View
235
Download
4
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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.
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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;
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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.
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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.
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
GTEEPL
15
EXHIBIT 3: LOCATION MAP OF KORAPUT-SUNABEDA REGION
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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)
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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)
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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-02 Urban 782 3289
Koraput (NAC) WN-03 Urban 640 2775
Koraput (NAC) WN.-04 Urban 689 2819
Koraput (NAC) WN-05 Urban 1115 4946
Koraput (NAC) WN-06 Urban 1104 4531
Koraput (NAC) WN-07 Urban 968 3810
Koraput (NAC) WN-08 Urban 583 2950
Koraput (NAC) WN-09 Urban 459 1887
Koraput (NAC) WN-10 Urban 253 920
Koraput (NAC) WN-11 Urban 608 2276
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
GTEEPL
23
Koraput (NAC) WN-12 Urban 1081 4342
Koraput (NAC) WN-13 Urban 763 2952
Koraput (NAC) WN-14 Urban 713 2838
Koraput (NAC) WN-15 Urban 361 2039
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
Source: Census 2011 Data
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Source: Census 2011 Data
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.
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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.
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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.
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
GTEEPL
29
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Number Quantity of waste per unit (Kg/day)
Total quantity of waste generated (Kg/day)
1 Households 12444 1.3 16177.2
2 Commercial Units 24 5.2 124.8
3 Major hotel and resorts
2 110 220
4 Small hotels 25 7.3 182.5
5 Markets 10 75.5 755
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
GTEEPL
34
6 Hostels 4 22 88
7 Institutions 10 3.5 35
8 Vegetable shops 24 10.2 244.8
9 Meat shops/slaughter houses
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)
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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)
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and 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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and 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
Number Quantity of waste per unit (Kg/day)
Total quantity of waste generated (Kg/day)
1 Commercial Units 24 5.2 124.8
2 Markets 14 55.2 772.8
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
GTEEPL
42
3 Hostels 4 104 416
4 Institutions 36 3.5 126
5 Vegetable shops 31 12 372
6 Meat shops/slaughter houses
6 10 60
7 Private Shop 26 1.5 39
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)
Total quantity of waste generated (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).
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and 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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and 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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
GTEEPL
48
FIGURE 3.3: 1MT CONTOUR INTERVAL FOR MERGED PLOT NOS. 59 & 111 AT CHINDRI
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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.
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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.
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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.
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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:
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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.
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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)
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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.
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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.
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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-
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
layer was tested and results are summarized. The average weight was Gravel- 08%, Sand-
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
layer was tested and results are summarized. The average weight was Gravel- 08%, Sand-
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
layer was tested and results are summarized. The average weight was Gravel- 08%, Sand-
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:
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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.
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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.
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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.
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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.
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
GTEEPL
77
S
N
Technology Reliability Waste Suitability Economic and Commercial Viability
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
Land requirement is not very high
(<1ha for 100TPD);
Very effective in significant volume
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
GTEEPL
78
S
N
Technology Reliability Waste Suitability Economic and Commercial Viability
of sophistication and
process control.
fuel.
Requires strict process control
and significant air pollution
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
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 18cr per 100 Tons of
waste) ;
Very effective in significant volume
reduction (<15% rejects).
End product can be used for producing
power
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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.
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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,
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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.
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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.
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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.
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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.
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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.
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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)
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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.
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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.
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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.
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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.
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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.
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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%
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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.
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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.
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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.
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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:
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
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
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
GTEEPL
124
ANNEXURE 3: BALANCE SHEETS OF KORAPUT NAC (2012-15)
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
GTEEPL
125
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
GTEEPL
126
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
GTEEPL
127
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
GTEEPL
128
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
GTEEPL
129
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
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
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
GTEEPL
137
IMAGE OF MSW LAND FILL SITE 1
Pre-Feasibility Report for Implementation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan for Cluster-V of ULBs (Koraput and Sunabeda)
GTEEPL
138
Recommended