Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Solid Waste Management

Solid Waste Management

Ratings: (0)|Views: 3|Likes:
Published by Animesh Bhatt
null
null

More info:

Published by: Animesh Bhatt on Dec 26, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/26/2012

pdf

text

original

 
Code
Variables
C1
Coverage
C2
Transportation
 
C3
Disposal
C4
Consumers’
 
complaints
C5
Unit
 
cost
C6
Outcome
C7
Segragation,
 
Recover,
 
Recycle
C8
Environmental
 
aspect
Main
 
Criteria
enc mar ng
 
a a
 
rom
 
oo emar
20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Coverage
C11
%Area
 
covered
 
under
 
waste
 
collection
100% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%C12
Separate
 
system
 
for
 
collection
 
of 
 
waste
 
other
 
than
 
domestic
 
waste(Biomedical
 
waste,
 
C
 
&
 
D
 
waste,Hotel
 
waste,Market
 
waste,Dead animal dis osal
5 1 2 3 4 5
u
 
r er a
u e ne enc mar ng
 
or
 
ass gn ng
 
we g
 
C13
Staff 
 
deployed
 
per
 
Lac
 
pop.
 
CPHEEO
 
has
 
proposed
 
the
 
staffing
 
pattern
 
norm
 
of 
 
25
30
 
sweepers
 
with
 
one
 
supervisorper
 
10,000
 
population.
 
<10 10 15 20 25C14
No.
 
of 
 
sweeper
 
per
 
supervisor
Usually
 
one
 
supervisor
 
for
 
25
30
 
sweepers<4,18< 4,18 6,14 8,
 
12 10C15
Average
 
attandence
 
(%)
Should
 
not
 
be
 
less
 
than
 
80%.
 
50 60 70 80 90C16
Beats
 
left
 
unattended
 
(%)
Not
 
more
 
than
 
5%
 
of 
 
the
 
beats
 
may
 
be
 
left
 
unattended
 
on
 
any
 
day.80 60 40 20 0C17
No.
 
of 
 
waste
 
storage
 
siteper
 
lac
 
pop.
One
 
dustbin
 
/
 
container
 
for
 
a
 
population
 
of 
 
2000.Recommended
 
average
 
distance
 
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 1,
 
1<between
 
bins
 
is
 
500
 
m.
 
Generally
 
total
 
waste
 
storage
 
capacity
 
in
 
the
 
city
 
should
 
be
 
2
 
to
 
2.5
 
times
 
of 
 
estimated
 
total
 
waste
 
generated.
 
C18
 
Collection
 
effectiveness
 
ration
 
(%)
Ideally,
 
this
 
indicator
 
should
 
be
 
above
 
90%,
 
(allowing
 
for
 
5%
10%
 
of 
 
the
 
waste
 
being
 
collected
 
by
 
rag
pickers)30 45 60 75 90
 
Transportation
 
C21
Vehicles
 
deployed
 
for
 
transporting
 
waste
 
per
 
100
 
tonn
>20 20 16 13 10> Depends
 
on
 
type
 
of 
 
vehicle
 
usedC22
Average
 
number
 
of 
 
trips
 
to
 
landfills
 
per
 
vehicle
 
per
 
day
Trend
 
in
 
recent
 
months
 
is
 
a
 
useful
 
benchmark.
 
Each
 
city
 
should
 
set
 
its
 
own
 
norms
 
based
 
on
 
the
 
distance
 
to
 
the
 
landfill.<0.5 1 1.5 2C23
Average
 
quantity
 
of 
 
garbage
 
carried
 
per
 
trip
 
per
 
vehicle
Rated
 
carrying
 
capacity
 
of 
 
each
 
type
 
of 
 
vehicle
 
could
 
be
 
a
 
useful
 
benchmark.<10
 
Mt. 10
 
Mt. 12
 
Mt. 15
 
Mt. Depends
 
on
 
type
 
of 
 
vehicle
 
used
 
100
 
Tonn
 
prescribed
 
requirement
 
of 
 
drivers
 
and
 
helpers
 
with
 
some
 
extra
 
staff 
 
as
 
substitutes
 
for
 
those
 
on
 
leave
 
or
 
absent.Maitenance
 
staff:
 
4
 
staff/5
 
vehicle,
 
6
 
staff/10
 
vehicle,
 
17
 
staff/25
 
vehicle,
 
24
 
staff/50
 
vehicle,
 
(CPHEEO
 
manual)
 
mechanized
 
system
 
(mechanical
 
sweeper,
 
transfer
 
station
 
with
 
compactor,
 
etc….)C25
Attendance
 
level
 
of 
 
drivers
90%
 
attendece
 
level
 
of 
 
drrivers 50 60 70 80 90C26
Average
 
trips
 
per
 
driver
 
per
 
day
For
 
Primary
 
collection
 
04
 
trip/day <0.5 1 1.5 2or
 
econ ary
 
r p ayWorkload
 
norm
 
for
 
drivers
 
Trend
 
in
 
recent
 
monthsC27
Average
 
diesel
 
consumption
 
per
 
tonn
 
per
 
Km
 
of 
 
garbage
 
transported
Estimated
 
norm
 
for
 
fuel
 
consumption
 
Trend
 
in
 
recent
 
monthsComparision
 
with
 
rated
 
fuel
 
efficieny
 
of 
 
vehivle
 
shall
 
be
 
consider.C28
%
 
of 
 
spare
 
vehicle
30%
 
spare
 
vehicle
 
as
 
per
 
CPHEEO
 
manual<10 10 12 15
sposa
C31
Proportion
 
of 
 
waste
 
disposed
 
through
 
scientific
 
disposal
 
manner
Comparisons
 
with
 
other
 
cities
 
Trend
 
in
 
recent
 
years80%
 
Waste
 
treated
 
through
 
scientific
 
disposal
 
<40 40 60 80 90C32
Proportion/
Quantity
 
of 
 
waste
 
received
 
at
 
landfill
 
sites
 
tonnes
 
per
 
day
30%
 
of 
 
Waste
 
generated
 
in
 
cityC33
Staff 
 
at
 
disposal
 
sites
 
per
 
100
 
tonnes
 
of 
 
garbage
 
disposed
Comparisons
 
with
 
other
 
cities
 
Trend
 
in
 
recent
 
years
 
C34
Vehicles
 
at
 
disposal
 
sites
 
per
 
100
 
tonnes
 
of 
 
garbage
 
disposed
As
 
per
 
CPHEEO
 
manual11
 
nos./200
 
MT,
 
17
 
nos.
 
/500
 
MT.,
 
25
 
nos./1000
 
MT.C35
Performance
 
of 
 
the
 
treatment
 
(compost
 
plant,
 
west
 
to
 
energy,
 
RDF
 
plant,eco
 
bricks)
This
 
indicator
 
can
 
be
 
benchmarked
 
against
 
other
 
plants
 
and
 
trend
 
prevailing
 
in
 
the
 
plant
 
in
 
recent
 
years.C36
No.
 
of 
 
disposal
 
and
 
treatment
 
facility
 
per
 
100
 
Sq.
 
Km.
11
 
C37
Mode
 
of 
 
operation
 
of 
 
SWM
 
syatem
 
DepartmentalContract PPP
Consumer's
 
complaint
C41
Total
 
number
 
of 
 
complaints
 
received
 
per
 
day
This
 
indicator
 
can
 
be
 
benchmarked
 
against
 
other
 
cities
 
and
 
trend
 
preaviling
 
in
 
the
 
agency
 
in
 
recent
 
years.>15 15 10 5 2C42
Complaints
 
attended
 
to.
Comparisons
 
with
 
other
 
cities.
 
Trend
 
prevailing
 
in
 
the
 
agency
 
in
 
recent
 
years.20 40 60 80 100C43
Privatization
 
of 
 
collection
 
activity
 
(%)
Comparisons
 
with
 
other
 
cities.
 
Trend
 
in
 
20 40 60 80 100recent
 
years.
 
Total
 
number
 
of 
 
complaints
 
received
 
for
 
violation
 
of 
 
MSW
 
rule
 
2000
 
and
 
other
 
ollution
 
norms
>6 6 4 2 1,
 
<1
Unit
 
Cost
C51
Establishment
 
cost
 
per
 
tonne
 
of 
 
garbage
 
disposed
Comparisons
 
with
 
other
 
cities
 
Trend
 
in
 
recent
 
years
 
(Increasing
 
trend,
 
after
 
adjusting
 
for
 
price
 
increases,
 
would
 
indicate
 
inefficiency,
 
wastage,
 
and
 
leakages.)>1200 1200 1000 800 600 Cost
 
may
 
be
 
more
 
incase
 
of 
 
work
 
cariied
 
out
 
departmentally.
 
Lesser
 
in
 
case
 
of 
 
on
 
contract.
 
Least
 
in
 
case
 
of 
 
on
 
PPP
 
basisC52
O
 
&
 
M
 
(operation
 
and
 
maintenance)
 
cost
 
per
 
tone
 
of 
 
garbage
 
disposed
Comparsons
 
with
 
other
 
cities
 
Trend
 
in
 
recent
 
years
 
(Increase
 
in
 
costs
 
due
 
to
 
increase
 
in
 
input
 
prices
 
has
 
to
 
be
 
separated
 
in
 
order
 
to
 
understand
 
other
 
reasons
 
for
 
change
 
in
 
unit
 
cost.)>900 900 700 500 250 Cost
 
may
 
be
 
more
 
incase
 
of 
 
work
 
cariied
 
out
 
departmentally.
 
Lesser
 
in
 
case
 
of 
 
on
 
contract.
 
Least
 
in
 
case
 
of 
 
on
 
PPP
 
basisC53
Total
 
operational
 
cost
 
per
 
tonne
 
of 
 
garbage
 
disposed
Comparisons
 
with
 
other
 
cities
 
Trend
 
in
 
recent
 
years>300 300 250 200 150 Depends
 
on
 
distance
 
to
 
landfill
 
site

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->