Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Table of Contents
Table of Contents...................................................................................................1
List of Abbreviations...............................................................................................2
List of Tables..........................................................................................................3
1.0 Introduction.................................................................................................4
1.1 Municipal Solid Waste Management...........................................................4
1.4 Aim and Objectives.....................................................................................6
1.5 Methodology Followed................................................................................7
1.6 Structure of the Report................................................................................8
2. Municipal Solid Waste Management and Best Practices.................................9
2.1 History of Municipal Solid Waste Management in India...............................9
2.2 Components of Municipal Solid Waste Management................................10
2.3 Best Practices in Municipal Solid Waste Management..............................11
2.4 Conclusions..............................................................................................23
3. Waste Management Schemes in India..........................................................25
3.1 Introduction...............................................................................................25
3.2 Technologies Available for Municipal Waste Disposal..............................25
3.4 Decentralised Waste Management and Composting – Bangalore............30
3.5 Bio-Methanation Plant: Lucknow...............................................................33
3.6 Bio-Methanation Facility – Nagpur............................................................36
3.7 Waste-to-Energy Plant: Vijaywada............................................................38
3.8 Pelletisation Plant – Hyderabad................................................................39
3.9 Cost of Waste-to-Energy Options..............................................................41
3.10 Environmental Sustainability of WTE Options...........................................43
3.11 Cost Workout for Pilot Project...................................................................44
4. Solid Waste Management in Urban India......................................................47
4.1 MSW Generated in India...........................................................................47
4.2 Cost for Provision of Municipal SWM........................................................52
4.3 Status of Municipal SWM in India..............................................................64
5. Financial Support for Solid Waste Management...........................................72
5.1 Introduction...............................................................................................72
5.2 Centrally Financed Support.......................................................................72
5.3 Waste-to-Energy Sector............................................................................74
5.4 International Donor Support......................................................................76
5.5 Private Sector Financing...........................................................................76
References............................................................................................................ 77
Annexure...............................................................................................................79
Annex 1: Financial Outlay for Mega Cities Scheme..............................................79
List of Abbreviations
BDA Bangalore Development Authority
BMP Bangalore Mahanagara Palike
BMTC Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation
BOO Build Operated and Transfer
BWSSB Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board
CBO Community Based Organisation
CEE Centre for Environment Education
CPCB Central Pollution Control Board
CPHEEO Central Public Health and Environmental
Engineering Organisation
cu.m. Cubic metre
DWCUA Development of Women and Children in Urban
Areas
EE Environment education
Exnora EXcellent, NOvel and RAdical Ideas
GoI Government of India
GoUP Government of Uttar Pradesh
HUDCO Housing and Urban Development Corporation
IDFC Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation
ISWM Integrated solid waste management
IUEIP Integrated Urban Environment Improvement Project
KPTC Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation
LDA Lucknow Development Authority
LNN Lucknow Nagar Nigam
MNES Ministry of Non-Conventional Energy Sources
MoEF Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of
India
MoUD Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India
MSW Municipal Solid Waste
NEDA
NGO Non Government Organisation
NMMC Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation
NWMC National Waste Management Council
O&M Operation and Maintenance
SJRSY Swarn Jayanti Shehri Rojgaar Yojana
SPV Special Purpose Vehicle
Sq.km. Square Kilometres
sq.km. Square kilometre
SWM Solid Waste Management
TERI Tata Energy Research Institute
TFC Twelfth Finance Commission
TIDCO Tamil Nadu Industrial Development Corporation
TIDE Technology Informatics Design Endeavour
List of Tables
Table 3.1: Advantages and Disadvantages of Waste Disposal Systems (in
Indian Scenario) – Composting.............................................................................28
Table 3.2: Advantages and Disadvantages of Waste Disposal Systems (in
Indian Scenario) – Waste-to-Energy......................................................................29
Table 3.3: Cost of WTE Options in India................................................................41
Table 3.4: Indicative Parameters for Bio-Methanation Based Power Plant............43
Table 4.1: Number of Urban Centres (State-wise and Category-wise), India.........48
Table 4.2: MSW Generation for Urban Centres in India (State-wise and
Category-wise) based on CPCB Norms................................................................50
Table 4.3: MSW Generation for Urban Centres in India (State-wise and
Category-wise) based on CPHEEO/Planning Commission Norms........................53
Table 4.4: Cost Model 1 – Cost Estimation for Municipal SWM using ORG
(1989) Norms (at 2004 prices)...............................................................................56
Table 4.5: Cost Model 2 – Cost Estimation for Municipal SWM using Planning
Commission (1983) Norms (at 2004 prices)..........................................................58
Table 4.6: Cost Model 3 – Cost Estimation for Municipal SWM using Planning
Commission/Xth Five Year Plan (2002) Norms.......................................................60
Table 4.7: Cost Model 4 – Cost Estimation for Municipal SWM using Average
Planning Commission/Xth Five Year Plan (2002) Norms........................................62
Table 4.8: Comparative Findings of Four Cost Models..........................................64
Table 4.9: Typical Composition of Municipal Solid Waste......................................64
Table 4.10: Chemical Characteristics of Landfill Leachate....................................65
Table 4.11: Status of Waste Collection, Transportation and Disposal in Urban
India...................................................................................................................... 66
Table 4.12: Characteristics of MSW having Direct Impact on WTE Initiatives.......68
Table 4.13: WTE Potential in Urban Centre in India (State-wise), 2004................68
Table 5.1: Financing Norms for IREDA..................................................................75
ii
1.0 Introduction
Urban solid waste includes, household garbage and rubbish, street sweeping,
construction and demolition debris, sanitation residues, trade and industrial refuse
and bio-medical solid waste (CPCB, 2000). Solid waste management (SWM) has
three basic components, namely, collection, transportation and disposal.
The quantity and the content of municipal solid waste (MSW) vary according to the
socio-economic status and cultural habits, prevailing climate, location, urban
structure, density of population and extent of non-residential activities (IPE, 2004;
CPCB, 2000). The collection methods currently adopted by urban local bodies
(ULBs) are primitive and lacking in specific standards or guidelines which are
required for designing and siting of collection centres. Although the Manual on
Municipal Solid Waste Management (2000) takes a positive step in this direction,
much still remains desired for. The Manual also identifies lack of technical,
managerial, administrative and financial resources and weak institutional structure of
ULBs as the prime reason for poor SWM in urban India. Lack of long-term
sustainable planning to reach to a long-term economic solution has also been listed
as one of the major deterrents for effective SWM in India.
The objective of SWM is to reduce the quantity of solid waste disposed off on land by
recovery of materials and energy from solid waste in a cost effective and
environment friendly manner. However, this is a problem which Indian cities have
been grappling with since long. According to the Central Pollution Control Board
(CPCB), the average waste generated comes to about 490 grams per capita per day.
Out of this, average collection ranges from 50% to 90% of the total solid waste
generated, while 94% of the wastes are disposed unscientifically. The typical rate of
increase of waste generation in Indian cities has been estimated at around 1.3%
annually (TERI). The expected generation of MSW in 2025 will therefore be around
700 grams per capital per day. Considering that the urban population of India is
expected to grow to 45% of total (World Bank) from the prevailing 28%, the
magnitude of problem is likely to grow to even larger proportions unless immediate
steps are taken to control waste generation, ensure better collection and sustainable
disposal.
Disposal of the waste generated is driven by the institutional and fiscal capacities of
the city governments. According to a CPCB study, about 94 percent of the cities
resort to indiscriminate dumping of domestic, commercial, industrial and medical
wastes. This results in contamination of ground and surface water by leachate.
Burning of waste as well leads to air pollution. Moreover, sanitary landfill based
disposal system as well does not seem to be a sustainable system largely as land is
The cities are therefore looking for a system of disposing the solid wastes that could
be free from the hazards mentioned above and should as well be cost effective.
Concerns for environmental risks have driven some of the cites to adopting newer
ways of waste disposal that are neither hazardous nor unaffordable. The two leading
innovative mechanisms of waste disposal being adopted in India include composting
(aerobic composting, anaerobic, vermi-composting, etc.) and waste-to-energy (bio-
methanation, pelletisation, incineration, pyrolysis/gasification).
A key risk associated with composting relates to the end product – compost that is
free from environmental hazards. If composting is not based on segregation at
source, the end product becomes generally contaminated. The quality also affects
the marketability of the compost. If a higher degree of segregation is achieved,
quality of compost is usually higher and less toxic. Effective source segregation,
therefore, becomes an important pre-requisite for successful composting. However,
the concept of source segregation has still to catch on in India. Although some cities
have initiated the concept of source segregation following Hon’ble Supreme Court
orders, most of these cities lack the infrastructure, resources and technical expertise
to make optimum utilisation of segregated wastes. The quality of segregation at
source also is very poor due to lack of awareness and enforcement.
Waste-to-energy (WTE) projects for disposal of solid waste are a relatively new
concept in India. Although these have been tried and tested in developed countries
with positive results, these are yet to get off the ground in the country largely
because of the fact that financial viability and sustainability is still on test. Many
environmentalists argue that environmental costs incurred in these projects are far
higher than the returns. While a number of cities have opted for WTE plants, such as
Hyderabad, Vijaywada, Lucknow, etc., most of these have been unsuccessful
experiments till now, primarily due to the composition of waste in India and lack of
market for end products. Although, recent WTE plants have involved the private
sector in their installation and O&M, most are heavily dependent on subsidies
Urban local bodies are spending a very high percent of their budget on cleaning and
waste disposal. These cost increases are exacerbated by poor vehicle routing, lack
of proper infrastructure and inadequate maintenance. Increasing land prices and
reduced availability of suitable disposal options in and around urban centres steadily
make safe waste disposal more difficult and costly. Despite many good practices
from around the world being available, most ULBs in India select inappropriate
technologies. There is a need to understand these good practices and identify local
context which led to their success as well as identify major constraints faced during
project preparation and implementation. Simultaneously, there is a need to identify
and address the resource gap faced by ULBs for effective SWM.
4. Estimate costs and financing options that could be suggested for fiscal
devolution by the Twelfth Finance Commission.
5. Examine the existing schemes and planned support in this sector and explore
the possibility of converging the support with the support which may be
considered by the 12th Finance commission.
The methodology adopted for this study included a combination of desk research,
interactions with experts working on innovative composting and WTE plants and
discussions with experts in government agencies including Central Pollution Control
Board and the Ministry of Non Conventional Energy Resources.
Data collection was undertaken in two stages. The first stage included collection and
collation of secondary data directly relating to the requirements of the project. The
second stage included development of a citywide inventory for solid waste. These
inventories were sent to respective city managers (Commissioner/Senior Engineers).
Visits to cities were also undertaken wherever a gap data was envisaged.
The data collected from the above sources were compiled and analysed using
computer.
In case data received from the cities/secondary sources did not tally with the data
of Census report 2001, the population figures and areas as per the Census report
2001 have been considered for analysis.
Seasonal variation of solid waste collection has not been considered for the study
as most cities did not have reliable data for these.
Most corporations/respective city organisations did not have separate data for
generation of household, commercial and industrial waste; instead an equated
data was available. For purpose of this study, the data as provided by the
concerned organisation/department has been accepted.
The 2001 Census identifies some of the cities undertaken for studies as urban
agglomerations. The urban agglomerations may consist of two or more lesser
grade municipalities. In such cases, since only the municipal corporation were
contacted, which are not concerned with the agglomeration, population and other
data figures for only the city has been considered. No efforts were made to
contact other agencies which may be involved in SWM in the agglomeration area.
It was also attempted to calculate the economic value of the waste being
generated at the city level. However, most cities were unable to furnish such
information, in which case, these were assessed using average of reliable data
available. Sources of all these data have been referenced to wherever quoted in
the report.
Following the Introduction, Chapter 2 identifies and reviews some of the best practice
in India and abroad. It focuses on innovative waste disposal techniques such as
composting, recycling, WTE and their applicability to the Indian situation.
Chapter 4 outlines the status of solid waste management in Indian cities. It also
identifies the revenue demand for municipal SWM in urban India.
Chapter 5 reviews the quantum of support extended by the previous central finance
commission in this sector. It further identifies the extent of planned support and
existing schemes available in SWM sector in India.
Solid waste management in India is a part of public health and sanitation, and
according to Indian Constitution, falls within purview of the State list. Since this
activity is non-exclusive, non-rivalled and essential, the responsibility for providing
the service lies within the public domain. The activity being of local nature is
entrusted to the ULBs. The ULB undertakes the task of solid waste service delivery
with its own staff, equipment and funds. In some cases, works are contracted out to
private enterprises.
Scientific and integrated SWM is a relatively new concept in India, although the
initiatives of Government of India (GoI) began as early as in the 1960s when the
Ministry of Food and Agriculture offered soft loans to ULBs for SWM. Further
imitative was taken by the GoI in terms of planned support by providing black grants
and loans to state governments for setting up MSW composting facilities under the
fourth five-year plan (1969-74). This initiative was taken further in 1974 when the GoI
modified this scheme for specific support to cities above 30 lakhs. However, a
number of reasons led to failure of the above initiatives.
In 1975, the GoI set up a high-level committee for review of problems of urban waste
in India. The committee, in its report made 76 recommendations, covering eight
important areas of waste management. Between 1975 and 1980, ten mechanical
compost plants were set up in the country; only one is presently in operation. In 1990
GoI constituted the National Waste Management Council (NWMC). One of the
objectives of NWMC was to improve MSW and it provided fiancnial assistance to 22
municipalities to undertake surveys to assist them in improving SWM situation.
However, in 1994, the whole of India woke to the magnitude of problem of urban
waste management after outbreak of an epidemic in Surat. Consequently, a high-
powered committee was constituted in 1995, under the chairmanship of Prof. J.S.
Bajaj. This Committee gave a number of suggestions including need for source
segregation, community-based door-to-door collection and transportation to
municipal dhalaos; charge of user-fees, standardisation of design for municipal
vehicles for transportation, need for composting of waste as the most feasible
alternative for disposal, and private sector participation in waste management.
Post-Surat scenario saw a burst in SWM related activities at the policy as well as at
round level. In 1995, The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) and the CPCB
organized an interaction meet with municipal authorities and other concerned
ministries to evolve a strategy for the management of MSW. Since 1995, over 50
waste treatment facilities have been set up across the country, mostly with private
sector participation. In this period, increased awareness among urban residents saw
a number of public interest litigations being filed. Responding to these, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court set up a committee to review the MSW conditions in Class I cities.
The MoEF meanwhile issued draft rules on Municipal Waste (Management and
Handling) Rules. These rules mandated all cities to set up waste treatment facilities
by 2001 and specified standards for segregation, collection, storage, transportation
and disposal. In 1996, the MNES initiated a pilot programme to promote waste-to-
energy projects in India, which may be considered as the birth of the new era of
waste-to-energy programmes in India.
However, for purpose of this study these have been broadly generalised in to three
categories, namely, collection, transportation and disposal. Collection includes
segregation of waste at source (if undertaken), transportation from households to
nearest transfer station, sorting and on-site storage at transfer stations.
Transportation includes transfer and transportation of wastes from transfer stations to
disposal sites. Disposal includes various alternatives including composting, recycling,
landfill, incineration, etc. Disposal options also depend on type of waste and usually a
city aiming for good waste management has to look at several parallel solutions for
MSW disposal. For example, all bio-degradable wastes should be composted, all
recyclable wastes should be sent to respective recycling industries, all bio-medical
wastes should be either incinerated or dumped in sanitary land fills, other wastes
(such as construction debris, etc.) can be taken to land fills. These can be
complemented with alternative technologies such as waste-to-energy (pelletisation,
bio-methanation, etc.), waste-to-material (bricks constructed from fly-ash), etc.
Alternative technologies are usually source specific and require detailed viability
studies before being constructed. Brief write-ups on composting and waste-to-energy
facilities have been included in Annex 1.
While alternative means of SWM have been tried and tested in India in the last
decade or so, many of them have not been successful due to a number of reasons.
However, there are examples which have not only been successful but can also be
replicated in other cities with adaptation according to local needs. Some of these
‘good’ and ‘best’ practices have been outlined below. Along with national experience,
some international experiences have also been identified and studies, especially in
areas of integrated SWM and alternative technologies for waste disposal.
Chennai is the capital city of Tamil Nadu and is the commercial and business hub for
South India. The Corporation of Chennai serves an area of approximately 174 sq.km,
catering to a population of about 4.2 million including 0.75 million slum population. 1
The estimated MSW generation is about 3200 MTs (excluding 500 MTs of building
debris).2 Of this, around 68% is residential waste, 14% commercial, 12% institutional
and 2% industrial. The Corporation envisages that the city will produce around
4000MT of waste by 2005. The city is served by two dumping ground, Kodungaiyur
and Perungudi, both incidentally located on wetland areas.
Efforts to improve SWM in the city were undertaken as early as in 1996, when the
Corporation hired a consulting firm to develop a SWM plan and identify areas for
private sector involvement through assistance from Tamil Nadu Industrial
Development Corporation (TIDCO). A private sector operator was contracted the
work of procurement of vehicles/machines/dust bins, deployment of dust
bins/container bins/community bins, collection from collection points, collection of
market wastes and transferring and transporting wastes to disposal sites.
Following these initiatives, three major problems were identified. One was that most
households were not throwing their wastes into the community bins provided; wastes
were being thrown on roadside. The second problem was that many local bins were
at most of the times overflowing which caused serious health problems. Thirdly, rag
pickers were now poaching on these bins and retrieving recyclable wastes and
spilling wastes around the bin area.
To resolve this problem, the Corporation tied up with a local NGO called Exnora
(EXcellent, NOvel and RAdical Ideas). Exnora arrived at a system of waste
management, which addressed both the problems mentioned above which
functioned through the Civic Exnoras (CBOs), which was entirely based on people’s
co-operation and participation. Exnora employed and trained the rag pickers (they
were given names of city beautifiers) to undertake door-to-door collection of waste
and transport them to community bins. All city beautifiers are given a monthly income
and provided with a tri-cycle cart and a uniform. These Street Beautifier went from
1
Census of India, 2001, Final Population Tables
2
Corporation of Chennai, 2002
door to door collecting the waste stored inside the houses in the tri-cycle cart and
transported it to the transfer stations (secondary collection points), from where it was
cleared by the Municipal Corporation. This new system ensured that waste was not
disposed onto the streets, or even into the Municipal dustbins, and hence ensured
cleanliness and hygiene of the surroundings. Within first couple of years around 1000
Civic Exnoras were functioning in the city. Households shared the cost of monthly
income of city beautifiers; the cost per household came to around Rs.10 per month.
The City Beautifier was also able to augment his salary by about Rs.400/- a month,
by selling recyclable wastes segregated from the garbage.
pumped into the SWM process. However, the level of segregation was not very high;
around 30% of the wastes were found to be mixed. To solve this problem, the
Corporation introduced the concept of zero-waste. All wastes were carried to a zero-
waste centre where they were sorted using various technologies. These segregated
wastes were then sent to respective disposal sites. As part of community level
initiatives vermi-composting and aerobic composting of bio-degradable wastes was
propagated by Exnora.
In order to oversee functioning of Civic Exnoras, a public grievance system has also
been set up the Corporation of Chennai. All grievances have been categorised and
are catered to within a specified time period.
Hyderabad is the capital city of Andhra Pradesh which is known for its software
industry and electronic boom. It has a population of around 3.5 million of which 0.6
million are residing in slum areas. 3 Hyderabad has a per capita waste production of
0.382 kg/day4 and the total waste generation is estimated at 1337 MT per day. Of this
treatment of only 100MT of waste is done per day while 94% of the wastes are
disposed by dumping. Hyderabad produces around 40% biodegradable wastes and
10% recyclable waste. Around 50% wastes constitute of ash, fine earth and other
wastes.
The MCH introduced a voluntary garbage collection scheme in 1994 and it has been
functioning since then. The scheme provides a full subsidy to voluntary agencies and
resident associations to undertake house-to-house collection of garbage. The
association submits a signed list of households it will serve. The subsidy covers a
tricycle for every 100-150 households. The association is responsible for appointing
and supervising staff. The tricycle puller must be paid at least Rs 750 per month with
every household contributing at least Rs 10. Under this scheme, about 600 localities,
representing about 20 per cent of the population, have been covered. While the
scheme is also operational for slum areas, the participating associations are mainly
from middle-income areas.
3
Census of India, 2001, Final Population Tables
4
CPCB, 2000, Solid Waste Generation, Collection, Treatment and Disposal in Metro Cities
In 1995, the Corporation began to contract out solid waste related services; 27
different localities were identified and divided them into two sectors for two separate
one-year contracts. The contracts were awarded through competitive bidding to local
firms and co-operatives that possessed the required manpower, vehicles, equipment
and experience. An internal evaluation revealed that some improvements were
necessary for the effective functioning of this system. These improvements included
better monitoring of contractors, a plan for movement of the vehicles, standardizing
the payments by linking them to the quantity of garbage removed, use of a
computerized weighing station at the dump sites, and assurance that minimum
wages are paid to the workers. Following this evaluation in 1996 and a study of
Surat's approach, the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad decided to increase the
contracts for sweeping, collection and transportation of garbage to the official
dumping sites. It awarded contracts to clean seven municipal wards and another four
for cleaning the main roads at night. Apart from contracting, Hyderabad also
approach financial institutions such as HUDCO for financing of SWM components
such as fleet augmentation, upgradation of trenching grounds, development of
transfer stations and landfill sites and an incinerator for disposal of hospital and
animal waste
In 1998 MCH introduced a new unit-based system for private sector participation that
integrated the two types of contracts – for road cleaning at night and for sweeping,
collection, and transportation by day. Under this system the city has been divided into
266-day units and 50 night units. About 40 percent of the day units have been
reserved for the MCH staff and the rest have been given out to private contractors.
One hundred contractors have been awarded day units and around 25 contractors
night units. A provision has been made for monitoring performance through
community action. Five men and five women constitute an informal community in
each unit; their daily certification is mandatory for the payment to the contractor.
According to MCH estimates, these latest reforms saw the collection increase to
about 90%. Overall about 60 percent of the work is contracted out.
In 1999, Hyderabad set up a waste-to-energy plant for producing 105 tpd fuel pellets
from municipal solid wastes (MSW). The pellets produced from this project are being
used an industrial fuel and for generation of power.
Note: The procurement process has changed to a lottery, and is no longer based on competition.
Source: Mehta Meera (1999). “A Review of Public-Private Partnerships in the Water and Environmental
Sanitation in India”, Water and Environmental Sanitation Group. DFID, India.
The Vijayawada Municipal Corporation (VMC) has used the DWCUA (Development
of Women and Children in Urban Areas) groups, for improving sanitation in the city
by giving contracts for waste collection and other sanitation services to these groups.
DWCUA groups are area-based community groups organised as a part of Swarn
Jayanti Shehri Rojgaar Yojana (SJSRY). The Corporation facilitates the formation of
these groups comprised of women and children.
VMC supports these groups by arranging finances for sanitation vehicles and
equipment. The Corporation gives these groups the responsibility to sweep, clean,
collect and transport garbage from their neighbourhood area. The community group
is also responsible for cleaning streets and drains, by desilting and removing
garbage, in their area. Each community group member is paid Rs. 55 per day
towards labour charge and Rs. 5 per day towards a group corpus fund. The corpus
fund is used for purchase of uniforms, shoes and implements that are used by the
workers. Since the community groups belong to thee neighbourhood, they are able to
put peer pressure on those not complying with general norms. This also works vice-
versa; when community groups do not report to work, problems are sorted out at the
community level itself.
The scheme has resulted in cost savings for the Corporation as well as better service
performance because of local community involvement. This program has also helped
eliminate caste bias associated with such activities. Women from various
communities are coming forward to participate in the scheme.5
The VMC also has tie-ups with not-for-profit making agencies/institutions for waste
disposal. The most well known is the Autonagar Sanitation Scheme. VMC has a tie-
up with the Residents Association of Autonagar to share the cost of sanitation based
on their needs as also their ability to pay. The Association pays 50% of overall cost of
waste disposal and sanitation in the area. They also closely monitor and supervise
the working of the scheme resulting in improved sanitation and hygiene.
5
Source: Kirti Devi and V. Satyanarayana (2001)
VMC has also tied-up with the Indian Medical Association (IMA) as a follow up of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India's order in W.P.No.888 of 1996. Under this tie-up,
IMA ensures that all clinics, nursing homes, hospitals contribute towards disposal of
bio-medical waste. The Vijaywada chapter of IMA has agreed to bear the entire cost
of collection and disposal of bio-medical waste on scientific basis.
Bangalore, the Garden City of India, is also a commercial and business hub with
strong international linkages. Solid waste in the city is managed by the Bangalore
Mahanagara Palike (BMP) catering to a population of 5.7 million 6. On a city-basis,
around 45% of the waste generated is compostable (CPCB, 2000). Of this, 75% of
the domestic waste is organic in nature (Mani and Verghese, 2002), based on which
the BMP initiated the Swaccha7 Bangalore programme in 2001.
However, for areas in the Bangalore Metropolitan Area which is not falling under the
BMP jurisdiction conditions of SWM were not as good as inside the city. According to
a survey done in 2001, around 67% of the population in BMA did not have access to
SWM facilities (IMRB, 2001) while 600 MT of wastes was being dumped in open and
6
Census of India, 2001, Final Population Table (Urban Agglomeration figure)
7
Swaccha translated in English means ‘Clean’.
uncontrolled manner along the arterial roads of Bangalore (Mani and Verghese,
2002). To mitigate this situation, the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA)
launched the Integrated Urban Environment Improvement Project (IUEIP) with
support from the Norwegian Government.
A full-fledged Geographic Information System (GIS) of the four layouts was also
designed and developed and is being used for effective management of the projects.
The information put into the system is also available to the residents and ensures
regular updating of data to ensure correctness of information.
For lifting and transfer of wastes, mechanical bin lifters are being used. MSW from
areas excluding Vashi is collected using 23 refuse compactors. For this, 1050
collection bins of size 1 cu.m. each have been placed in these five nodes. Solid
waste from Vashi is collected using 15 dumper placers. For this, 81 bins each of 5
cu.m. capacity have been kept. Each solid waste collection bin has been numbered
and time of waste lifting has been recorded on the bins. Signature of designated local
resident is taken by the contractor after lifting solid waste. Solid waste from village
and slum areas is collected by refuse compactor. For this, around 400 round bins
and 150 hanging bins have been provided in these areas. From NMMC area about
400 MT solid waste is collected per day. This waste is disposed in sanitary landfill
developed at Koparkhairane. While disposing solid waste bio-culture and AFM is
sprayed to minimize fly and odour nuisance. Security guards have been appointed to
avoid stray dogs and unauthorised dumping.
NMMC has the right to levy penalties for unsatisfactory work or in the case of
complaints from the community, and if work is continuously unsatisfactory, the Chief
Health Officer is authorized to terminate contracts with three days notice. A security
deposit of 5% of contract value is kept as a guarantee, which is returned without
interest at the completion of the contract. Estimates show that the use of private
contractors results in a cost reduction of 40%, and has eliminated the need to hire
and manage 450-500 sanitary workers.
A team of scientists and technical experts have developed a solar powered biogas
plant to convert ordinary kitchen waste into fuel at the Bhabha Atomic research
Centre (BARC) in Mumbai. The plant, installed at the Nuclear Agriculture and
Biotechnology Division, has been taking care of all the kitchen waste in the BARC
canteens estimated at 600 kilograms daily. The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation
(BMC) has already shown interest in this technology. The plant works on the same
principle as gobar gas plants - the bacterial breakdown of waste produces energy -
but with modifications, which improve its output. These include a mixer and pre-
digester which helps break down the waste into sludge before it runs down into the
main tank where it is converted into methane gas. The gas is used in one of the
BARC canteens. Fertilizer is also produced as a by-product. The plant requires no
electricity. Even the pre-digester, which mixes hot water into the sludge to help
decomposition, uses only solar power to heat up the water. The estimated cost of a 1
tonne plant is around Rs.5 lakhs and it takes about 300 sq.m. of area.
8
Source: Times of India, Mumbai, March 7, 2002.
Mobilization of resources: the financial resources were obtained from the National
Environmental Fund and the six CIRSURES member Municipalities. Federal Savings
Bank, responsible for transferring the resources, provided technical and
administrative consultancy to operationalise the project. Several partners’ institutions
were responsible to provide the needed technical and human resources. The Federal
University in Santa Catarina (UFSC) and the Agricultural and Livestock Research
and Rural Extension Company (EPAGRI) provided technical and scientific orientation
in the elaboration of the ISWM Plan, as part of the inter-institutional working group.
All social mobilization and environmental education activities were undertaken by
neighborhood associations and schools in the six Municipalities, thus ensuring
familiarity with the project throughout local society.
The program had a highly significant cost-benefit ratio, since considering all the
investments (including remediation of the old garbage dumpsites) the per capita cost
is approximately US$2.78. The operational cost of the sanitary landfill is less than
US$0.07 per capita/month. Considering the landfill’s lifespan - estimated at 20 years
– and the environmental and public health benefits from the appropriate disposal of
solid waste, this investment was seen to have a high social and environmental return
which would not be possible without society’s participation and involvement.
In order for the population to support any action, it must participate all the way from
the original project concept and design to its final execution. People’s awareness
concerning a given issue develops slowly and time should be given for the group to
be able to “digest” the idea, in order to later incorporate it into daily practice. We often
underestimate the force of organized society and are pushed by it.
As a small town with a limited tax base, Annapolis Royal faced major financial
challenges in implementing SWM. Realizing that transportation and tipping costs
associated with the curbside collection and central composting of organic wastes are
quite high, citizens in the Annapolis County Environmental Protection Association
(ACEPA) researched alternatives that could save the town considerable resources.
ACEPA produced a plan to handle MSW on a local (rather than regional) scale.
ACEPA invited the public to attend general information meetings. Speakers (such as
environmental activists and waste management professionals) explained alternatives
that would cost less, be earth-friendly, and permit a high degree of local control.
The town formed an Environment Committee with community representatives,
including a representative from ACEPA. This Committee handled much of the
transition to a new system of local waste management, and continues to guide the
programs now in place. The Environmental Committee also propagated segregation
of waste at source and a four-way segregation has been adopted to collect: (i)
recyclable beverage containers, (ii) clean paper waste, (iii) organic waste and (iv)
residual waste.
Hangzhou is located in the Yangtze River delta in the southeast part of China, a
coastal region relatively developed for its economy. MSW in the city is taken to
sanitary landfills with a daily capacity of 2300 to 5000 tons of solid waste, which
comply to state environmental norms. However, it was decided to tap this waste and
convert it into energy. Subsequently, a landfill-gas-to-energy power plant with an
output of 1940 KW was set up. The power plant of phase 1 makes an annual profit of
RMB 7.2 million (approximately Rs.37 million at 1999 rates) and reduces landfill gas
pollution by about 12 million cubic meters (9 million cu.m. of CH 4, 3 million cu.m. of
CO and 4000 cubic meters of H2S). The plant has the option of expanding upto 5280
KW in Phase II.
Funds were mainly raised through levying a local tax called the urban construction
and maintenance tax, which accounts for 72.3% of the total cost of the project. The
remaining capital was made up by foreign investment. Experts from across the
country were invited to provide necessary technical and scientific inputs. The
advanced technology of gas-to-energy recovery was imported from abroad.
2.4 Conclusions
Study of these national and international best practices in SWM highlights the need
for the following:
(i). Reduced waste quantity entering the secondary waste stream, creating
lesser pressure on ULBs resources and city environment;
(ii). O&M of facilities are generally done through community resources, again
reducing burden on ULB resources. However, initial seed/capital for
construction of infrastructure has to be provided by ULB either in form of a
subsidy or loan. Similar assistance can be availed from donor agencies
(JICA, DFID, etc.) and financing institutions (HUDCO, etc.);
(iii). Lesser secondary waste collection means lesser environmental costs
(burning of petrol) and lesser infrastructure costs (less number/size of
vehicles, staff, etc.); and
(iv). Ensures sustainability of the project at the local level itself.
7. Need for step-by-step approach for WTE: a step-by-step approach towards
WTE is more likely to give better results. Also WTE alone cannot be the only
means of MSW disposal; they need to be complemented with other alternatives
such as composting, etc. The example from China very clearly shows that the
first step taken by the concerned agency was to improve the condition of sanitary
landfill (including conversion of landfill into sanitary landfill). The next step was to
install a low capacity plant and assess/create the market need for the final
product. Once this was done, expansion of the WTE plant can be done.
3.2.1 Composting
Anaerobic Composting
In this form of composting, the organic matter is decomposed in the absence of air.
Organic matter may be collected in pits and covered with a thick layer of soil and left
undisturbed for 6-8 months. The compost so formed may not be completely
converted and may include aggregated masses (CEE, 2000).
Aerobic Composting
In the Pit Method the same process as above in done, but in pits specially
constructed/dug out for this purpose. Mixing has to be done every 15 days and there
is no fixed time in which the compost may be ready (depends on soil moisture,
climate, level of organic material, etc.). The Berkley Method uses a labour intensive
technique and has precise requirements of the material to be composted. Easily
biodegradable material, such as grass, vegetable matter, etc., are mixed with animal
matter in the ratio of 2:1. This is piled and mixed at regular intervals. Compost is
usually ready in 15 days (CEE, 2000).
Vermicomposting
Incineration
Pelletisation
This refers to creation of fuel pellets (also called refuse derived fuel or RDF) from
MSW. Pelletisation generally involves segregation of incoming waste in to low and
high calorific material followed by separate shredding. Different heaps of shredded
wastes are mixed together in suitable proportions and solidified to produce RDF
pellets. Pellets are small cylindrical pieces with a calorific value of 400Kcal/kg. Since
this is quite close to calorific value of coal, it can be used as a substitute. However,
calorific value of the pellets completely depend on the calorific value of the waste
stream which needs to be sorted in Indian conditions to allow only the right type of
waste to come through.
Pyrolysis/Gasification
Bio-Methanation
Similar in principal to the bio-methanation option, this process taps and stores gas
produced in sanitary landfills. Typically, landfill gas production starts within a few
months after disposal of wastes and generally lasts till 10 years or more depending
on composition of waste and availability/distribution of moisture.
Recent studies for Indian scenario clearly show that while net power generation for thermo-
chemical conversion processes is around 14.4 times the quantity of waste input (in kW), the
same for bio-chemical conversion process is 11.5 times the waste inputs (provided 50% of
waste inputs are volatile solids). However, in terms of environmental impact, the later is far
safer option than the previous.
Table 4.1 and 4.2 highlight some of the advantages and disadvantages of various
options discussed have been outlined in the following page.
Table 3.1: Advantages and Disadvantages of Waste Disposal Systems (in Indian Scenario) – Composting
Table 3.2: Advantages and Disadvantages of Waste Disposal Systems (in Indian Scenario) – Waste-to-Energy
Background
This study concerns entirely with the Integrated Urban Environment Improvement
Project (IUEIP). The IUEIP was launched in areas falling under jurisdiction of
Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) in 1998 and was piloted in 4 BDA schemes.
Supported by the Norwegian Embassy (NORAD), this project was designed as a
collaborative effort of NGOs, government agencies and resident groups. The IUEIP
addressed four main components:
Integrated plan for environment management.
Preparation of GIS.
Open space management.
Creation of a project secretariat.
This study focuses on the first component only. Close to the beginning of the new
millennium, the BDA recognised the need to adopt alternative means for
environmental improvement as an integral part of entering the new millennium. In
1998 it designed an alternative approach to developing and maintaining civic
amenities through an integrated urban environment plan. The plan was based on a
holistic approach, with an in-built system for coordination between various agencies,
and with the local residents as the focus of activity. The adopted a ‘stakeholder’
approach, drawing in resources of NGOs and local residents to address specific
issues in the areas, thereby creating and building community awareness of
neighbourhood management.
Stakeholders/Partnerships
Primary Stakeholders: Residents of the 4 target schemes and BDA were the primary
stakeholder with an overall objective of handing over the area to BMP with an
existing plan in place.
Funding Agency: NORAD (Government of Norway)
Technical Stakeholders: Centre for Environment Education (CEE), Tata Energy
Research Institute (TERI), Myrthri Sarva Seva Samiti and Technology Informatics
Design Endeavour (TIDE).
Other Stakeholders: resident associations, waste scavengers, BMP, BWSSB, KPTC,
Bangalore City Police, BMTC, other civic and emergency services of city.
The SWM component of the IUEIP focussed on development of local level plans for
segregation at source, reduction of waste at primary levels, decentralised composting
The first step included a detailed study and survey of the four schemes to generate
information on quantity and quality of waste, water sources, sewerage and drainage
systems, existing waste practices in waste management, and identification of suitable
land for setting up of composting facilities. This information was used to develop an
action plan which was discussed with the residents and approved.
Compost Facilities
Localised compost facilities were set up in the residential area. Usually an open
ground or buffer area was preferred. Eight compost facilities were installed for the
first two layout schemes. Although composting facilities originally used aerobic
decomposition, they are now being converted to vermicomposting technology with
special microbial cultures obtained
from the University of Agriculture
Sciences, Bangalore in a step-to-
step process. This switch will take
time since vermicomposting is a
more expensive option and
requires large capital and O&M
investments. The compost pits are
of the size of 9 x 4 x 3 ft and it
takes an average of 60 days for a
compost to be ready, which is
then sieved to retrieve the finer compost, while the coarser compost is put back into
the pits with fresh garbage. All compost pits are lined with bricks and waterproof
material and have sheds over them to protect them from rain and sun. Mesh wires
have been provided around the facility to keep away stray animals (see picture).
Financial Outlay
The IUEIP has a three-year time span for execution. The budgetary provision
included Rs.363.28 lakhs with funding from NORAD accounting for Rs.290 lakhs
(around 80% of the budget) and the remaining Rs.73.28 lakhs contributed from
implementing agencies. The O&M costs are recovered from residents and sale of
compost to residents and outsiders.
Cost Recovery
Households need to pay Rs.15 per month to the WMC which manages the bank
account jointly with CEE. Composts are sold at Rs. 2/- per kg to residents and Rs. 6/-
per kg to outsiders. Vermicompost, which has a large market demand, is sold at
Rs.7.50/- per kg. One of the biggest purchasers of this compost has been the
Horticulture Wing of BDA which uses it in its parks, medians, buffers, etc.
Management Issues
The management of the entire project lies with the WMCs with support from the local
NGOs. The monthly remuneration for the workers, overhead charges, and O&M
costs from running the project as well as the compost facilities are managed by the
WMC from the monthly charges collected from residents and shopkeepers.
Environmental Hazards
Marketability Issues
The compost produced from these facilities is of good quality; they are being used by
neighbouring agriculture farmers (who use the coarse compost as it is better suited
for rice produce), organic farming
industry, floral industry, etc. The
Horticulture Wing of BDA is another
major buyer of this compost and uses it
for improving greenery on medians,
buffers, parks, etc. (see picture).
Improved SWM in these colonies have
also had an impact on cost recovery for
other services, with residents more willing
to pay for water supply, sewerage and
drainage services. Real estate values of
these areas have also gone up.
Sustainability Issues
Although the IUEIP is over, SWM in the target areas is still ongoing managed by
WMCs. In fact, WMCs have been able to recover enough money from residents and
sale of compost not only for sustainable management, but also for shifting from
aerobic form of composting to vermicomposting, which is a more costly, though
environment-friendly, option. Following the demonstration of success of this initiative,
many other colonies/schemes in Bangalore have taken up similar initiatives on their
own. Therefore, at a decentralised level, this is a sustainable project and this
technology/process can be easily transferred to other cities in India.
Background
The Lucknow Nagar Nigam (LNN) faces major threat from disposed wastes as its two
landfills are overflowing. Lucknow produces around 1800 MT of MSW daily. Inability
to identify a suitable area in proximity forced LNN policy managers to look for other
alternatives. The city also faces a huge crisis in terms of energy requirements,