierarchy of

options as depicted in Exhibit 5.8. Under this paradigm, which takes holistic dimensions

waste minimisation is ranked highest followed by recycling, processing and

„transformation‟, while sanitary landfill (SLF) ranks the lowest. This approach recommends

maximum emphasis on ways and means to reduce waste generation and its reuse at source

as per 3 R approach and allowing for only rejects to be landfilled so that the burden on land

is minimised. With this approach in mind, few of such considerations are:

Municipal waste should be treated as a valuable resource and reused and recovered to

its fullest extent and then disposed off in a responsible manner.

The waste management to be done in an integrated manner with all the project

components including waste collection in a segregated manner, its primary &

secondary transportation, storage at transfer stations, treatment and disposal.

To ensure adaptation of scientific,

technological and environmentally

sound methods for waste processing

and disposal, robust management

practices and developing a successful

PPP project.

Working out the sizing and capacity of

various project components based on

field survey and analysis to ensure

designing of a realistic & practically

feasible project with the project life of

at least 20 years.

Design of the system in accordance with the requirements of the MSW regulation

which is to provide treatment and disposal facilities for MSW and restrict landfilling to

only inerts and rejects from waste processing that are not suitable for either recycling

or processing.

Participation of local communities and development of the project as a PPP (Public

Private Partnership) project. For the sustainable management of solid waste, private

sector involvement in collection and separation, recycling, transportation and disposal

will be effective and comfortable for local government.


GTEEPL

70

To follow the 3R principal with focus on maximum recovery of resources from the

generated waste of the cluster towns.

5.2 CONCEPT FOR AN INTEGRATED MSW MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IN

CLUSTER V

An integrated Municipal solid waste management (MSWM) system typically involves

activities associated with waste collection, transportation, processing and scientific disposal.

An effective MSWM system is based on the specific local conditions, and is developed with

due considerations to protection of human health, environment & aesthetics. In addition to

the requirements of an adequate infrastructure, active community participation and a robust

monitoring & evaluation system are also very essential for a successful and sustainable

ISWM system.

In order to make Cluster V fully comply with the MSW rules, 2000, a holistic approach is to

be adapted to improve all service components of existing waste management system in

NACs of Koraput and Sunabeda. This includes improvement of DTD waste collection

services with introduction of waste segregation at source, secondary collection &

transportation system and development of regional waste treatment & disposal facility.

Present daily waste loads in each town of the Cluster V, are estimated to be nearly 30

MT/day. This is a rather small quantity and does not represent an appropriate scale for

setting up a robust technology based treatment facility. Hence, in order to improve the

economies of scale, the two towns have been clustered with the regional approach for

development of a waste treatment & disposal (T&D) facility at Koraput.

Overall benefits of regional facility are:

Cost effective: Reduction in the fixed costs per unit of waste for its treatment and

land filling are achieved by scaling up the incoming waste quantity;

Land saving: The requirement of land for handling the same quantity of waste in a

single facility is much lesser than putting up multiple facilities of smaller size at

different locations. Additionally, the burden on the ULBs to find suitable land for

T&D facility is also reduced.

Optimised transaction cost: Single facility minimises the costs of project preparation,

approvals, etc.

Technical viability: Scaling up the project enables the possibility of adopting robust

technologies that are more effective in achieving higher volume reduction of waste

and minimising area for landfill.

Social acceptance: A single large regional facility enables cost effect safeguards

against environment and social impacts as well as offer incentive to affected

communities.


GTEEPL

71

Attractive PPP option: Scaled up projects interest large competent operators of

national and international repute.

The proposed SWM system for the Cluster V could be, as given in Figure 5.1. Combined

together, for both towns of the Cluster V, the estimates of the waste volumes for next 20

years are presented in Table 5.1. As per the estimates, the total generated daily waste

volumes of the Cluster V is expected to grow from 55.4 MT in the year 2016 to 91MT in the

year 2031, with the daily average volume of 15 years to be 72 MT. Accordingly, a regional

waste treatment facility of 75 TPD capacity may be needed with the requirement of a

sanitary landfill for taking care of 22% of generated waste volumes.

FIGURE 5.1: CONCEPT PLAN FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT OF CLUSTER V

TABLE 5.1: WASTE VOLUME PROJECTIONS FOR CLUSTER V

Year POPULATION MSW generation rate (gpcd)

MSW volume, (TPD)

Sunabeda Floating Sunabeda

Kolaput Floating Koraput

Total Cluster V

Sunabeda Koraput Total

2011 50394 2520 47468 2373 102755

2016 55619 2781 52013 2601 113014 490 28.62 26.76 55.4

2021 61386 3069 57237 2862 124554 523 33.69 31.41 65.1


GTEEPL

72

2026 67750 3388 63043 3152 137333 558 39.66 36.91 76.6

2031 74775 3739 69432 3472 151417 595 46.70 43.36 90.1

2036 82528 4126 76404 3820 166878 634 54.98 50.90 105.9

2041 91084 4554 83958 4198 183794 677 64.72 59.66 124.4

5.2.1 CONCEPT FOR WASTE SEGREGATION & COLLECTION

Waste would be generated from various sources in the Cluster V including households,

commercial areas, parks and open spaces, industries, temples, schools and others. There

would biodegradable or organic, non-biodegradable or inorganic and inerts. It has been

found during field investigations that the on an average the waste in Cluster V has around

41% wet organic matter and almost equal amount of dry recyclable waste, with the

remaining 18% mainly inert matter ( drain silt and other inert material).

It is proposed that the waste should be segregated right from the source. As the system is

new and would require lot of awareness and education on the merits of segregation, it is

proposed the waste should be segregated into 2 streams, wet and dry. Wet would be

essentially the biodegradable waste and the dry waste would be the non-biodegradable/

recyclables waste. Inerts would have a separate stream.

It is proposed to adopt 2-bin system for the storage of the waste by the waste generators

with one bin for wet and the other one for dry. This practice would be applicable at the

households, commercial and other institutions. Door-to-door waste collection would be

emphasized and would be made available in all the areas where it is currently not available

with the involvement of NGOs.

Due to difficult terrain of the NACs, the mechanisms for door-to-door collection of waste

would be through motorized vehicles including motorized tricycles and/or auto tippers.

The waste collection & transportation vehicles shall be either dedicated vehicles or with

separate compartments for dry and wet waste. Since, the proposed site for development of

integrated SWM (ISWM) facility is less than 30 km from both townships, both the waste

streams can be directly taken up to the ISWM site by direct transfer system (transfer of

waste directly from the small tippers to bigger refuse compactors). The recyclable wastes

would be segregated at MRF and sold to vendors, rag pickers and agencies which are into

recycling.

TABLE 5.2: SUMMARY OF THE MSW MANAGEMENT AT THE PRIMARY COLLECTION LEVEL

Source/Waste

Generator

Type of Waste Requireme

nt

Generator

Responsibility

Implementatio

n

Residential

Commercial

Institutional

Hotels/Restaurant

s/

Bio-degradable

(wet) &

Recyclable (dry)

Segregation

at source

day-to-day

collection

Storage in 2-

bins

1.

Private/NGOs

waste

collectors

2. Rag-pickers


GTEEPL

73

Other eateries Non-

biodegradable

(drain

silt/street

sweepings/oth

er inert matter)

Proper

collection

through

separate

system

Handover to

SWM worker

Waste

collectors or

private

operator

The waste collectors would have adequate infrastructure as per the proposed plan given

below.

TABLE 5.3: INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIRED

Equipment Description

Covered bins for households

(2)

20 litre capacity plastic

bins

Mini Auto Tippers ( with

separate compartments for

dry and wet waste)

2 cum or 3 cum

Personal Protective Equipment

Gloves, Boots, Uniforms,

sweaters, safety mask

For all SWM workers

. 5.2.2 SECONDARY COLLECTION & TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

It is proposed to have a system without

community bins, wherein the waste will

be directly transferred from the primary

collection vehicles to secondary vehicles

(refuse compactors) which will further

transfer the waste to the ISWM facility

on daily basis.

5.2.3 WASTE PROCESSING & TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

There are various technologies available for processing of waste in an environmentally

sound manner. Waste treatment techniques seek to transform the waste into a form that is

more manageable, reduce the volume or reduce the toxicity of the waste thus making the

waste easier to dispose of. Treatment methods are selected based on the composition,

quantity, and form of the waste material. There are various technologies available for

processing of waste in an environmentally sound manner. Table 1.1 shows various


GTEEPL

74

available technologies expressed in terms of the three major groups (thermal, biological &

physical).

Table 5.4: List of Identified MSW Processing Technologies

Waste Processing Technology Processes

Thermal Processing Technologies Incineration (Mass burn)

Pyrolysis

Plasma Arc Gasification

Biological Processing Technologies Aerobic Digestion (Composting)

Anaerobic Digestion (Biomethanation)

Physical Processing Technologies Refuse-Derived Fuel (RDF)

Densification / Palletisation

Incineration (Mass burn): It can be defined as a combustion process which uses an excess

of oxygen and/or air to burn the solid waste at high temperature (>700°C). It is the most

common thermal technology for waste processing with minimal pre-processing of waste at

the facility. Though, this method involves high cost of investment (~INR 16cr for

processing 100 tons of mixed MSW), it is very effective in significant volume reduction

(<10% ash production).

Gasification: It is a process that converts organic or fossil based carbonaceous materials

into carbon monoxide, hydrogen and carbon dioxide. This is achieved by reacting the

material at high temperatures (>700 °C), without combustion, with a controlled amount of

oxygen and/or steam. The resulting gas mixture is called syngas or producer gas and is

itself a fuel. The technology is still in its nascent stage as far as operational experience with

MSW is concerned.

Pyrolysis: Pyrolysis uses heat to break down combustible polymeric materials in the

absence of oxygen, producing a mixture of combustible gases (primarily methane, complex

hydrocarbons, hydrogen, and carbon monoxide), liquids and solid residues. The products

of pyrolysis process are: (i) a gas mixture; (ii) a liquid (bio-oil/tar); (iii) a solid residue

(carbon black). Relatively low temperatures (400-900°C, but usually about 650°C) are

employed compared to gasification. Similar to gasification, this technology is also yet to be

proven for the mixed municipal solid waste.

Plasma gasification: A high-temperature pyrolysis process whereby the organics of waste

solids (carbon-based materials) are converted to a synthesis gas while inorganic materials

and minerals produce a rock-like glassy by-product, called vitrified slag. The high

temperature of this process is created by an electric arc in a torch whereby a gas is

converted into plasma. The process containing a reactor with a plasma torch processing


GTEEPL

75

organics of waste solids (carbon-based materials) is called plasma arc gasification. The

reactor for such a process typically operates at 4000°C - 7000°C. The plasma pyrolysis

method can be used efficiently for municipal solid waste and plastic waste also. However,

this technology is extremely expensive and requires very high degree of sophistication and

process control and rarely used for mixed MSW.

Composting: It is a process of decomposition of organic matter known as organic

waste (leaves, food waste, paper etc.) in presence of microorganisms. It requires proper

measured inputs of water, air, and carbon- and nitrogen-rich materials. The decomposition

process is aided by shredding the plant matter, adding water and ensuring proper aeration

by regularly turning the mixture. In comparison to thermal treatment methods, this method

is less expensive but requires more land. Further, due to operational nuisance related to

composting, high volume of rejects generations (~30% of incoming waste) and lack of

market for sale of compost, this method is now not preferred for mixed MSW in India.

Anaerobic Composting (Biomethanation): Anaerobic digestion is the natural biological

process which stabilizes organic waste in absence of air and transforms it into bio-fertilizer

and biogas. Anaerobic digestion is a reliable technology for the treatment of wet, organic

waste.

RDF: The MSW is subjected to various physical processes that reduce the quantity of total

feedstock, increase its heating value, and provide a feedstock. It may be densified or

palletized into homogeneous fuel pellets and transported and combusted as a

supplementary fuel in utility boilers.

Decision about adapting a particular technology for processing of waste for a city is mainly

governed by the following criteria:

Technology Reliability: Reliable technologies that could be considered without

reservations for processing of waste generated in the city and which have been used

successfully in the past for similar kind of waste and is also in compliance with the

MSW handling and management rules, 2000.

Waste Suitability: Technologies that are suitable for the given waste characteristics

and composition that require value addition of the MSW chain for sustainability.

Economic Viability: Technologies which are affordable to the local municipality and

sustainable economically with respect to the scale of capital investment and

operational costs considering the prevailing local conditions.

Environment & social impacts: Technologies that have minimum environmental

and social impacts, and conforms to the regulatory requirements (MSW Rules, 2000)

A comparison matrix of various technologies being used worldwide for waste processing is

provided in Table 5.5.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_waste




GTEEPL

76

TABLE5.5: COMAPRISON MATRIX FOR VARIOUS WASTE PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

S

N

Technology Reliability Waste Suitability Economic and Commercial Viability

1 Composting Composting is a simple

technology and easy to

scale-up;

Small scale composting is

being successfully done in

many places in India;

No minimum quantity of

waste is required.

Mainly suitable for high organic

content waste (food waste), but

can be used for mixed MSW,

however the efficiency of the

process is reduced and large

volume of rejects are produced

Significantly large quantity of rejects

(~30%) for mixed waste, requiring

larger landfills;

Land requirement of about 1.5 ha for

100TPD of MSW

High cost of transportation of bulky

compost - more cost and expensive to

sell.

Difficult to sell the compost from waste

Capital investment: ~INR 8cr for

100TPD

2 Refuse Derived

Fuel (RDF)

Simple technology;

Large and medium scale

plants are in operation at

national and

international levels.

Highly dependent on the waste

composition, more suitable for

high calorific value waste;

Very high level of waste

segregation is required for the

successful operations.

Land requirement ~1.5 ha for 100TPD;

Limited market for utilization of RDF

(only cement industries, brick kilns)

and very high cost of transportation,

making it more expensive to sell;

Large quantity of rejects (~35%),

requiring bigger landfills

Capital investment: ~INR 10cr for


GTEEPL

77

S

N


100TPD

3 Anaerobic

Digestion

(Biomethanatio

n)

Large scale plants are

operational in Europe and a

number of technology

providers offer technology

support on commercial terms;

Small scale projects are also

operational in South Asia

and in some parts of India

Not suitable for mixed waste,

as it can be successfully used

for only pure organic waste or

requires very high level of pre-

processing for mixed waste.

Viability is dependent on the quantity

of bio gas produced and its local

demand;

Land requirement ~1.5 ha for 100TPD

as a high level of pre-processing

facility is also needed

Expensive technology (~INR 18 cr for

100TPD of waste)

4 Incineration Both large and small

plants are in operation

internationally.

Depending upon the moisture

content & calorific value, can

be used for mixed MSW, with

the requirement of auxiliary

fuel.

Requires strict process control

and significant air pollution

control measures

Land requirement is not very high

(<1ha for 100TPD);

High cost of investment and

operations(INR 20-25cr per 100 Tons

of waste) ;

Very effective in significant volume

reduction (<15% rejects).

5 Plasma

Gasification

The technology is rarely

used for MSW waste

plants, internationally;

Requires very high degree

Depending upon the moisture

content & calorific value, can

be used for mixed MSW, with

the requirement of auxiliary


(<1ha for 100TPD);



GTEEPL

78

S

N


of sophistication and

process control.

fuel.



control measures

reduction (<15% rejects);

Extremely high cost of investment

and operations.

7 Gasification and

Pyrolysis

Although the technology

is well proven with

woody biomass, there is

insufficient operational

experience with MSW.

Very high level of waste

segregation is required for the

successful operations, as it can

be used effectively only for a

feedstock with low moisture

content (<15%) and high

calorific value



control measures


(<1ha for 100TPD);

High cost of investment and

operations(INR 18cr per 100 Tons of

waste) ;


reduction (<15% rejects).

End product can be used for producing

power


GTEEPL

79

5.2.4 JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CHOICE OF TECHNOLOGY

Based on the physical and chemical analysis of the waste generated in Cluster V towns, it is

recommended to adopt windrow composting for processing of incoming waste from both

the municipalities of Koraput and Sunabeda. Also, the climatic condition at Sunabeda and

Koraput is favourable for composting. Further during the field assessment it was found that

the characteristic of the waste is very rural in nature and the only technology which could be

viable would be composting. As the volume of waste is also less than 100TPD, other

technologies especially incineration and bio-methanation will not be viable because of very

high capital investment and special needs in terms of waste segregation.

Comparatively, the composting technology is a well established technology in India for

smaller projects and it will also generate employment for the local people which will be

beneficial to both the municipalities. The O&M of composting is also reasonable in

comparison to other technology available in the country and abroad. It is further

recommended that for dry waste, RDF could be produced after recovery of recyclables.

Therefore, in this project the technology of composting for wet waste with the option of

useful material recovery from dry waste is the recommended option

Based on the population and the waste projections it is estimated that the total waste being

produced in the Cluster is 75 TPD. This would consist of 3 streams of waste; wet (41%), dry

(41%) and inerts (18%). Inerts would include the drain silt too. As proposed the wet stream

which is essentially biodegradable be converted to compost and the dry stream of

recyclables would be recovered in MRF. The composting process would produce around

15% biodegradable rejects that cannot be composted. The inerts would be landfilled. The

recyclables would be screened in the MRF to separate out paper, glass and metals. After this

the waste would be shredded and then processed further to produce RDF. The rejects from

the composting may be combined with this stream for shredding and processing to produce

RDF. Around 10% rejects would be produced in this process and would be included in the

inert stream. Total of 16.6 TPD (22%) of inerts would be produced which would be taken to

the landfill. Table 5.6 and Figure 5.2 present the material balance proposed for the regional

waste management facility for 15 years.

The concept to process waste through a combination of composting for wet waste (41%) and

RDF for dry waste (41% of the waste) technologies after recovery of recyclables (10%) of the

waste is in synchronization with the market demand and has revenue generation potential

from the sale of RDF and compost.

For the 15 years average waste quantity of 75 MT, it is expected to produce 9 MT of compost,

4.6 MT of recyclables, 9 MT of RDF from the waste.


GTEEPL

80

TABLE 5.6: WASTE LOG FOR CLUSTER V

Waste composition

Fractions by Wt.

(%)

Input Quantity

(TPD)

Rejects from

composting

Processing Capacity

(TPD)

Rejects (%)

Inerts for Landfilling

(TPD)

Organic matter

(biodegradable & green waste)

41 31 15% to be sent to

RDF plant

31 - -

Reusable/ recyclables

41 31 4.6 35.6 10% 3.6

Inert material Others

(including Drain Silt)

18 13 - - 100% 13.0

100 75 22% 16.6

FIGURE 5.2: PROPOSED MATERIAL BALANCE FOR REGIONAL SWM FACILITY OF CLUSTER V

Biological Processing

Aerobic Composting (Composting)

Composting is a natural micro-biological process where bacteria break down the organic

fractions of the MSW stream under controlled conditions to produce a pathogen-free

material called “Compost” that can be used for potting soil, soil amendments (for example,


GTEEPL

81

to lighten and improve the soil structure of clay soils), and mulch. The microbes, fungi, and

macro-organisms that contribute to this biological decomposition are generally aerobic. A

mixture of organic materials is placed into one or more piles (windrows), and the natural

microbial action will cause the pile to heat up to 65-80°C, killing most pathogens and weed

seeds. A properly designed compost heap will reach 70°C within 6 to10 days, and slowly

cool off back to ambient temperatures as the biological decomposition is completed.

Systematic turning of the material, which mixes the different components and aerates the

mixture, generally accelerates the process of breaking down the organic fraction, and a

proper carbon/nitrogen balance (carbon to nitrogen or C/N ratio of 20:1) in the feedstock

insures complete and rapid composting. The composting process takes from 17 to 180 days.

There are two fundamental types of composting techniques: open or windrow composting,

which is done out of doors with simple equipment and is a slower process, and enclosed

system composting, where the composting is performed in some enclosure (e.g., a tank, a

box, a container or a vessel).

Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF)

Refuse-derived fuel (RDF) is a fuel product or fuel supplement derived from processing

municipal solid waste. The combustible fraction of the waste is transformed into fuel

pellets by the compaction of waste or shredded and converted into fluff, enriched in its

organic content by the removal of inorganic materials and moisture. RDF fuels are more

homogeneous and easier to burn than the gross MSW feedstock.

Four basic processes are involved in the production of RDF: size reduction (waste is

reduced in size and broken up), separation(non-combustibles are separated), materials

recovery(the heavy fraction, ferrous metals, nonferrous metals and glass, can be further

separated by magnetic separation, screening, and air classification) and densification(for

storage for extended periods or transportation to an industrial user). The process

condenses the waste or changes its physical form and enriches its organic content

through removal of inorganic materials and moisture.

5.3 DISPOSAL OF THE REJECTS - SANITARY LANDFILLING

The final MSW rejects/inert waste shall be disposed in the sanitary landfill, to be developed

scientifically according the SWM Rule, 2000. With the assumption of 22% of incoming waste

to be landfilled, the total waste quantity to be landfilled in 15 years of time (2016-31) is

estimated to be around 86000 MT (Table 5.7) . Total area requirement for the landfill with

infratructure would be around 7 acre, which is adequate considering the size of existing site

to be 10 acre. The area requirement of 7 acre for SLF has been worked out based on the

assumption of 1.5 m depth below ground level and 20 m above ground with 1:3.5 side slope

and 10% daily liner and 10% for final cover and 10% for construction of bunds.


GTEEPL

82

TABLE 5.7: WASTE VOLUMES FOR SLF FOR 15 YEARS

Year Total waste quantity (TPD)

For landfilling, TPD @22%

Waste quantity for each cell of 5 years,

Tons

Waste volume @ 0.75T/cum

2016 55 12

2021 65 14 24186 32248

2026 77 17 28441 37921

2031 90 20 33450 44601

TOTAL 86078 114770

Consider 30% additional for daily soil cover, bund and final cover

The base of the landfill will follow the average slope of the landfill to minimize the earthwork and take advantage of the sloped topography for leachate collection and drainage. The landfill will be so planned that the average slope of the bottom of the landfill is same as that of average slope of the site. Average slope of the even portion of site varies from 2% to 5% based on the topography of the site A preliminary assessment of the site including location criteria for site selection for setting up waste processing and disposal facility has been carried out in Chapter 4. However, detailed assessment shall be carried out as part of Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) as per Guidelines developed for the Management of Municipal Solid Waste by the Ministry of Urban Development, Govt. of India. Based on the EIA assessment, necessary statutory approvals shall be obtained.

5.3.1 LINER SYSTEM

Several precautionary measures must be taken in order to ensure environmentally safe landfill disposal of municipal solid waste. To minimize the potential impacts on the ground water, surface water, percolation of the leachate into the ground water must be avoided. Therefore it is imperative to have a proper sealing system for the landfill facility. As per the guidelines on Engineered Sanitary Landfill Facility, an acceptable physical separation should exist between the proposed waste body and the wet season high elevation of the ground water. This applies whether the cover excavation takes place on site or not. The minimum permissible separation is 2 meter. However here in the proposed site area where the maximum ground Water table is at least 2.0 m below the Ground level, the proposed separation is just adequate as per the national regulation. A schematic diagram showing the bearing surface, Ground Water table and the Sealing system is given below in Figure given below.


GTEEPL

83

Bearing Surface

5.3.2 BOTTOM LINER SYSTEM

Minerallic Liner The lining system is additional to the separation or unsaturated zone comprising soil or rock between the wet season high elevation of the ground water and the Landfill. This liner consists of native clayey soil/amended soil/ad-mixture soil. The permeability of the soil /

amended soil should be less than or equal to 110-7 cm/sec. The thickness of the clay liner should be at least 0.9 m. A cross section of the bottom liner system is given below in figure.

5.3.3. SIDE SOIL BUND

Side soil bund has to be constructed for resisting the sliding of the waste along the slopes. The height of the soil bund has been restricted to 6 m.

Waste

GW Table

Sealing System

Surface

Geological

Barrier

Leachate Collection

& Removal

System

Bottom Liner System

Compacted Clay of Permeability < 10

-7 cm/sec: 90 cm

HDPE 1.5 mm

Drainage Layer of

permeability

< 10-2

cm/sec: 20 cm

Waste Body

Geo Textile of 300 gsm for

protection of HDPE


GTEEPL

84

5.3.4. SLOPE STABILITY ASPECTS

The stability of the slopes has been checked for the following cases:

Stability of the above ground portion of the completed landfill (Slope 1:3)

Stability of the liner system along the embankment As liner will be laid along the slope which is a natural profile of the site, the stability is ensured (Considering the site factors).

5.3.5 LEACHATE DRAINAGE, COLLECTION & REMOVAL

Leachate Collection The primary function of the leachate collection system is to collect and convey the leachate out of the landfill unit and to control the depth of the leachate on the liner. As per USEPA manual, the leachate collection system should be designed to maintain the leachate a maximum head of 30 cm. The design of leachate head is very important as flow of leachate through imperfections in the liner system increases with an increase in leachate head on the liner. Maintaining a low leachate level on the liner helps to improve performance of the composite liner system. In order to collect and convey the leachate generated to the collection sump, a Leachate collection System has been designed. It comprises of the following:

Drainage Layer

A perforated Pipe Collector System

Sump Collection Area

Removal of the leachate

The leachate drainage is usually achieved using graded under-liner and drains which lead to a collection system or a sump. The technical details of the leachate drainage are as under:

Thickness of the Drainage Layer: 30 cm

Material: Granulated Material/Sand

Permeability: 0.01 cm/sec The generated leachate will be collected in the channel due to bottom transverse slope of the site and conveyed to the sump via collector pipe due to the longitudinal slope of 1% (max) by gravity. A schematic diagram of the leachate collection is given below in figure.


GTEEPL

85

Leachate Collection Sump A leachate collection sump has to be designed to collect the leachate from the facility and transfer the same to the ETP. The purpose of leachate collection sump is to collect the leachate from the header pipes and active landfill area. The leachate collection sump would be supported by pumps. Leachate Pipe Leachate Pipe design covers two factors, viz., the length and diameter of the pipe.

5.3.7 LEACHATE MANAGEMENT

The leachate that will be collected from the landfill facility contains lots of pollutants and

hence required to be transported safely to a treatment facility for the treatment. As the

quality of the leachate that will be generated from the operation of the landfill facility will be

similar to that of the domestic effluent, the same could be treated in the facility. This is more

justified considering the fact that the quantum of generation of the leachate is very less

compared to the treatment capacity of the Treatment Plant. In the rainy season when the

generation of the leachate is very high and the treatment plant also looks inadequate, the

leachate could be stored in a Holding tank. It is recommended that any drain whether open

or covered, that is used to transfer the leachate from the leachate collection system to the

leachate pond or to the treatment plant must be properly lined. This should be by means of a

properly laid 1.5 mm thick geo membrane liner with joints welded to the same specification.

5.3.8 SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE SYSTEM

The surface water drainage system is designed for two purposes:

Runoff from the surrounding areas does not drain into the active filling area.

There is no water logging/pounding over the final cover of the landfill facility. CASE-I Storm water drain is very essential component of landfill facility. The first and important factor for a landfill is to prevent the entry of water streams into the landfill facilities, thus reducing the generation of leachate from the waste body, which ultimately reduces the

HDPE: 30 cm

3% incline (say)

Drainage Carpet


GTEEPL

86

migration of pollutants from landfill facility. The drainage along the sides of the active filling area is intercepted and channelled to water courses without entering the operational area. For the existing site, the storm water drainage has to be constructed near the berm of rectangular shape. CASE-II After the final cover is laid on the landfill facility, it has to be ensured that the topography allows the smooth drainage of the precipitation / rainfall and no poundings take place thereby enhancing the leachate problem. A typical schematic diagram of the slope of the final cover is given.

5.4 CONSTRUCTION OF ISWM FACILITY

The Integrated Processing and Scientific Landfill Facility shall conform to the minimum design requirements set out in MSW Rules, 2000. The overall design parameters shall include the following components at the facility. 1. Weighbridge 2. Conditioning platform 3. Windrow platforms 4. Storm water drainage system that is independent from the leachate system, to ensure

that the run-off, rain water from the hinterland does not enter the Municipal Solid Waste storage and processing area and there is no stagnation of rain water in the Site.

5. Leachate collection and removal system (LCRS) 6. Leachate recirculation and treatment facility that shall be designed to meet the peak

leachate flow from the facility. 7. Water Supply System adequate to meet the requirements for Processing of Municipal

Solid Waste, drinking and washing purposes in accordance with Good Industry Practice. 8. State of the art laboratory for regular and ongoing monitoring of operations and quality

of input (MSW) and output materials (compost, RDF and other recyclables). 9. Worker amenities in accordance with Good Industry Practice. 10. Internal Roads 11. Lighting and other electrical works (DG, Control Panels, etc.) 12. Landscaping and green belt In addition to the above, the landfill facility shall have the following additional features: 1. Liner system as per CPCB standards.

3% Slope

Final

Cover

Storm

Water

Basin

Waste


GTEEPL

87

2. Good access roads for two way vehicular movement within the Secured Engineered Sanitary Landfill.

3. Minimum 8 m top width of Landfill bund all around for easy disposal of Inerts to landfill cell.

4. An integrated gas recovery system shall be provided at the landfill facility for ventilation and to capture gases from landfill.

Note: The information furnished above is indicative only and can be altered / amended at the stage of design and detailed engineering of the project.

5.5. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

Global Tech Enviro Experts Pvt Ltd will make detailed O&M plans taking in to consideration the various components that will have to be operated and maintained at the plant. 1. GTEEPL shall endeavour to ensure

a. That the waste processing facility and sanitary landfill are maintained to the standards and specifications as set out in the O&M requirements.

b. the safety of personnel deployed on and users of the Waste Processing Facilities or part thereof

c. adverse effects on the environment and to the owners and occupiers of property and/or land in the vicinity of the Waste Processing Facility and sanitary landfill, due to any of its actions, is minimized

d. any situation which has arisen or likely to arise on account of any accident or other emergency is responded to as quickly as possible and its adverse effects controlled/minimized

e. The personnel assigned by GTEEPL shall have the requisite qualifications and experience and are given the training necessary to enable meeting the O&M requirements

f. Data relating to the operation and maintenance of the waste processing facilities is collected, recorded and available for inspection by respective agencies

2. The following minimum data would be recorded at the MSW receipt point:

(a) Date of operation (b) Registration number of the truck supplying Municipal Solid Waste/ Lorry

number (c) Total weight of the truck (d) Time of entry of the truck (e) Zone/circle/ward from which Municipal Solid Waste has been collected (f) Empty weight of the truck (g) Net weight of Municipal Solid Waste (h) Time of exit of the truck

3. Production of Compost

Global Expert would adopt any such process and/or methods as it considers necessary for the processing of Municipal Solid Waste in order to ensure that the compost


GTEEPL

88

produced after such product is certified for its conformity to compost quality specified under MSW Rules, 2000.

4. Production of RDF Global Expert would adopt any such process and/or methods as it considers necessary for conversion of MSW into RDF in order to ensure that the RDF produced after such conversion being fit for use as fuel. The RDF so produced may be either sold as such or shall be used as fuel for steam generation along with supporting fuel in compliance with applicable guidelines of MNES, GOI for generation of renewable energy without use of fossil fuel of any kind.

5. During the Operations Period and until the handover of the Waste Processing Facilities,

Global Expert shall, duly document the O&M plan and/or O&M Manual, covering the various operational aspects which could be exhaustive but including the following:

Green Belt

Fencing

Quality Control Laboratory

Internal Roads

Lighting and other electrical works

Weigh Bridge

Waste Receipt

Waste Inspection

Waste Weighing

Waste Acceptance Criteria

Waste Unloading

MSW Processing Machinery (for Compost plant/RDF plant and or power plant)

Window platform

Storm Water Drainage System

Leachate Collection

Water Supply System 6. Routine Maintenance Standards

In order to ensure smooth and uninterrupted operations, routine maintenance of the project facilities shall include the following:

a. Prompt repairs of the weigh-bridge, windrow platforms, leachate collection drainage and treatment system, electrical items, drains, internal roads, sieving machinery, lighting and fencing;

b. Repair of equipment/consumables, horticultural maintenance and repairs to equipment, structures and other civil works which are part of the Project Facilities;

c. Keeping the Project Facilities in a clean, tidy and orderly condition and taking all practical measures to prevent damage to the Project Facilities or any other properly on or near the Site;

d. Taking all reasonable measures for the safety of all the workmen, material, supplies and equipment brought to the site.


GTEEPL

89

7. The following standards in order of preference shall be adopted for O&M, unless otherwise specified:

a. MSW Rules, 2000 b. Manual on Municipal Solid Waste Management published by CPHEEO c. Any other standards specified by statute and Applicable Laws d. Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) e. Any other standard acceptable international / national guidelines

8. The Emergency Response Protocol (“ERP”) shall be developed by Global Expert in line

with Factories Act, which shall be a part of the O&M Manual. 9. Sufficient staff, plant, equipment and materials, including medical assistance shall be

ensured to respond to Emergency within reasonable period at all times during the Operations Period

10. Landfill Operation

a. On each day during the Operation Period, the residual inert waste shall be compacted and covered (“Daily Cell Cover”) in the manner as specified in MSW Rules, 2000

b. Global Expert shall maintain a leachate collection and removal system to ensure that there is no run-on / run-off to and from the facility

c. based on the level of segregation achieved and characteristics of waste disposed off into landfill, the requirement of gas recovery / venting system may be designed

d. Global Expert may also consider the requirements for getting CDM benefits, while planning for the above

11. Sampling and Testing

The Residual inert matter shall be sampled and tested in the manner as set out in the O&M requirements

12. Environment Monitoring System Environmental Monitoring shall be carried out as stipulated in the MSW Rules, 2000, Manual on MSW Management prepared by MoUD and other applicable regulations. The monitoring schedule, parameters and locations shall be detailed in the O&M manual.

The instruments / equipment required for carrying out the environmental monitoring tests as per above requirements shall be provided. Global Expert shall deploy qualified personnel with hands on experience in Environment lab to monitor and test the required parameters

13. Sale / distribution of Compost/other products from recycling Global Expert has tie-ups with various organisations for purchase and distribution of Compost and other products. This is expected to provide better leverage for Global Expert to operate the plant with simultaneous lifting of the by-products and ensuring optimum utilisation of the existing processing facilities/capacities.

Note: The information furnished above is indicative only and can be altered / amended at the stage of design and detailed engineering of the project.


GTEEPL

90

5.6 AREA REQUIREMENT FOR THE REGIONAL SWM FACILITY

Based on the material balance of the estimated quantity of generated waste in Cluster V

during the project life of 15 years, starting from 2016, the capacity and area requirements for

the development of regional waste processing facility and SLF are provided in Tables 5.8-

5.10. Around 1.2 ha (3 acre) would be adequate for development of waste processing facility

and in the remaining area sanitary landfill (SLF) with the ancillary facilities for 15 years can

be developed. It may be noted that the SLF is to be developed in three phases with each

phase comprising of one SLF cell adequate for five years.

TABLE 5.8: AREA REQUIREMENT FOR THE REGIONAL WASTE PROCESSING FACILITY AND SLF

S.No Component Capacity (TPD) Area required (Ha)

1 Waste Processing facility

(MRF + Composting facility)

36 TPD (MRF), 31

TPD (Composting

facility)

1.2 Ha (3 acre)

2 Sanitary Landfill (SLF)

(landfill cells + infrastructure)

16.6 TPD 2.8 Ha (7 acre)

Total 4.0 ha (10acre)

TABLE 5.9: AREA DETAILS FOR LANDFILL

S.No. Component Area

(sqm)

1. Landfill cells (waste accumulated area i/c bund area) – 3 cells of 5 years

life, each

21600

2. Service Area 3600

a Area Under Internal Road (5m wide peripheral road) 2950

B Area Under Office Building and Lab 200

C Area Under Weighbridge 100

D Area Under Top Soil storage area 50

E Area for Vehicle Parking and Work Shop 200

F Area Under Main Leachate Collection Sump 100

3 Area Requirement under Buffer Zone, 4m wide peripheral 2800

TOTAL 28000

TABLE 5.10 AREA DETAILS FOR WASTE PROCESSING FACILITY

S.No. Description Unit Area (sqm)


GTEEPL

91

1 Material Recovery Facility Area

a Tipping Area Sqm 250

b P&M area for waste shredding & drying sqm 1450

c Storage for recyclables & fluff Sqm 400

2 Composting Area

a Compost Pad 2500

b Stabilization unit 700

c Compost Processing Area

d Compost Storage area 190

e Refinement section 200

f Curing section 216

g Coarse segregation 110

h Reject from TR-2 20

i Reject from TR-3 20

j Packing and Storage 116

3 Plantation and open Space Sqm 2800

4 Mechanical cum Generator Building Sqm 69

5 Workshop 200

6 Public Toilet Sqm 60.5

7 Parking sqm 300

8 Road (sqm) 2400

TOTAL 12001.5

5.7 SOLUTION TO THE MIXED BIO-MEDICAL WASTE PRESENT IN CLUSTER – V

It was observed that Bio-Medical waste is getting mixed with the municipal solid waste in

both the municipalities of Koraput and Sunabeda (Cluster – V). This is due to non-

availability of Common Bio-Medical Waste Disposal Facility in these areas. The Bio-medical

waste is hazardous and toxic waste in nature and it is to be handled separately by these

municipalities. Even all the functioning hospitals, Clinics, pathological laboratory whether

Government owned or privately owned should have pre-treatment systems available within

there premises. The Bio- medical waste Management system comes under different rules

namely - Bio-Medical Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 1998 and amendments

thereof. These rules may be called the Bio-Medical Waste(Management and Handling)

Rules, 2015 whose draft is already in place and expected to be published very soon in the

official gazette.

A Common Bio-medical Waste Treatment Facility (CBWTF) is a set up where biomedical

waste, generated from a number of healthcare units, is imparted necessary treatment to

reduce adverse effects that this waste may pose. The treated waste may finally be sent for


GTEEPL

92

disposal in a landfill or for recycling purposes. Installation of individual treatment facilities

by small healthcare units requires comparatively high capital investment. In addition, it

requires separate manpower and infrastructure development for proper operation and

maintenance of treatment systems. The concept of CBWTF not only addresses such

problems but also prevents proliferation of treatment equipment in a city. In turn it reduces

the monitoring pressure on regulatory agencies. By running the treatment equipment at

CBWTF to its full capacity, the cost of treatment of per kilogram gets significantly reduced.

Its considerable advantages have made CBWTF popular and proven concept in many

developed countries.

The common bio-medical treatment facilities are also required to set up based on the need

for ensuring environmentally sound management of bio-medical waste keeping in view the

techno-economic feasibility and viable operation of the facility with minimal impacts on

human health and environment.

CBWTF as an option has also been legally introduced in India. The Bio-medical Waste

(Management & Handling) Rules, 1998, gives an option to the Bio-medical Waste generator

that such waste can also be treated at the common bio-medical waste treatment facility. The

Second Amendment of the Rules in June, 2000, further eased the bottleneck in upbringing

the CBWTF by making Local Authority responsible for providing suitable site within its

jurisdiction.

The concept of CBWTF is also being widely accepted in India among the healthcare units,

medical associations and entrepreneurs. In order to set up a CBWTF to its maximum

perfection, care shall be taken in choosing the right technology, development of CBWTF

area, proper designing of transportation system to achieve optimum results etc. These key

features of CBWTF have been addressed in the following sections and will form the

guidelines for the establishment of CBWTFs throughout the country.

In view of the above, it is further suggested to have a separate facility to dispose the Bio-

Medical waste in both the municipalities of Cluster – V.

5.8 SUITABLE SAFEGUARD & POLLUTION CONTROL MEASURES

Further to provide the environmental suitability of the recommended waste treatment and

disposal options, suitable environmental management and monitoring plan will be

prepared.

Mitigitive measures for the management of leachate, landfill gas emissions and storm water

management will be recommended.


GTEEPL

93

CHAPTER -VI

ENVIRONMENTAL & SOCIAL IMPACTS

6.1 ENVIRONMENT & SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

If the waste generated is indiscriminately dumped in the low lying areas or river side, it

creates environmental pollution and health and hygiene impacts. Air, land and water

pollution are caused by the release of contaminants from the waste. If the waste is properly

handled, managed and disposed of then the environmental impacts and the health hazards

could be avoided. Maximum damage occurs by improper disposal.

The whole project of solid waste management is proposed to be developed with the focus on

reducing the environmental degradation. However, while developing the project, its

environmental and social impacts of the project need to be assessed. The choice of

processing technologies which have the least impact on the environment and are sustainable

in the future is critical. A properly sited and designed landfill minimises the adverse impacts

on the environment.

Mixing of hazardous industrial waste and the bio medical waste in the municipal wastes

increases the health and environmental hazards. This again emphasises the need for proper

segregation and disposal of waste. Also, the waste must be treated well to minimise the

effects of the waste on the environment.

The environment impact assessment shall be carried out and suggestions shall be made for

obtaining approvals, clearances and no objection certificates for the proposed SWM facility.

An environment & social management plan is being prepared to address all the adverse

environmental & social impacts of the proposed facility. This would also include the health

and safety issues. The impact analysis would engage all the stakeholders.

A formal environmental monitoring plan would be part of ESIA report to include

monitoring schedule of relevant environmental parameters with the frequency of

measurement and the corresponding values.

6.2 REGULATION IN SWM

6.2.1 SWM RULE 2000 & DRAFT SWM RULE 2015

Solid waste management rules apply to every urban local body, all statutory towns,

outgrowths in urban agglomerations as declared by the registrar general & census

commissioner of India, notified areas/notified industrial townships, notified area

committees, area under Indian railways, defence cantonments, special economic zones in the

country and every waste generator.


GTEEPL

94

Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change has been responsible for developing

the regulatory framework for SWM. After the SWM Rule of 2000, modifications have been

made subsequently in 2015. The implications of the Rules are:

Key duties of waste generators

Segregate, store and handover separately the waste generated by them in three

separate streams namely bio-degradable or wet waste, non-bio-degradable or dry

waste and domestic hazardous wastes.

No waste generator shall throw the waste generated by him on the street, open

spaces, drain or water bodies

Pay such user fee or charge or fines as may be specified in the bye-laws of the urban

local bodies

Key Duties of Commissioner or Director of Municipal Administration or Director of Local

Bodies

Ensure implementation of MSW rules by all urban local bodies falling under his/her

control

Undertake training and capacity building of urban local bodies for management of

solid waste

Facilitate establishment of common regional sanitary land fill for a group of cities and towns

falling within a radial distance of fifty kilometres or more from the regional facility on a cost

sharing basis and ensure professional management of such sanitary landfills

Key Duties of District Magistrate or District Collector or Deputy Commissioner

Facilitate identification and allocation of suitable land for setting up solid waste

processing and disposal facilities

Extend support to Secretary-in-charge of State Urban Development in

implementation of these rules by all urban local bodies

Review the performance of urban local bodies, at least once in a quarter and take

corrective measures

Key Duties and Responsibilities of Urban Local Bodies:

Prepare a solid waste management plan as per State Policy And Strategy on Solid

Waste Management within six months from the date of notification of state policy

Frame bye-laws, incorporating the provisions of these rules and ensure timely

implementation.

Prescribe and collect user fee from waste generators.

Develop infrastructure for segregation, collection, transportation, storage, processing

and disposal of solid waste in their respective jurisdiction either at its own or

through public private partnership mode.


GTEEPL

95

Provide easy access to waste pickers and recyclers for collection of segregated

recyclable waste.

Facilitate construction, operation and maintenance of solid waste processing facilities

and associated infrastructure in house or with private sector participation using best

suited technologies.

Undertake in house or through any other authorised agency, construction, operation

and maintenance of Sanitary landfill

Make adequate provision of funds for capital investments as well as operation and

maintenance of solid waste management services in the annual budget

Close down, remediate wherever feasible and cap the existing dumpsites, which are

not engineered landfill sites as per the provision of these Rules

Prepare and submit annual report on the status of compliance of these rules during

the calendar year on or before the 30th April of the succeeding year to the

Commissioner or Director Municipal Administration

Create public awareness through Information, Education and Communication (IEC)

campaign

Key duties of the operator of solid waste processing and treatment facilities:

Identification and notification of land for setting up the solid waste processing and

treatment facilities shall be the responsibility of the ULB. However the criteria for setting up

of solid waste processing and treatment facilities and key responsibilities of the operator are:

Design and set up the facility as per the technical guidelines issued by the Central

Pollution Control Board in this regard from time to time and the manual of Central

Public Health and Environmental Engineering Organisation, New Delhi

Obtain the approval from the State Pollution Control Board or Pollution Control

Committee

Ensure safe and environmentally sound operations of the solid waste processing and

treatment facility and its closure and post closure phase as per the guidelines issued

by Central Pollution Control Board from time to time and the Manual of Central

Public Health and Environmental Engineering Organisation, New Delhi.

Submit annual report in the prescribed form

The State Pollution Control Board or Pollution Control Committee shall monitor the setting

and operation of the solid waste processing and treatment Facility.

Compliance criteria for SWM

The urban local body shall adhere to the following compliance criteria in the matter of solid

waste segregation at source, primary collection, cleaning of streets and surface drains,

secondary storage, transportation, processing and the disposal of solid waste at the facilities


GTEEPL

96

to be set up by the urban local body on their own or through an agency or an operator of a

facility.

6.2.2 OTHER RELEVANT REGULATION

Broad rules which would also be considered:

Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986 and notification there under:

The Environment Impact Assessment Notification 1994 & 1997& 2006

The Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000

The Municipal Solid Waste (Management & Handling Rules

Hazardous waste (Management and Handling) Rules 1989

The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972

The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974

The Maharashtra Water (Prevention and control of pollution) Rules, 1978

The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980

The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981

The Maharashtra Air (Prevention and control of pollution) Rules, 1983

Seeking Authorization from OSPCB under applicable MSW (M&H) Rules

Develop ToR and approve from SEIAA, Appointment of Consultant, Conduct of EIA and

ensure Environmental Clearance from SEIAA

Consent to Establish and Operate under the Air and Water Acts, and subsequent renewals

from MPPCB

Implementation of the requirements as per applicable MSW (M&H) Rules during the

Construction and Operational Phases

6.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF MSW

The probable impacts when solid waste is disposed off on land in open dumps or in

improperly designed landfills (e.g. in low lying areas), it causes the following impact on the

environment.

Ground water contamination by the leachate generated by the waste dump.


GTEEPL

97

Surface water contamination by the run-off from the waste dump.

Bad odour, pests, rodents and wind-blown litter in and around the waste dump.

Generation of inflammable gas (e.g. methane) within the waste dump.

Bird menace above the waste dump which affects flight of aircraft.

Fires within the waste dump.

Erosion and stability problems relating to slopes of the waste dump.

Epidemics through stray animals.

Acidity to surrounding soil and

Release of green house gas.

An EIA study would have to be conducted and the approval would have to be obtained

from the Orissa State Pollution Control Board.

6.4 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

An environment management plan is proposed to address all the adverse environmental

impacts of the proposed facility. This would also include the social and health and safety

issues. It would also include the parameters to be monitoring with the frequency of

measurement and the corresponding values. Regular testing of these parameters would be

done from an approved and a reliable testing laboratory. Basic testing facilities would be

made available at the site. Table below shows the essential parameters to be measured:

TABLE 5.1 OVERALL MONITORING PROGRAMME

Component Project Stage Parameters Location Frequency

Air Quality

Construction RSPM, PM 2.5,

SO2, NOX,

3 locations with

minimum 1 locations

in

Up wind side, more

sites

in downwind side /

impact zone on land

only

Twice a week

24 hr/day for 2

consecutive days

Operations RSPM, PM 2.5,

SO2, NOX, CO,

HC, H2S, NH3

Minimum 6

locations in each field

with one on upwind

side,

two on downwind

and

One on lateral side.

Twice a week

2 consecutive

Working days in a week.

RSPM, PM2.5, SO2 & NOx-

24 hrs CO-24 hrs/

8 hrs HC-Auto Monitors

VOC Storage

sections

Once a week

As per standard

protocols of

CPCB


GTEEPL

98

Source

emissions

Construction VOC DG sets, heavy

Earth equipment

Once in a

month

As per standard

protocols of CPCB

Operations Particulates,

SO2, NOX, CO,

HC

stack Once in a month

As per the

recommendations

of SPCB

Noise level

Construction Leq day, Leq

night, dB(A)

2 to 4 locations

representing

different

receptors/land use

Once every season-

Summer,

Winter, Post monsoon

during

construction

period, 24 hour reading

with a frequency of 10

minutes every hour for 2

non-consecutive days per

week for

2 weeks per season

Operations Leq day, Leq

night, L10,L50,

L90 dB(A)

5-7 locations in and

around the plant

processing

including work

zone conc.

Once every season-

Summer, winter, Post

monsoon

24 hour reading

with a frequency

of 10 minutes per

hour for 2 non

consecutive

days per week for 2 weeks

per season

Water

quality

Construction/

Operations

Physicochemical

parameters,

Nutrients and

Organic

parameters,

heavy metals

3-4 locations in

and around the

plant

Once every season –

Summer, Winter, Post

monsoon. One grab

sample from each

groundwater

source

Waste water

quality

Construction/

Operations

Physicochemical

parameters,

Nutrients and

Organic

parameters,

heavy metals

Inlet and outlet of

each

STP units

Once in 15 days

Composite flow weighted

sampling


GTEEPL

99

Soil quality

Construction/

Operations

Particle size

distribution,

Texture, pH,

Electrical

conductivity,

CEC, Alkalinity

metals, Water

holding

capacity,

porosity

At all stockyard

locations,

construction

machinery parking /

maintenance/landfill

locations

At the start and end of

Construction activity at

the relevant

Location. Sample every

season till

construction phase is

complete

Ecology

Pre

construction

Monitoring of

tree felling

At all locations where

tree is felled

During tree

felling

Operation Survival rate of

plantation

At locations of

compensatory

plantation and

landscaping

Annually, For 3 years after

operation starts

Traffic

volumes

Construction Road Traffic

volume,

characteristics

and speed

At all artery roads

leading to

construction site

1 day hourly

Counts. Thrice in a year

marking peak,

medium and low

construction

activity at the site

The standards followed to maintain this plan would be strictly from the CPCB, NAAQs,

SPCB and USEPA. The monitoring would be done based on the limits stated in these

standards. Internal protocols would be made for health and safety which will be over and

above the applicable standards.

Although all the activities of the project life cycle would be examined for the associated EHS

causes and impacts, the following activities of the proposed project would be carefully

examined:

Loading and unloading of wastes in the vehicles at the collection points and disposal

sites

Sorting of recyclable material

Design and operation of the operating facility

Design and operation of the landfill site

Compaction and coverage of solid wastes at the landfill site (to prevent escape of

methane gas at the landfill site)

Breeding of flies, mosquitoes, cockroaches, rodents, pigs, stray dogs

Odour and aesthetics at the waste processing facility

Leachate collection system at the landfill site

Health of the workers working at the transfer stations and the processing facility


GTEEPL

100

CHAPTER -VII

PROJECT COST & IMPLEMENTATION MECHANISM

7.1 ULB FINANCIAL STATUS OF CLUSTER V TOWNS

Similar to other ULBs of India, both the ULBs of the Cluster V are responsible for civic

infrastructure and administration of their respective towns of Sunabeda and Koraput.

Financial assessment of both ULBs has been presented in this section to understand the

income and expenditure pattern over last 3 years. For Koraput the balance sheet of last 3

years ( 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15) has been used as a basis whereas in case of Sunabeda,

the financials have been made available only upto 2013-14. The financial account of

Sunabeda NAC is not available for subsequent periods as they are under audit.

The income & expenditure patterns of both ULBs have been assessed to identify issues with

respect to the potential areas of improvement in the revenues. The assessment shall also

form basis to understand the prospects of both ULBs of the cluster for mobilising resources

from financial institutions, if need be.

7.2 FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT OF SUNABEDA NAC

Table 7.1 presents a comparison of revenue receipts of Sunabeda NAC from own sources

(including revenue grants from the State Government) and revenue expenditure over a

period of past three years. It is noted that Sunabeda NAC has been recording a surplus in

each of these 3 years. The surplus has been gradually increasing due to increase in revenue

over the time, especially from grant.

TABLE 7.1: TOTAL EXPENDITURE OF SUNABEDA NAC (IN RS. LAKH)

Time Line 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

Revenue 1066.8 1494.2 1399.4

Expenditure 1057.1 705.0 1235.5

Surplus/deficit 9.7 789.2 163.9

Details of annual receipts of Sunabeda NAC and expenditures of Sunabeda over a period of

3 years (2011-12 to 2013-14) is depicted in Table 7.2 - 7.4 below.

TABLE 7.2: TOTAL RECEIPTS OF SUNABEDA NAC (IN RS. LAKH)

Time Line 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

Sources of Funds

1 Capital Receipts


GTEEPL

101

Govt Grants 745.89 1000.53 1009.56

Loans & Debts 43.04 50.50 26.35

Capital Receipts 788.93 1051.04 1035.90

2 Revenue Receipts

277.87 443.14 363.50

Revenues Receipts 277.87 443.14 363.50

(1+2) Total Receipts 1066.80 1494.18 1399.40

Source: SUNABEDA NAC’s Annual Financial Statements and Budget documents

While SUNABEDA NAC‟s own revenues have overall increased over the 3 years by 31%, it‟s

main contribution of receipt is from govt. grants that has increased by 35.3% over the time

period of 3 years, whereas loan is reduced by 39%. Its own revenue receipts have increased

at a reasonable rate by 30.8% over the time period of 3 years.

TABLE 7.3: BREAK-UP OF REVENUES (IN RS. LAKH)

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

A Tax Income 19.0 24.5 28.0

B License & Other Fees 4.2 4.9 7.3

C Receipt under special act 0.3 0.0 0.0

D Income from Municipal Properties

28.4 27.1 31.7

E Other Income 226.1 386.7 296.5

F Debts and Loans 43.0 50.5 26.3

G Grants 745.9 1000.5 1009.6

H Total Receipts 1066.8 1494.2 1399.4

I Opening Balance 683.4 693.0 992.3

J Closing Balance 1750.2 2187.2 2391.7

The annual expenditure of Sunabeda NAC under the two major heads defined above over

the last 3 years (2011-2014) is shown in Table 7.4. Revenue expenditure accounts majorly in

public works contributing to about 50% of the expenditure. As observed, the expenditure on

public health and conservancy has been very less amounting to between 6-12% of total

expenses.

TABLE 7.4: TOTAL EXPENDITURE OF SUNABEDA NAC (IN RS. LAKH)

1 Revenue Expenses 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

A Office Establishment

39.8 116.9 135.3

B Collection Establishment.

39.7 4.5 3.0


GTEEPL

102

C Public Safety 68.0 85.9 131.0

D Public Health 71.8 87.9 80.0

E Public Conservancy

10.0 0.0 0.0

G Public Instruction 21.4 36.5 10.3

H Miscellaneous 185.8 204.0 251.4

Revenue Expenses 436.5 535.7 611.1

2 Capital Expenses

F Public Works 562.4 121.6 585.6

I Extra Ordinary Debt

58.2 47.6 38.9

Capital Expenses 620.6 169.2 624.5

1+2 Overall Expenses 1057.1 705.0 1235.5

7.3 FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT OF KORAPUT NAC

According to the balance sheets of the Koraput NAC of last three years ( 2012-15), the ULB

as more expenditure than income and its deficit has increased over the time from Rs105.88

lakh (2012-13) to Rs 267.54 lakh in 2014-15. The expenditure of Koraput NAC on solid waste

management services is not clear from the balance sheet, as provided in Annexure 3 of the

report. However, it is clear from the list of items under liability and asset heads that Koraput

NAC has not spent any money in recent times on building any infrastructure related to solid

waste management.

TABLE 7.5: TOTAL RECEIPTS OF KORAPUT NAC (IN RS. LAKH)

2014-15 2013-14 2012-13

Total liability 2673.92 2614.54 2145.32

Municipal fund 1104.30 1104.30 1104.30

Capital contribution 880.96 707.25 406.06

Excess of income over expenditure

-267.54 -123.72 -105.88

Source: KoraputA NAC’s Annual Financial Statements

7.4 KEY FINANCIAL ASPECTS AND ISSUES

Based on a the assessment of the financial performance of Sunabeda & Koraput NAC, key

aspects and issues are summarised as follows.

On one hand, Sunabeda NAC‟s revenue receipts are consistently in excess of revenue

expenditure whereas in case of Koraput, there has been the case of deficit throughout.

However, it is important to note that the surplus in case of Sunabeda is primarily on


GTEEPL

103

account of revenue grants received from the state government

The operating ratio, the ratio of total expenditures (TE) to total revenues (TR) is 0.88

for Sunabeda NAC, which shows that the Sunabeda municipality can cover its

expenses within revenues generated. Whereas, The operating ratio, of Koraput NAC

is greater than 1, as the municipality is running through deficit for the last three years.

This value shows that the Koraput municipality is unable to cover its expenses within

the generated revenues.

The accepted Debt Service Coverage Ratio (DSCR) for non-commercial organizations

is 1.25 in India. It may be noted that Sunabeda municipality does not have any loan

liability (The amount shown against loan and debt is advances received by the

municipality for carrying out some of its project activities). Hence, its Debt service

coverage ratio (DSCR) may be considered as greater than 1.25.

SUNABEDA NAC‟s balance sheet is just fair with own funds of Rs. 1.6 crores with

insgnificant borrowings, indicating the possibility of raising debt in future for

funding various programs. Assuming the funding pattern of 70% Debt & 30% equity

with 10% rate of interest, 20 years tenor of loan with 5 years principal moratorium,

the Sunabeda municipality can make an investment of around Rs.23.4 crin the

FY2016-17. In the other scenario, of 40% grant and 60% loan with other conditions

remaining the same the investment capacity of Sunabeda municipality increases to

Rs27.3 cr.

However, Koraput with its deficit seems to be poorly placed for raising any kind of

further debt. Further, due to deficit condition the Koraput municipality is in no

condition to make any kind of investment.

There is however, an urgent need to rationalise various revenue sources including

property tax, water charges, sanitation charges, etc. in both ULBs with the possibility

of raising the revenue by imposing user fee for waste management services.

7.5 CAPITAL INVESTMENT FOR SWM PROJECT

Preliminary estimate of the total capital cost for infrastructure development of the SWM

project for the cluster V is around Rs 2823 lakh, as presented in the Table 7.6. Details of

various components of the project activity are provided in the Tables 7.7-7.9.

TABLE 7.6: PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE OF SWM PROJECT

Component Proposed Investment (Rs., Lakh)

Annual average O&M Cost (Rs., Lakh)

Collection & transportation system

609.03 183.0

Regional waste processing facility 990.00 99.0

SLF for 15 years 1224.00 9.67


GTEEPL

104

Waste Collection & transportation:

For waste collection & transportation, an estimate of Rs 609 lakh has been made during first

year of the project, with the details as provided below:

TABLE 7.7: PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE C&T SYSTEM

Given high wear and tear, typically all bins will need to be replaced once every three years, whereas

auto-tippers & RC would need replacement every 7 years.

Regional Waste Processing Facility:

Total estimated project cost of a 75 TPD Municipal Solid Waste Plant is Rs 990 lakh.

TABLE 7.8: PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE REGIONAL WASTE PROCESSING FACILITY

PARTICULARS COST (Rs.,lakhs)

Land development & infrastructure (with covered compost pad, office, parking area, internal road, weighbridge, guard room etc.)

480

Plant and Machinery 135

RDF Processing Equipment 90

Yard Management Equipment 130

Electrification 18

Water line, drainage system, leachate management, public utility, 48

TOTAL 2823.00 291.67

Component Description Parameter considered Proposed Investment (Rs., Lakh)

Household Bins

Each house hold to be provided with 2 bins of 20L each

26200 households in Cluster V

52.4

Auto tippers For households & commercial units

Covering 700-800 households per day by each auto-tipper

166.4

Litter bins 100 litre bins all across the city

For floating population of 5382, year 2016

2.23

Refuse Compactors, 7 cum

85% fill capacity, 2 trips/day/vehicle

For the entire waste transfer from both towns for five years, 11 vehicles

352

Concrete platforms for parking of RC during waste transfer

12 places 36.0

TOTAL 609.03


GTEEPL

105

Fire Hydrant etc.

Lab equipment, office furniture, Maintenance tools etc. 16

Taxes, Transportation, Loading, unloading, Handling, Erection and Commissioning etc.

48

Contingency 25

Estimated Project Cost 990

Regional Scientific landfill:

Capital investment for the SLF is estimated to be around Rs.1224 lakh over the time period

of 15 years in three phases, as presented below:

TABLE 7.9: PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE OF REGIONAL SLF

While estimating the capital investment for the SLF, following assumptions have been made:

All vehicles to be replaced after every 5 years

All cost estimates are excluding land cost.

All cost to be increased by 5% over the next five years gap.

One truck, One JCB, One Compactor, One Excavator (1+3)

Base price for landfill construction Rs 573 per MT

Base Price for closure of landfill Rs 350 per MT

SLF phases

SLF cell capacity

Cost (Rs., lakhs) Remarks

SLF Vehicles i/c heavy

earth moving

Equipments

Total

Phase-I

(Year 1)

33% 165 120 285 Construction of Ist SLF

cell

Phase-II

(Year 6)

33% 275 120 395 Construction of IInd cell

and closure of old one

Phase-III

(Year 11)

34% 304 120 424 Construction of IIIrd cell

and closure of old one

Closure 120 0 120 Closure of the IIIrd cell

Total 100% 864 360 1224


GTEEPL

106

7.6 POTENTIAL REVENUE STREAMS FOR SWM PROJECT

Various revenue streams for the proposed MSW project are expected to be as follows:

Sale of compost: On an average around 9 ton of compost is expected to be produced in

the composting facility on daily basis which could be sold at the price of Rs 1500 per

ton with annual increase of 2% p.a.

Sale of RDF: On an average around 9 ton of RDF is expected to be produced in the

RDF facility on daily basis which could be sold at the price of Rs 2500 per ton with

annual increase of 2% p.a.

Sale of recyclables: On an average around 7.5 ton of recyclables is expected to be

recovered in the MRF facility on daily basis which could be sold at the price of Rs

5000 per ton with annual increase of 2% p.a.

Additionally, user fee need to be imposed on the households, slums and commercial units

to pay the tipping fee to the private operator

7.6 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

The implementation strategy and institutional framework for the solid waste management

project will have to be such that it is sustainable in the long run and meets the following

requirements;

Ensuring efficiency in implementation and accountability for outcomes through

appropriate contractual and performance measures

Efficient raising, allocating, deploying and servicing financial resources deployed in the

project

Forging formal links among the community driven approach, the proposed institutional

model and State and Local Government‟s administrative apparatus

Generating internal and external ownership of the project

In integrated waste management, all the elements work together to form one complete

system for proper management of municipal waste. For an integrated waste management

system to succeed, it is best that all the elements of the system are handled by a minimum

number of entities with well-defined objectives. The delivery capacities of these entities also

need to be assessed carefully. Study of the experiences of other ULBs in the country where

several entities have been handling different elements of the SWM system indicate that there

have been instances of disputes, co-ordination problems, blame passing etc. affecting the

overall efficiency of the system; sometimes even leading to break-down of the system in

whole or in parts.


GTEEPL

107

In view of the above, it is recommended to design the project as an integrated project

wherein entire service related to SWM in cluster V including primary & secondary collection

and transportation, treatment & disposal is handled by a single entity. Regarding the

existing infrastructure, both ULBs have been found to have bare minimum system in place

at present comprising only waste bins, few push carts and tractors that are barely functional

and will outlive their lifespan by the time the integrated project will be implemented. Hence,

it is recommended not to consider any of the existing infrastructures in the proposed project.

The project implementation has been designed as integrated municipal management project

including;

Primary & Secondary Collection & transportation: To ensure waste collection from

Waste Generators within Municipal Boundaries of ULBS, including primary and

secondary collection, and transportation of waste upto integrated waste management

facility at Koraput

Providing bin-less waste collection system in the areas specified

The street sweeping shall be upgraded and operated

Processing & Treatment of MSW

Development, Operation, Maintenance, and Management of Scientific Landfill

Facility

One of the suggested options is that the project be implemented through Public Private

Partnership (PPP) under DBOT (Design Build Operate Transfer) mechanism.

Tipping Fee

Grant Funding by GoI/State govt for Integrated MSW Project

SPV of Cluster V ( Koraput & Sunabeda)

Integrated MSW Project under PPP

(DBOT)

Private Operator

Lenders

Equity Share

Capital

Debt

Concession


GTEEPL

108

Option 1: Implementation Strategy for Integrated MSW Project

The project has been analysed with the cost provided in the Table 7.6 for 15 years concession

period, to estimate the tipping fee with an objective to generate an equity IRR of 15%. The

minimum tipping fee to meet the IRR of 15% is shown in Table below:

TABLE 7.10: RESULTS OF PPP ANALYSIS ( DETAILS IN ANNEXURE 4)

S.No. Results OPTION 1 OPTION 2

1 Funding patterns 40% grant,

40% equity,

20% laon

50% grant,

40% equity,

10% loan

a Minimum Tipping fee (INR/Ton) with 5%

increase p.a.

1485 1295

b Equity IRR 15% 15%

2 Tipping fee to be recovered through

a Own existing expenses Rs 160 lakh P.a.

both ULBs

Rs 160 lakh P.a.

both ULBs

b User fee for H/H (@ 5% increase p.a.) 85 66

c User fee for Slums (@5% increase p.a.) 45 35

d User fee for commercial units (@5%

increase p.a.)

300 300

7.7 PROJECT FUNDING

Financing of the capital expenditure for providing municipal solid waste management

services is suggested partly through grants from both central and state government under

Swacch Bharat Mission (SBM) scheme and partly by private operator in PPP mode. The

options for funding pattern is set out in the table below.

TABLE 16.14 FUNDING PATTERN FOR INTEGRATED MSW PROJECT

Sl. No. Description Option 1 Option 2

2 Share of Government and ULBS

A Central Government (SBM) 20% 20%

B State Government 20% 20%


GTEEPL

109

C By ULBs - 10%

C Private Developer

60% ( 70% debt and

30% equity) 50% ( 70% debt and 30% equity)

FUNCTIONS AND ROLES OF ULBs IN THE PPP MODEL

The PPP model in which the SWM system is suggested to be implemented in Cluster V shall

require both the ULBs with the support of the state govt. to perform certain functions and

roles that are specific to ensuring an efficient SWM services to the Cluster V. These include

the following:

Procurement Management;

Contract Management;

Sustainability of the SWM System including Technical, Financial, Social and

Environmental;

Media and Public Outreach;

Grievance Redressal Mechanism.

The details of each of these functions and roles are provided in the following paragraphs:

Procurement Management

The PPP model requires Cluster V ULBs to put in place an adequate procurement process

that would ensure selection of a Private Operator who can deliver the SWM services

effectively and at low cost throughout the contract period. The procurement process starts

with the preparation of the Tender Documents including the Request for Proposal, Terms of

Reference and Contract Document for the SWM services in KORAPUT. Simultaneously,

Since both the ULBs do not have adequate capacity, the state govt. needs to review the

Tender Documents, negotiate with the bidders and approve the selection of the private

operator as per a pre-determined selection criteria.

Contract Management

Once the private operator is selected, it is necessary to continuously monitor and enforce the

contract so that effective privatization of the SWM services can be ensured. Towards this,

both ULBs would need to be strengthened. Only an organization with competent

professional staff and adequate authority with commensurate responsibility would be fully

able to develop, negotiate, manage, monitor, and enforce a competent contract instrument.

A core contract management team at state level comprising legal, technical, financial, social,

environmental and health professionals should be set up to manage the contract and ensure

that the service-level benchmarks are achieved by the private operator. All the members of

the core contract team should have adequate training in contract management.


GTEEPL

110

Sustainability of SWM System

Sustainability of the SWM system is a system that delivers quality SWM services in an

equitable and reliable manner throughout the contract period. Sustainability cover four key

aspects viz., technical, financial, social and environmental and each of these is important to

achieve the objectives of the SWM services.

Technical Sustainability:

Ideally, both ULBs should have a Technical Division comprising technical professionals

such as solid waste experts, civil engineers, transportation planners, energy professionals,

mechanical engineers and Management Information System (MIS) professionals. Adequate

capacity building of these professionals to meet the requirements of the SWM system should

be carried out on a regular basis. The Technical Division should have adequate capacity

with regard to operational planning, appropriate management methods and skills,

development of technological solutions, formulation of equipment specifications,

procurement procedures and MIS for effective monitoring, evaluation and planning revision

to suit the regulations of the period. However, it is understood that both ULBs are too small

in size to take up the such tasks hence, it is recommended to form a team at cluster level that

could look after both ULBs of the cluster V.

Financial Sustainability:

Ensuring financial sustainability of the SWM system is important to enable both ULBs meet

the terms of the contract with the private operator. And, when the contract is a long-term

one, such as the SWM contract involving the private sector, it becomes all the more

important for the Koraput and Sunabeda NACs to have the necessary financial management

methods, including cost-oriented accounting systems, budget planning and control, unit cost

calculations, tariff fixing, and financial and economic analysis. Towards this, the there

should be a Finance and Accounts Division at Cluster level (common to both ULBs) that has

the necessary capacity to carry out the tasks involved.

Social Sustainability:

Social sustainability of the SWM System involves ensuring 100% coverage of the SWM

services covering all the zones and wards in the city. Additionally, it also involves

enhancing the contribution of informal waste collection workers. In this regard, both the

ULBs should aim at providing support to; improve working conditions and facilities;

achieve more favourable marketing arrangements for services and scavenged materials and

introduce health protection and social security measures to the workers. This task can be

achieved only by the support and guidance by the state govt.


GTEEPL

111

Media and Public Outreach

The key to having an efficient SWM system is public participation and integrating public

concerns and values at every stage of the decision making process. To successfully operate a

SWM system with changing and improved performance objectives over a long-period,

requires the ULBs fo cluster V to incorporate an excellent media and public outreach plan.

The plan should seek to establish partnership relationships with residential communities

and user groups. The support of NGOs may be very useful in building the capacity of

communities to participate in local solid waste management.

Grievance Redressal Mechanism

A Grievance Redressal mechanism needs to be introduced at Cluster level to ensure a

transparent and efficient SWM service. The GR mechanism provides a platform for citizens

to voice their concerns, feedback on the functioning of the private operator and various

aspects of service delivery. The GR mechanism should also specify a time-frame within

which each complaint is addressed by the private operator. Incentive may be provided to

the Contractor for achieving higher standards of service.

Overall, there is a need to have a team of dedicated Public health engineer, health officer,

Fiancial expert and Public relations officer to take care of SWM services at Clustr level.

7.8 JUSTIFICATION OF MODE OF OPERATION

The Sunabeda and Koraput Municipality are not generating more than 30MT each presently

and it is expected that after 15 – 20 years the volumes will not be much for implementation

of the project on Public Private Partnership (PPP). In view of the above it is further

recommended to go for EPC and O&M structure which shall create equal opportunity for all

prospective bidder.

The recommendation of EPC and O&M for Cluster-V is justified because of following

considerations:

1. Such small projects with an investment to the tune of 15- 20 Crore will not be viable

in PPP mode.

2. The waste generation in both the municipalities have not been more than 60- 70 TPD.

Out of the total waste generation 20% will come out as rejects which shall be directly

land filled and no further usages are considered.

3. The compost output shall be in between 18 to 23% of the total input is expected

which will not earn a significant amount from the sale of the product. Hence viability

for PPP w.r.t the financial closure shall be a problem.

4. The financial analysis of the project w.r.t NPV, IRR and tipping fees will not be

viable in case of PPP mode of establishing the project.


GTEEPL

112

5. The capital investment for the project during initial stage shall be high which will

also not support the financial closure of the project.

6. The O&M of the project shall be high and the revenue stream will never cover the

expenses more than 20 to 30% on monthly basis. This 20-30% revenue can be factored

out in terms of maintaining the processing facility and the equipments going to be

used in operations.

Based on above facts it is recommended that we should go for EPC and O&M model which

will be feasible and viable in totality.

Based on the above facts we would like to propose the sharing of the financial investment

by both the ULBS to be shared as follows between Koraput & Sunabeda.

Component

Proposed Investment

Annual average O&M

Cost Koraput Sunabeda

(Rs., Lakh) (Rs., Lakh) (Rs., Lakh) (Rs., Lakh)

Collection & transportation system

609.03 183 365.6 243.6

Regional waste processing facility

990 99 594.0 396.0

SLF for 15 years 1224 9.67 734.4 489.6

TOTAL 2823 291.67 1694 1129.2


GTEEPL

113

ANNEXURE 1 A: SAMPLING LOCATIONS OF HOUSEHOLD SURVEY IN KORAPUT MUNICIPALITY FOR WASTE QUANTIFICATION

S.

No

HH Owner Name No

of

Depe

ndan

t

Contact

No.

Fathers Name/

Husband Name

Age Ward

No

Locality Elevation Coorinates

1 Saura Nayak 6 9438207764 Late Mageta nayak (F) 56 1 Bhanoi Sahi 2935 ft 180 48‟ 32.8” N 820 42‟ 38.2” E

2 B. Bala Krishna 5 9438377770 Late B. Sunkar Rao (F) 52 2 Pujari Put 1910 ft 180 48‟10” N 820 42‟ 32.6” E

3 Bhaskar Champaty 6 9439775258 Late Mahendra

Champaty (F)

54 3 DNK

Colony

2937 ft 180 48‟ 27.6” N 820 42‟ 32.3” E

4 M. Gupteswar Rao 5 9439561017 Late M. Laxmi Narayan

(F)

47 4 Parja Street 1970 ft 180 48‟45.2” N 820 42‟ 30.7” E

5 Sri Nari Sahu 3 8093762757 Late Udaynath Sahu (F) 45 5 Puchila

Sahi

1929 ft 180 48‟ 45.8” N 820 42‟ 37.1” E

6 Tarini Tripathy 4 9437080344 Bijay Kumar Tripathy

(F)

34 6 SCTI

Colony

2060 ft 180 48‟ 52.1” N 820 42‟ 5.4” E

7 Harihar Maharana 5 9437141385 Late Govind Moharana

(F)

55 7 Bana

Bharathi

1878 ft 180 48‟ 57.6” N 820 42‟ 34.8” E

8 Debendra Kumar

Pradhan

4 9437783571 Niranjan Pradhan (F) 45 8 Police

Thana Line

1920 ft 180 48‟ 57.5” N 820 42‟ 47.3” E

9 Surendra Kumar

Takri

8 9437103728 Late Gourahari Takri (F) 49 9 Tikira Sahi 1967 ft 180 48‟ 4.0” N 820 42‟ 53.3” E


GTEEPL

114

10 Natabar Nath 10 9777834716 Late Sridhar Nath (F) 60 10 Gandhi

Nagar 3rd

Lane

1859 ft 180 48‟ 13.5” N 820 42‟ 36.1” E

11 Sanju Lata Rout 9439330877 Bijay Kumar Dalai (H) 38 11 Amin Line 2935 ft 180 48‟ 31.5” N 820 48‟ 42.4” E

12 Manoj Kumar Jena 3 9437125603 ………………………… 34 12 Goutam

Nagar 5th

Lane

1896 ft 180 48‟ 12.7” N 820 41‟ 38.6” E

13 Jayanta Kumar

Kachin

9 7751042327 Mangal Kumar Kachin

(F)

40 13 Mission

Compound

2962 ft 180 48‟ 21.8” N 820 43‟ 1.2” E

14 Ajit Kumar

Manabadha

4 Dipta Manabadha (F) 45 14 Old

Koraput

2937 ft 180 48‟ 22.8” N 820 43‟ 12.7” E

15 Hari Muduli 4 9438532040 Ram Muduli (F) 20 15 Reli

Kumbha

2740 ft 180 49‟ 51.0” N 820 42‟ 36” E

16 Jagannath Parija 5 9439560866 Late Rati Parija (F) 40 16 2919 ft 180 48‟ 41.9” N 820 48‟ 35.7” E

17 Laxmi Muduli 5 7894645781 Ghunu Muduli (F) 38 17 Rangabali

Kumbha

2938 ft 180 47‟ 44.3” N 820 43‟ 44.6” E

18 Nila Pujari 5 9439499309 Madhu Pujari (F) 23 18 Railway

Colony

2935 ft 180 48‟ 0.1” N 820 42‟ 50.5” E

19 Bhagaban Jani 3 9861348605 Late Kamlu Jani (F) 30 19 Danga

Deula

2925 ft 180 46‟ 19.2” N 820 48‟ 06.6” E

20 L. Barla 4 9437954509 Late Josef Barla (F) 51 20 OMP

Koraput

2846 ft 180 47‟ 24.9” N 820 43‟ 36.4” E

21 Bhagabam Khara 4 9438705444 Late Dhanrajaya Khara

(F)

47 21 New

colony Post

OSAP

2946 ft 180 46‟ 48.6” N 820 44‟ 59.7” E


GTEEPL

115

Annexure 1 B: Sampling locations of Household survey in Sunabeda municipality for waste quantification

Name of HH Owner No. of Dependants

Contact No. Fathers / Husband Name

Age Sex Ward No

Location Elevation Coorinates

Laxman Kumar Sahoo

3 NA Krusna Charan Sahoo

58 Male 1 Subash Nagar, 874m 18°44'44.35"N 82°49'53.11"E

Bhaktaram Benia 5 9438267825 Arjuna Benia 28 Male 2 Maliguda 873 m 18°44'54.70"N 82°50'22.60"E

Babula Bag 5 7894843206 Baidyanath Bag 25 Male 3 Kalahandi Colony 879 m 18°45'1.85"N 82°50'14.20"E

Aswini Kumar Rath 4 8895848075 Simanchal Rath 27 Male 4 D.P. Camp 869m 18°44'24.71"N 82°50'34.06"E

Debendra Mohanty 5 9937870919 Late Danda Pani Mohanty

56 Male 5 Ganjam Colony 883 m 18°45'10.93"N 82°50'13.59"E

Budhi Routray 3 8260826073 NA 55 Male 6 AEF (Market) 882m 18°44'41.99"N 82°50'16.02"E

Santosh Lenka 7 9437092671 Padma Charan Lenka 49 Male 7 H. B. Colony 868 m 18°45'14.39"N 82°50'5.53"E

Ashok Kumar Majhi 6 NA Dambrudhar Majhi 40 Male 8 Old Sunabeda 910 m 18°45'4.64"N 82°49'40.82"E

Jema Khara 4 NA NA 40 Female 9 Chikapara 885m 18°44'54.29"N 82°49'31.05"E

Trilochan Panda 5 NA Banabas Panda 39 Male 18 OCC Nagar 887m 18°43'52.69"N 82°48'41.42"E

Niranjan Moharana 5 NA Biswanath Moharana 50 Male 19 Satya Nagar (College Road)

876m 18°43'9.15"N 82°49'24.86"E

Bijaya Chandra Akudu

4 NA Late Narayan Akudu 50 Male 20 Saraswati Nagar 907m 18°43'30.35"N 82°50'34.42"E

Padmanav Sahu 8 NA Late Prana Kumar Sahu

56 Male 21 Salam Nagar Upar Sahi, Main Road

936m 180 43‟ 33.8” N

820 49‟ 12.7” E

Bangari Tatolu 3 NA Bangari Appya 64 Male 22 Relli Sahi 904m 18°43'9.97"N 82°50'29.45"E

Hemachandra Bisoye 8 NA Arjun Bisoye 55 Male 23 Petakana Talasahi 914m 18°43'14.07"N 82°50'14.76"E

Seemanchal Sahu 5 NA Govinda Sahu 42 Male 24 Gandhi Nagar 879m 18°44'34.09"N 82°50'12.46"E

Kamraj Swain 3 NA Lokanath Swain 60 Male 25 OCC Nagar 902 m 18°44'11.55"N 82°50'11.85"E

NA: Not Available


GTEEPL

116

SAMPLING LOCATIONS FOR WASTE COMPOSITION ANALYSIS IN CLUSTER V

Koraput

SN Sample Code Location Latitude Longitude Access Road Road Description

1 KORMSW-01 Ward No-3 18° 48' 29.8'' N 82° 42' 22.5'' E RCC Road 12 ft road without shoulder

2 KORMSW-02 Ward No-7 18° 48' 54.9'' N 82° 42' 36.2'' E RCC Road 10ft wide road w/o shoulder

3 KORMSW-03 Ward No-1 18° 48' 48.2'' N 82° 42' 26.4'' E B.T. Road 15 ft wide road with 3ft Shoulder on

both sides

4 KORMSW-04 Police Colony 18° 48' 54.2'' N 82° 42' 42.4'' E WBM (red

metalled) Road

10ft wide road w/o shoulder

Sunabeda

SN Sample Code Location Latitude Longitude Access Road Road Description

1 SUNMSW-01 Sunabeda village,

Shanti Nagar

18° 45' 08.6'' N 82° 41' 47.5'' E B.T. Road 15 ft wide road with 3ft Shoulder on both

sides

2 SUNMSW-02 Lower Chikepark 18° 41' 59.0'' N 82° 41' 12.9'' E RCC Road 10 ft wide without shoulder

3 SUNMSW-03 Housing Board 18° 44' 56.7'' N 82° 50' 27.3'' E RCC Road 10 ft wide without shoulder

4 SUNMSW-04 Janiguda Viilage 18° 41' 19.4'' N 82° 50' 13.9'' E B.T. Road 15ft wide road with narrow shoulder

All Samples are composite samples (5 kg packs) collected from cone sampling method, representative of the respective ward no/s. and is 3 days‟

average composite sample


GTEEPL

117

ANNEXURE 2: DETAILS OF WASTE CHARACTERISATION ANALYSIS FOR CLUSTER V

Characterization of MSW Samples from Sunabeda:

Ward No

Address

Sample Location Sample Location Physical Characterization (% Distribution)

Latitude (N/S) Longitude (E/W) Plastic Scrap

Metals Paper

Wood & Other

Organic Matter

Bio-Degradable

Organic Matter

Construction Waste

Nala Silt / Steet

Sweeping

1

Subash Nagar, Sunabeda-3(Koraput) 18° 44' 29.5'' N 82° 50' 17.5'' E 31.2 2 7 4.5 45.2 3.7 6.4

2 Maliguda 18° 44' 08.3'' N 82° 50' 31.6'' E 31.3 4 3.2 3.5 48.2 0.8 9

3 Kalahandi Colony 18° 44' 56.7'' N 82° 50' 27.3'' E 34.3 3.1 6.3 3.9 36.3 7.7 8.4

4 D.P. Camp 18° 44' 32.1'' N 82° 50' 29.7'' E 35.1 3.9 3.2 4.3 34.3 11.2 8

5 Ganjam Colony 18° 44' 38.6'' N 82° 50' 34.4'' E 37.3 4.2 3.3 4.9 42.3 4.4 3.6

6 AEF (Market) 18° 44' 47.1'' N 82° 50' 16.4'' E 33.4 2.1 3.1 3.5 48.7 4.6 4.6

7 H. B. Colony 18° 44' 38.0'' N 82° 50' 15.9'' E 33.3 4.6 3.8 3.4 44.3 6.9 3.7

8 Old Sunabeda 18° 45' 08.6'' N 82° 41' 47.5'' E 35.2 3.4 7.3 5.9 31.2 10.2 6.8

9 Chikapara 18° 41' 59.0'' N 82° 41' 12.9'' E 31.3 3.9 9.7 5.1 38.1 8.2 3.7

18 OCC Nagar 18° 42' 41.6'' N 82° 51' 09.6'' E 33.5 1.6 7.9 3.7 40.6 10.4 2.3

19 Satya Nagar 18° 43' 18.1'' N 82° 51' 4.5'' E 35.2 3.3 10.4 1.6 40.7 4.3 4.5

20 Saraswati Nagar 18° 43' 08.5'' N 82° 50' 44.9'' E 30.6 1.2 13.5 3.3 34.1 11.6 5.7

21 Salam Nagar Upar Sahi, Main Road 18° 43' 12.4'' N 82° 51' 23.4'' E 32.6 1.5 7.7 2.2 42.5 6.3 7.2

22 Relli Sahi 18° 44' 26.2'' N 82° 50' 46.0'' E 28.4 1.8 6.2 5.1 42.4 9.5 6.6

23 Petakana Talasahi 18° 43' 21.7'' N 82° 51' 8.5'' E 33.3 1.2 11.5 4.8 30.2 14.2 4.8

24 Gandhi Nagar 18° 42' 35.6'' N 82° 51' 09.6'' E 34.1 2.8 4.2 3.2 36 13.4 6.3

25 OCC Nagar 18° 42' 41.6'' N 82° 51' 09.6'' E 32.2 2.1 15.7 3 34.6 8.3 4.1


GTEEPL

118

MIN % 28.4 1.2 3.1 1.6 30.2 4.3 2.3

MAX % 37.3 4.6 15.7 5.9 48.7 14.2 7.2

AVG % 32.76 2.46 8.42 3.73 38.62 8.99 5.03

To Note that ward Nos. 10 to 17 are under HAL Authority, for which there was no monitoring or sample collection for our purpose.

Hence based on the above analysis and characterization, the estimated waste types generated from the total ULB (Under Service) is as follows:

Plastic Scrap

Metals

Paper Wood & Other

Organic Matter

Bio-Degradable

Organic Matter

Construction

Waste

Nala Silt / Steet

Sweeping

Estimated Quantity of Waste in (T)

7.63 0.57 1.96 0.87 9.00 2.10 1.17


GTEEPL

119

CHARACTERIZATION OF MSW SAMPLES FROM KORAPUT:

Ward No Address Sample Locations Physical Characterization (% Distribution)

Latitude (N/S) Longitude (E/W) Plastic Scrap Metals

Paper Wood & Other

Organic Matter

Bio-Degradable

Organic Matter

Construction Waste

Nala Silt

1 Bhanoi Sahi 180 48‟ 32.8” N 820 42‟ 38.2” E 32.5 2 5 2.7 45.2 0.6 12

2 Pujari Put 180 48‟10” N 820 42‟ 32.6” E 31.3 4 3.2 3.5 48.2 0.8 9

3 DNK Colony 180 48‟ 27.6” N 820 42‟ 32.3” E 29.7 2.8 8.9 3.9 32.5 6.2 16

4 Parja Street 180 48‟45.2” N 820 42‟ 30.7” E 32.1 3.9 3.2 2.7 32.2 8.4 17.5

5 Puchila Sahi 180 48‟ 45.8” N 820 42‟ 37.1” E 30.4 5.2 5.2 5.9 35.5 3.4 14.4

6 SCTI Colony 180 48‟ 52.1” N 820 42‟ 5.4” E 29.8 3.1 8.5 3.5 37.1 4.6 13.4

7 Bana Bharathi 180 48‟ 57.6” N 820 42‟ 34.8” E 28.5 5.6 6.4 5 36.3 9.5 8.7

8 Police Thana Line

180 48‟ 57.5” N 820 42‟ 47.3” E 26.3 3.4 7.3 5.9 28.6 10.2 18.3

9 Tikira Sahi 180 48‟ 4.0” N 820 42‟ 53.3” E 28.9 5.1 9.4 5.1 31.5 8.2 11.8

10 Gandhi Nagar 3rd Lane

180 48‟ 13.5” N 820 42‟ 36.1” E 30.2 4.2 6.8 1.1 40.6 0.5 16.6

11 Amin Line 180 48‟ 31.5” N 820 48‟ 42.4” E 25.6 4.8 3.4 0.4 40.8 9.2 15.8

12 Goutam Nagar 5th Lane

180 48‟ 12.7” N 820 41‟ 38.6” E 23.4 2.1 9.4 1.5 38.5 8.9 16.2

13 Mission Compound

180 48‟ 21.8” N 820 43‟ 1.2” E 32.8 0.8 7.8 2.6 32 5.4 18.6

14 Old Koraput 180 48‟ 22.8” N 820 43‟ 12.7” E 21.9 1.2 11.5 4.8 30.2 14.2 16.2


GTEEPL

120

15 Reli Kumbha 180 49‟ 51.0” N 820 42‟ 36” E 19.6 2.8 8.4 3.2 36.9 16.3 12.8

16 180 48‟ 41.9” N 820 48‟ 35.7” E 22.8 1 15.7 3 34.6 8.3 14.6

17 Rangabali Kumbha

180 47‟ 44.3” N 820 43‟ 44.6” E 24.1 1 7.9 3.7 40.6 10.4 12.3

18 Railway Colony 180 48‟ 0.1” N 820 42‟ 50.5” E 32.4 2.2 10.4 0.8 39.2 0.8 14.2

19 Danga Deula 180 46‟ 19.2” N 820 48‟ 06.6” E 22.8 1.2 13.5 3.3 30.1 11.6 17.5

20 OMP Koraput 180 47‟ 24.9” N 820 43‟ 36.4” E 31.9 1.5 5.8 1.1 42.5 0.4 16.8

21 New colony Post OSAP

Koraput

180 46‟ 48.6” N 820 44‟ 59.7” E 32.4 1.8 6.2 1 48.2 0.8 9.6

MIN % 19.6 0.8 3.2 0.4 28.6 0.4 8.7

MAX % 32.8 5.6 15.7 5.9 48.2 16.3 18.6

AVG % 27.845 2.885 7.945 3.1 36.805 6.905 14.515

Hence based on the above analysis and characterization, the estimated waste types generated from the total ULB (Under Service) is as follows:

Plastic Scrap

Metals

Paper Wood & Other

Organic Matter

Bio-

Degradable Organic Matter

Construction

Waste

Nala Silt

Estimated Quantity of Waste in (T)

7.74091 0.80203 2.20871 0.8618 10.23179 1.91959 4.03517

Further, this estimation of total waste is distributed for the generator types / sources within the ULB as follows:


GTEEPL

121

SI. No. Type of Waste Generator Number Quantity of waste

per unit (in Kg) per

day

Total quantity of waste

generated (in Kg) per day

1 Households 11379 1.2 13654.8


3 Major hotel and resorts 3 45 135

4 Small hotels 102 15 1530

5 Markets 14 55.2 772.8

6 Hostels 4 104 416



9 Meat shops/slaughter houses 6 10 60

10 Religious Place 5 25.2 126

11 Construction waste

(Development Area)

5 105 525

12 Street sweeping & Drain

cleaning

10000


TOTAL 27881.4


GTEEPL

122

CHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF SAMPLES:

All Samples are composite samples (5 kg packs) collected from cone sampling method, representative of the respective ward no/s. as

given below:

Sampling Locations:

Koraput

Sl.

No.

Sample Code Locational

Description

Latitude (N/S) Longitude

(E/W)

Access Road with

Specification

Road Conditions

1 KORMSW-01 Ward No-3 18° 48' 29.8'' N 82° 42' 22.5'' E RCC Road 12 ft road without shoulder

2 KORMSW-02 Ward No-7 18° 48' 54.9'' N 82° 42' 36.2'' E RCC Road 10ft wide road w/o shoulder

3 KORMSW-03 Ward No-1 18° 48' 48.2'' N 82° 42' 26.4'' E B.T. Road 15 ft wide road with 3ft Shoulder on both sides

4 KORMSW-04 Police Colony 18° 48' 54.2'' N 82° 42' 42.4'' E WBM (red metalled) Road

10ft wide road w/o shoulder

Sunabeda

5 SUNMSW-01 Sunabeda village, Shanti Nagar

18° 45' 08.6'' N 82° 41' 47.5'' E B.T. Road 15 ft wide road with 3ft Shoulder on both sides

6 SUNMSW-02 Lower Chikepark 18° 41' 59.0'' N 82° 41' 12.9'' E RCC Road 10 ft wide without

shoulder

7 SUNMSW-03 Housing Board 18° 44' 56.7'' N 82° 50' 27.3'' E RCC Road 10 ft wide without

shoulder

8 SUNMSW-04 Janiguda Viilage 18° 41' 19.4'' N 82° 50' 13.9'' E B.T. Road 15ft wide road with narrow shoulder


GTEEPL

123

CHEMICAL ANALYSIS RESULT:

Sample No.

Physical Parameters Chemical Parameters Calorific

Value Moisture Content Total Carbon

Fixed Carbon

Ash Content Phosphorous Sulphur Iron Cupper Mercury Zinc Lead Arsenic

Units % mg/Kg Kcal/Kg

KORMSW-01 33.4 10.5 0.52 19.4 11.5 115 0.5 1.9 ND 2.1 1.8 0.01 699

KORMSW-02 32.5 9.6 0.46 20.8 12.4 128 0.4 2.1 ND 2.4 2.8 0.01 756

KORMSW-03 30.9 10.9 0.31 21.6 10.8 106 0.3 1.9 ND 2.6 1.7 0.02 680.6

KORMSW-04 31.6 11.2 0.35 22.5 12.7 119 0.5 2.3 ND 2.3 2.3 0.01 608.7

SUNMSW-01 30.8 8.2 0.19 21.4 12.5 122 0.6 1.7 ND 1.8 2.8 0.01 567.4

SUNMSW-02 31.1 9.6 0.25 19.8 11.8 116 0.5 1.4 ND 2.2 3.2 0.02 543.6

SUNMSW-03 30.9 8.4 0.3 20.5 13.2 134 0.4 1.8 ND 1.9 2.4 0.02 576.98

SUNMSW-04 32.6 8.9 0.22 21.3 11.4 122 0.3 1.1 ND 2.4 2.9 0.01 664.6


GTEEPL

124

ANNEXURE 3: BALANCE SHEETS OF KORAPUT NAC (2012-15)


GTEEPL

125


GTEEPL

126


GTEEPL

127


GTEEPL

128


GTEEPL

129


GTEEPL

130

ANNEXURE 4: OUIDF CLUSTER V: FINANCIAL MODELLING CALCULATIONS FOR IRR & TIPPING FEE

OUIDF Cluster V Financial modelling

Project life 15 years

Construction starts

2016

Construction Period Ends

2017

Project operation starts

2017

Interest Rate (%) 12%

O&M cost (% of Capital cost)

10%

Revenue collection efficiency

80%-95%

Inflation Ops.

start

Year Counter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

FY Ending 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034

Rate of Inflation 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

Inflation On/Off Switch

1 (Input 0 if model to be run at Constant FY 2015-16 Prices i.e. in real terms)

Base Cost Assumptions

Item Description

Amt (Rs.Cr)

C&T system 6.09

Waste processing facility, 15 years

9.20

SLF, 15 years 12.24

Sub Total 27.53


GTEEPL

131

Add 5% Consultancy & Supervision Charges

1.38

Sub Total 28.91

Base Project Cost

28.91

Ops. start

Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Fiscal Year ending March 31st 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031

Capital Expenditure

Year1 Year5

Phasing of Capital Costs (%)

100% 70% 30%

Phasing of Capital Costs (At 2015-16 Prices)

28.91 Rs., cr 20.23 8.67

Capital Costs Escalated (to be financed)

31.30 Rs., cr 20.23 11.07

Finance Charges (Upfront Fees, Synd. Fees)

0.06 Rs., cr 0.06 0.00

Interest During Construction

0.26 Rs., cr 0.26 0.00

Funded DSRA 0.19 Rs., cr 0.00 1.00

Total Costs 31.82 Rs., cr 20.56 12.07 32.63

Means of Finance

Grant 50% 15.65 Rs., cr 10.96 4.70 15.65

Equity 40% 13.03 Rs., cr 9.12 5.16 14.28

Debt 10% 3.13 Rs., cr 2.19 2.21 4.40

Total 100% 31.82 Rs., cr 22.27 12.07 34.34


GTEEPL

132

Project Debt Schedule

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031

Amount 3.13

Moratorium 4 Years

Interest Rate (%) 12%

Repayment Period

11 Years

Total Tenor 15 Years

Annual Repayment Installment

0.53

Opening Balance 0.00 2.19 4.40 4.40 4.40 9.34 9.93 10.60 11.34 12.18 13.11 14.16 15.33 16.64 18.11 19.76

Drawdown 2.19 2.21 0.00 0.00 4.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total Outstanding

2.19 4.40 4.40 4.40 8.81 9.34 9.93 10.60 11.34 12.18 13.11 14.16 15.33 16.64 18.11 19.76

Annual Equated Installment

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.00

Interest Payments incl. IDC

0.26 0.53 0.53 0.53 1.06 1.12 1.19 1.27 1.36 1.46 1.57 1.70 1.84 2.00 2.17 2.37

Principal Payments

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.53 -0.59 -0.66 -0.74 -0.83 -0.93 -1.05 -1.17 -1.31 -1.47 -1.65 -2.37

Closing Balance 2.19 4.40 4.40 4.40 9.34 9.93 10.60 11.34 12.18 13.11 14.16 15.33 16.64 18.11 19.76 22.13

Project Cash Flows

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Revenues 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031

Revenue from sale of compost, RDF & Recyclables

0.00 2.42 2.46 2.50 2.53 2.57 2.61 2.65 2.69 2.73 2.77 2.81 2.86 2.90 2.94 2.99

Revenue from Tipping fee

0.00 3.21 3.37 3.53 3.71 3.90 4.09 4.30 4.51 4.74 4.97 5.22 5.48 5.76 6.04 6.35

Revenue grant in operations(Rs. Crore)

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total Revenue 0.00 5.63 5.82 6.03 6.24 6.47 6.70 6.94 7.20 7.47 7.74 8.03 8.34 8.65 8.99 9.33


GTEEPL

133

Opex O&M cost 3.16 3.28 3.39 3.52 3.65 3.78 3.92 4.06 4.21 4.37 4.53 4.70 4.87 5.06 5.25

Other Opex 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total Operating Expenditure

0.00 3.16 3.28 3.39 3.52 3.65 3.78 3.92 4.06 4.21 4.37 4.53 4.70 4.87 5.06 5.25

IRR Calculations

Operating Surplus

0.00 2.47 2.55 2.64 2.73 2.82 2.92 3.03 3.14 3.25 3.38 3.50 3.64 3.78 3.93 4.09

Depreciation 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62

Pre Tax Profit -0.26 1.94 2.02 2.11 1.05 1.08 1.11 1.14 1.16 1.17 1.18 1.19 1.18 1.16 1.14 1.10

Tax 0.00 0.39 0.40 0.42 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.23 0.23 0.22

Net Cash from Operations

0.00 2.08 2.14 2.21 2.52 2.61 2.70 2.80 2.91 3.02 3.14 3.27 3.40 3.55 3.70 3.87

Capital Expenditure

9.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Net Cash available for Debt Servicing

-9.60 2.08 2.14 2.21 -4.86 2.61 2.70 2.80 2.91 3.02 3.14 3.27 3.40 3.55 3.70 3.87

Equity 9.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Net Cash Flow for Equity IRR

-9.39 1.55 1.62 1.69 -3.17 2.08 2.17 2.27 2.38 2.49 2.61 2.74 2.88 3.02 3.18 3.87

Project IRR 17.45%

Equity IRR (Cash Basis)

14.96%

Nominal Rate of Return on Equity

20.71%

NPV 10.00% 5.44 cr


GTEEPL

134

OUIDF SWM Cluster V Revenue, User fee and Tipping fee

(all figures in Rs. Lacs)

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031

Assumptions

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10

Year 11

Year 12

Year 13

Year 14

Year 15

Year 16

Revenue (Increase)

MSW handled per day (tons per day)

0% 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0

for composting 41% 30.8 30.8 30.8 30.8 30.8 30.8 30.8 30.8 30.8 30.8 30.8 30.8 30.8 30.8 30.8

For RDF 41% 35.4 35.4 35.4 35.4 35.4 35.4 35.4 35.4 35.4 35.4 35.4 35.4 35.4 35.4 35.4

Compost sale price (Rs. Per Ton)

2% 1530 1561 1592 1624 1656 1689 1723 1757 1793 1828 1865 1902 1940 1979 2019

compost generation(tons per day)

30% 9.23 9.23 9.23 9.23 9.23 9.23 9.23 9.23 9.23 9.23 9.23 9.23 9.23 9.23 9.23

Revenue from compost (Rs/annum)

4566375

4657703

4750857

4845874

4942791

5041647

5142480

5245330

5350236

5457241

5566386

5677713

5791268

5907093

6025235

6145740

recyclables price (Rs per ton)

1% 5000 5050 5101 5152 5203 5255 5308 5361 5414 5468 5523 5578 5634 5690 5747 5805

recyclables generation (tons per day)

10% 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50

Revenue from recyclables (Rs/annum)

12498750

12623738

12749975

12877475

13006249

13136312

13267675

13400352

13534355

13669699

13806396

13944460

14083904

14224743

14366991

RDF sale price ( Rs/ton) 2% 2550 2601 2653.02

2706.0804

2760.202008

2815.406048

2871.714169

2929.148453

2987.731422

3047.48605

3108.435771

3170.604486

3234.016576

3298.696908

3364.670846

RDF generation (tons/day)

25% 8.84 8.84 8.84 8.84 8.84 8.84 8.84 8.84 8.84 8.84 8.84 8.84 8.84 8.84 8.84

Revenue from RDF (Rs/annum)

7439386

7588174

7739937

7894736

8052631

8213683

8377957

8545516

8716426

8890755

9068570

9249941

9434940

9623639

9816112


GTEEPL

135

Population Koraput 52013

53011 54033 55077 56145 57237 58351 59489 60651 61835

63043 64274 65529

66807

68108 69432

Population Sunabeda 55619

56727 57858 59011 60186 61386 62609 63856 65129 66427

67750 69100 70477

71882

73314 74775

Total population 107632

109738

111891 114088 116331 118623 120960 123345 125780 128262

130793

133374

136006

138689

141422

144207

Slum population - Koraput

27% 14050

14319 14595 14877 15166 15461 15762 16069 16383 16703

17029 17362 17701

18046

18397 18755

Slum population - Sunabeda

29% 16078

16399 16726 17059 17399 17746 18099 18460 18828 19203

19585 19976 20374

20780

21194 21616

Slum population -Cluster V

30128

30718 31321 31936 32565 33206 33861 34529 35211 35906

36614 37337 38074

38826

39591 40371

Family size Koraput 4.17 4.17 4.17 4.17 4.17 4.17 4.17 4.17 4.17 4.17 4.17 4.17 4.17 4.17 4.17 4.17 4.17

Family size Sunabeda 4.05 4.05 4.05 4.05 4.05 4.05 4.05 4.05 4.05 4.05 4.05 4.05 4.05 4.05 4.05 4.05 4.05

No. of Households in Koraput

12469

12708 12953 13203 13459 13721 13988 14261 14539 14823

15113 15408 15709

16015

16327 16644

No. of Households in Sunabeda

13734

14008 14287 14572 14862 15158 15460 15768 16083 16403

16730 17063 17403

17750

18104 18465

Total households in the cluster V

26203

26716 27240 27775 28321 28879 29448 30029 30622 31226

31842 32471 33112

33765

34430 35109

Slum households 8016 8173 8334 8498 8665 8836 9011 9188 9370 9555 9744 9937 10133

10333

10537 10745

Other households 18187

18542 18906 19277 19656 20043 20438 20841 21252 21671

22098 22534 22979

23432

23894 24364

Charges per household per month

5% 66 69 73 76 80 84 88 93 98 102 108 113 119 124 131 137

Charges for slums per month

5% 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 52 54 57 60 63 66 69 73

user fee collection from H/H, annual

85% 15105051

16170633

17312176

18534810

19844156

21246753

22748709

24357085

26079651

29566690

31657585

33896436

36293450

38859797

43918334

47022432

No. of commercial units (koraput)

2% 141 144 147 150 153 156 159 162 165 169 172 175 179 182 186 190

No. of commercial units (Sunabeda)

2% 111 113 115 118 120 123 125 128 130 133 135 138 141 144 146 149

Total commercial units in the cluster V

2% 252 257.04 262.1808

267.424416

272.7729043

278.2283624

283.7929297

289.4687882

295.258164

301.1633273

307.1865938

313.3303257

319.5969322

325.9888709

332.5086483

339.1588213


GTEEPL

136

User fee for commercial unit per month

5% 300 315 331 347 365 383 402 422 443 465 489 513 539 566 594 624

user fee collection from commercial units

80% 725760

777289

832476 891582 1014565

1086599

1163748

1246374

1334866

1513738

1621214

1736320

1859599

1991630

2133036

2284481

Total User fee collection

15830811

16947922

18144653

19426392

20858721

22333352

23912456

25603459

27414517

31080429

33278799

35632756

38153049

40851427

46051370

49306913

Tipping fee/ton 5% 1295 1360 1428 1499 1574 1653 1735 1822 1913 2009 2109 2215 2326 2442 2564 2692

Tipping fee collection 32051250

33653812.5

35336503.13

37103328.28

38958494.7

40906419.43

42951740.4

45099327.42

47354293.79

49722008.48

52208108.91

54818514.35

57559440.07

60437412.07

63459282.68

66632246.81

Total Annual Revenue 56286141

58249651

60299271

62439114

64673496

67006946

69444215

71990289

74650398

77430031

80334948

83371193

86545109

89863350

93332900

96961089

Expenses of Cluster V 16000000

16800000

17640000

18522000

19448100

20420505

21441530

22513607

23639287

24821251

26062314

27365430

28733701

30170386

31678906

33262851

Additional money needed for O&M

16051250

16853813

17696503

18581328

19510395

20485914

21510210

22585721

23715007

24900757

26145795

27453085

28825739

30267026

31780377

33369396

Operating Costs

Manpower Costs 5% 10500120

11025126

11576382

12155201

12762961

13401110

14071165

14774723

15513459

16289132

17103589

17958769

18856707

19799542

20789519

21828995

Fuel, Power, water, consummables

3% 15166840

15621845

16090501

16573216

17070412

17582524

18110000

18653300

19212899

19789286

20382965

20994454

21624287

22273016

22941206

23629443

Repair & Maintenance 3% 3500040

3605041

3713192

3824588

3939326

4057506

4179231

4304608

4433746

4566758

4703761

4844874

4990220

5139927

5294125

5452948

Interest on working capital

13% 947928

947928

947928 947928 947928 947928 947928 947928 947928 947928

947928

947928

947928

947928

947928

947928

Contingency, 5% 1505746

1559997

1616400

1675047

1736031

1799453

1865416

1934028

2005402

2079655

2156912

2237301

2320957

2408021

2498639

2592966

Total Operating Cost 31620674

32759937

33944403

35175979

36456658

37788520

39173740

40614587

42113434

43672760

45295154

46983325

48740099

50568433

52471417

54452279


GTEEPL

137

IMAGE OF MSW LAND FILL SITE 1


GTEEPL

138