Waste Amount & Characterization Survey and Primary Collection & Transportation Plan

Municipal Corporation Muzaffarabad
Azad Jammu & Kashmir
WASTE AMOUNT & CHARACTERIZATION SURVEY

and
PRIMARY COLLECTION & TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Integrated Solid Waste Management & Recycling Projects
Capital City Muzaffarabad
(ISWM&RP)
November 2019
Submitted by
International Consulting Engineers of Pakistan

7 Shami Road, Lahore Cantt. Pakistan
Tel: 042-37187934 Fax: 042-36654356
DISCLAIMER
This waste amount and characterization report has been prepared by the Consultants
for the city of Muzaffarabad under a consultancy agreement. To maintain highest level
of quality, maximum care and caution has been observed while developing this
document. No part of this document can be reproduced or transmitted in any form or
by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or
information storage and retrieval system, without the express permission, in writing, by
the Client.
This report documents the waste generation, physical and chemical composition of
waste of Muzaffarabad in 2019. The technical team has conducted waste generation
and physical composition survey in consultation with relevant authorities. However,
Chemical analysis report has been prepared by the Pakistan Council of Scientific &
Industrial Research (PCSIR), Lahore and the technical team bears no responsibility
towards the authenticity/accuracy the chemical analysis results.
Technical Team
Dr. Nasir Javed, Urban Development Expert
Dr. Engr. Kiran Farhan, SWM Expert
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Population growth, increased commercial and industrial activities and improved
lifestyles have resulted in increased waste generation rates across the globe in urban
areas. Studies have shown that the solid waste produced varies from area to area
depending on economic activity, climatic conditions, social behavior and industrial
production. Current study is done in Muzaffarabad comprising of determining the waste
generation rates, composition and physio-chemical characteristics of the municipal solid
waste (MSW) produced in the City. The study was carried out for 8 days from22 nd
September to 29th September 2019. All the data was recorded and analyzed using
Microsoft Excel. Average household size in Muzaffarabad is 6 persons per household
and average per capita waste generation is determined at 0.305kg/c/d. Waste
generation rate for high income groups turns out to be 0.37 kg/c/d. whereas, generation
rate for middle and low income is 0.3 kg/c/d and 0.25 kg/c/d respectively.
The results of the physical composition analysis reveals that, all waste types contains
46% organic waste, 31 % recyclables, 17% RDF, and 6% inert material. The Average
density for the mix waste is determined as 262 kg/m3.
PART I
WASTE AMOUNT AND CHARACTERIZATION SURVEY
WACS, Collection & Transportation Plan; Muzaffarabad
Waste Amount and Characterization Survey
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 5
1.1. Objectives of the Survey ....................................................................... 5
1.2. Scope of Waste Amount and Characterization Survey .......................... 5
1.3. Project Description ............................................................................... 7
2. METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................... 8
2.1. Training of the Enumerators ................................................................ 8
2.2. Waste Amount Survey .......................................................................... 9
2.2.1. Sample Collection ................................................................................ 9
2.2.2. Waste Measurement and Recording ................................................... 12
2.3. Waste Composition Survey................................................................. 12
2.3.1. Physical Composition ........................................................................ 13
3. RESULTS OF WAC SURVEY ..................................................................... 16
3.1. Waste Generation Analysis................................................................. 16
3.2. Physical Composition ......................................................................... 18
3.2.1. Low Income Areas .............................................................................. 19
3.2.2. Middle Income Areas ......................................................................... 20
3.2.3. High Income Areas............................................................................. 21
3.2.4. Commercial Areas - Restaurants ....................................................... 22
3.2.5. Other Commercial Establishments .................................................... 23
3.2.6. Market Areas ..................................................................................... 24
3.2.7. Institutions ........................................................................................ 25
[i]
3.2.8. Street sweeping ................................................................................. 26
3.2.9. Parks Area ......................................................................................... 27
ANNEXURE: DATA SHEET ............................................................................ 28
[ii]
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Number and Categories of Waste Samples........................................... 9
Table 2: Number of Samples for Physical Composition Analysis...................... 13
Table 3: Waste Components for Physical Composition Analysis ...................... 14
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Map of Azad Jammu and Kashmir (Planning and Development
Department, Government of AJK) ..................................................................... 6
Figure 2: Map of Muzaffarabad (Planning and Development Department,

Government of AJK).......................................................................................... 7
Figure 3: Marking of Sample Codes ................................................................ 10
Figure 4: Waste Bags Distribution and Public Sensitization............................ 10
Figure 5: Sample Collection ............................................................................ 11
Figure 6: Waste Sample Counting ................................................................... 11
Figure 7: Weighing of Samples ........................................................................ 11
Figure 8: Segregation of Samples .................................................................... 12
LIST OF GRAPHS
Graph 1: Household Size for High, Middle, Low Income and Average Size for the
City of Muzaffarabad ...................................................................................... 16
Graph 2: Average per Capita Waste Generation at Household Level ................ 16
Graph 3: Average Specific Gravity (Kg/m3) for the Sampled Data .................... 17
[iii]
Graph 4: Average Composition of Household Waste ........................................ 18
Graph 5: Waste Composition for Low - Income Households ............................ 19
Graph 6: Waste Composition from Middle Income Group................................ 20
Graph 7: Waste Composition from High Income Group ................................... 21
Graph 8: Waste Composition of Commercial Restaurants ............................... 22
Graph 9: Waste Composition from Commercial Waste Generation Sources..... 23
Graph 10: Waste Composition from Market Container .................................... 24
Graph 11: Waste Composition from Institutions ............................................. 25
Graph 12: Waste Composition from Street Sweeping ...................................... 26
Graph 13: Waste Composition Statistics from Park Area ................................ 27
[iv]
1. INTRODUCTION
Presently, Azad Jammu and Kashmir has a population over 4 million including 17.5% in cities
(Census 2017). Waste management is still a big challenge in majority of cities. Existing Solid
Waste Management (SWM) system only manages portion of the waste generated in the
cities to transfer it to dumping sites since landfill are yet another service that has not been
developed. On top of it, whatever is collected does not reach a designated dumpsite, if any.
SWM, as the service is defined, including collection, transportation and treatment ending at
disposal is a complex process. For a city to better operate and manage, it requires a proper
and well-thought plan based on the features and characteristics of waste. The amount of
waste generated, its density, and the types and amounts of different wastes in the mix, are
some of the basic features reflecting the waste characteristics. To scientifically determine all
these parameters and conduct analysis, a waste amount and characterization survey (WACS)
was conducted in Muzaffarabad in September 2019. This survey constitutes determination
of the above mentioned waste features. This report presents the findings of this survey;
results obtained would act as reference values in forming optimum waste management
decisions in city level planning.
1.1. Objectives of the Survey

The purpose of the waste analysis and composition survey was to gather data of the amount
and composition of municipal solid waste generated in Muzaffarabad city. In this regard the
survey was useful to estimate;
i. Amount of waste generated

ii. Physical composition of waste
iii. Chemical analysis of waste
These results would support the SWM planning team in understanding the properties and
types of waste in the area and would help to formulate an appropriate integrated waste
management plan for the city.
1.2. Scope of Waste Amount and Characterization Survey

The waste amount and composition survey area includes 9 Union councils of Muzaffarabad.
Waste sources surveyed include households, markets, shops & stores, hotels & restaurants,
schools, institutes, offices and other commercial establishments. Analysis of data and
reporting has been done to cater for the objectives of the survey.
5|Page
Figure 1: Map of Azad Jammu and Kashmir (Planning and Development Department, Government of AJK)
6|Page
Figure 2: Map of Muzaffarabad (Planning and Development Department, Government of AJK)
1.3. Project Description

The waste amount and composition survey was carried out to collect data such as:
I. Weight of waste
II. Density of waste
III. Physical components
The survey was conducted in the following sequence:
 Planning for the survey including survey tools, worksheets and finalization of the sampling
location/households in consultation with the Client.
 Identification and finalization of the site for waste segregation and samples preparation in
consultation with the Client.
 Collection and weighing of waste from the waste generation sources and recording it
(including provision of plastic bags, preparing weighing equipment).
 Transporting the waste to the site to carry out waste composition analysis.
 Measuring density of a sample from each source.
 Dividing the sample into physical components and weighing them.
 Analysing the data recorded.
7|Page
2. METHODOLOGY
The technical team visited all the locations such as high, middle, low income and other
commercial establishments and devised a proper survey plan before commencement of
field activities. All source locations including households and all commercial establishments
were also chosen after mutual agreement with the representatives of Muzaffarabad.
2.1. Training of the Enumerators

More than 15 graduate students were engaged as interns for the survey, as well as 10
number of workers from Muzaffarabad SWM staff. The Solid Waste Management expert
held a training session for the students and explained the complete survey process for
waste amount and characterization.
The SWM expert arranged the team into several groups assigning them the areas and
sample collection responsibility. She further assigned one team member as coordinator for
consolidation of data. Another team was given the responsibility of getting the segregation
done through the sanitary workers once the samples arrived at sorting area.
Lastly, she explained the protocol of proceeding in the field, starting from introducing the
project to participating households and entities to, tagging of individual sample codes, data
recording, and filling of forms.
One mock exercise was also conducted in the field in the presence of SWM officials before
the survey could be launched in the field.
Before proceeding to the actual survey for measurement of wastes, the survey team visited
each selected household and explained to the owner the purpose, method and period of the
study. Upon obtaining consent of the household owners for cooperation with the survey
teams, the data concerning the number of inhabitants, floor area and address were
recorded. Other than this information, following tasks were also performed as pre-survey
activities:
i. Distribution of marked waste sampling bags (30 litre capacity) with specific sample codes to
each household on the day preceding the first collection day.
ii. Plastic bags filled with solid waste from each household were collected at a fixed time in the
morning throughout the 8-day survey period. These samples were brought to the designated
area for waste composition survey. Each sample was weighed, segregated into 16
predetermined waste types and each type was weighed and recorded.
8|Page
2.2. Waste Amount Survey

For the purpose of sample collection for waste amount survey, numerous samples were
collected from following types of settlements and locations;
 Residential Areas (High Income, Middle Income, Low Income)

 Commercial Area (Restaurants and Commercial Centres)
 Institutions (School, Colleges and Offices)
 Markets and Parks
 Street Sweepings
The detail of samples is provided below.
2.2.1. Sample Collection
Representative sampling was carried out incorporating all settlement types as per the
proportion presented in table below.
Table 1: Number and Categories of Waste Samples
Types Waste Amount Survey

Area Samples Number Survey Total
per Area of Days Samples
Samples
Household High 2 5 10 8 80
Middle 4 5 20 8 160
Low 2 5 10 8 80
Commercial Restaurants 1 5 5 8 40
Shops 1 5 5 8 40
Markets 2 2 4 8 32
Institutions 2 1 2 8 16
Street Sweeping 1 1 1 8 8
Parks 1 1 1 8 8
Total 58 464
A total of 58 sampling points were selected for the survey. These points are listed in
Annexure I of the report. Survey was carried out for eight consecutive days. The rate of
waste generation per capita in households and other analyses were performed on the data
hence received.
9|Page
Photographs of the sample collection are presented below.
Figure 3: Marking of Sample Codes
Figure 4: Waste Bags Distribution and Public Sensitization
10 | P a g e
Figure 5: Sample Collection
Figure 6: Waste Sample Counting
Figure 7: Weighing of Samples
11 | P a g e
Figure 8: Segregation of Samples
2.2.2. Waste Measurement and Recording
After receiving waste samples from the source, measurement and data recording was
initiated. The collected samples were then processed as follows;
a. Samples were brought to the site and weighed.
b. The samples were classified into their categories using the fixed label on the
plastic bag to show the code for each household (High, Middle, Low and Rural
area), commercial establishment, public facilities, markets and street waste.
c. Measurements of weight for each sample by a scale was carried out and
recorded on the respective recording sheet.
d. Measurement of the volume for samples of each source by opening the plastic
bags and emptying the waste in a calibrated plastic barrel was ensured. To
achieve an accurate measurement of the volume, the barrel was lifted to a
height of about 30 cm and dropped. This procedure was repeated for three
times. This helped in recording the volume on the respective record sheet.
e. After recording the weight and volume, calculations for the bulk density (kg/l)
and the unit generation for a household (kg/c/day & l/c/day) were performed.
2.3. Waste Composition Survey

The samples were physically characterized according to pre-determined parameters. These
parameters are presented in the following sections.
12 | P a g e
2.3.1. Physical Composition
Table below shows samples selection for physical composition survey.
Table 2: Number of Samples for Physical Composition Analysis
Type of Waste Generation Waste Composition Survey

Source Samples Survey Number of Physical
Days Compositions
Household High 1 8 8
Middle 1 8 8
Low 1 8 8
Commercial Restaurants 1 8 8
Others 1 8 8
Markets 1 8 8
Institutions 1 8 8
Street Sweeping 1 8 8
Parks 1 8 8
Total 10 80
The sample waste were sorted into 16 kinds of waste composition as shown in the table
below. The sorted waste types were labelled properly according to the name of each waste
composition.
13 | P a g e
Table 3: Waste Components for Physical Composition Analysis
SR. # CATEGORIES WASTE COMPOSITION

1 Kitchen Waste Food, bread, vegetable, fruit etc.
2 Paper (Recyclable) All office paper, white paper, colour paper, newspaper (bags and
strings removed), magazines (all types), catalogues (all types),
phonebooks (all types), tissue boxes, paper towel and toilet paper
rolls, food packaging (unwaxed only please), books empty paper
coffee cups (plastic lids removed)
3 Paper (Non-Recyclable) Napkins, tissue paper, paper towels, wax paper, wrapping paper, any
paper product which has the potential to be contaminated with
bodily fluids.
4 Textile Thread, Yarn, Fabric, Rugs, Cotton etc.
5 Grass and Wood Plant parts, Grass, Wooden pieces etc.

6 Plastic (Recyclable) All plastics types: PET, food and beverage containers, screw top jars,
clam-shell take-out containers, plastic cups (lids and straws
removed), soap bottles, clean grocery and retail plastic bags (no other
type accepted), plastic jugs/bottles: soda bottles
7 Plastic (Non-Recyclable) Plastic baggies, plastic tableware, Styrofoam containers
8 Leather and Rubber Leather, Rubber, nylon items, lycra
9 Metal (Recyclable) Metal and tin beverages containers, metal and tin food containers,
Aluminium Foil, Aluminium containers, cutlery, kitchen cookware:
metal pots, pans, tins and utensils, metal wires, metallic spare parts
etc.
10 Metal (Non-Recyclable) Motor-oil cans, paint cans, metal and cardboard mixed containers
11 Bottles and Glass (Recyclable) Color/ transparent glass bottle and jars
12 Bottle and Glass Light bulbs, mirror glass, window glass (vehicles and home window),
(Non-Recyclable) crystal etc.
13 Ceramic and Stones and Sand stone and ceramic
14 Domestic Hazardous Waste Battery cells, paint boxes, medicine bottles, chlorine bottles
15 Sieve Upper (Larger than 6mm) Particles larger than 6 mm
16 Miscellaneous
a. Hairs Human / Animal hairs
b. Bones Bones
c. Tetra pack Milk box, fruit juice box, tetra pack
d. Diapers Nappies /pampers
e. Dust/Sieve Waste particles < 6 mm
14 | P a g e
The composition ratio of each waste in wet base, Xi (%), has been calculated and reported
as follows.
Weight of each weigh t compositio n (kg)

Xi = x100
Total amount of each waste compositio n (kg)
2.3.1.1. Bulk Density
For bulk density, each composite sample was weighted on weigh balance and recorded it on
the respective recording sheet. Similarly volume of each composite sample was measured
by a calibrated plastic barrel of 60 litres capacity. The barrel was lifted to a height of about
30 cm and dropped it repeatedly for three times and then measure the volume of waste.
The bulk density (kg/l or ton/m3) was calculated by dividing the weight with the volume of
waste.
15 | P a g e
3. RESULTS OF WAC SURVEY
3.1. Waste Generation Analysis

A total of 464 samples from 58 sources were analysed in the waste amount survey.
Approximately 1122 kg of waste in total was taken to the sorting area and homogenous
mixing was carried out. The waste segregation was conducted on total amount of waste
collected for each category for characterization. The field investigations were conducted
consecutively for 8 days. The data obtained from the waste amount survey and the
household size of each sample source has been given in Annexure I. The average household
size of high, middle low and rural areas is 4.9, 5.7, 7.1 people respectively. The graph below
shows the household size in graphical format.
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
High Income Middle Income Low Income Average Household Size
Graph 1: Household Size for High, Middle, Low Income and Average Size for the City of Muzaffarabad
The average waste generation in each household level is shown in the graph below.
Per Capita Waste Generation, Muzaffarabad

0.400 0.366
0.350 0.299 0.305
0.300 0.251
0.250
0.200
0.150
0.100
0.050
0.000
High Income Middle Income Low Income Average Waste
Generated
Graph 2: Average per Capita Waste Generation at Household Level
16 | P a g e
The waste amount survey was also conducted for commercial areas which included
restaurants and shops, markets, institutions, street sweeping and public parks. Similarly, 1
market where municipality has placed a container of 5 m3 was also included for sampling.
Other markets, which are scattered all over the city with sporadic collection points.
Waste amount survey included on specific road for gathering information of waste
generation. This road was selected for a length of 500 meter and waste was collected
through manual sweeping.
There is no information available for number of personnel generating the specific amount of
waste in institutions, commercial markets, fruits & vegetable market and Road making it
difficult to determine per capita waste generation.
Specific gravity for each category was calculated by standard procedures. Daily data for
eight days was recorded and data for the 8 days were analysed for results. Accumulated
average for all types of waste is calculated as 261.86 kg/m3. Average for 8 days is shown in
the graph given below.
Appearnt Specific Gravity(Kg/m3)
350.00
300.00
250.00
Density (Kg/m3)
200.00
150.00
100.00
50.00
0.00
High Income Middle Low Income Restaurants Commercial Markets Institutions Street Parks
Income Others Sweeping
Average 247.84 276.21 275.93 319.46 208.07 296.04 241.78 290.91 200.51
Graph 3: Average Specific Gravity (Kg/m3) for the Sampled Data
17 | P a g e
3.2. Physical Composition

Average value by weight for total 8 days long waste characterizations conducted are given in
Graph 4 below.
Physical Composition
Average for Households
1. Kitchen waste
2. Paper (recyclable)
3. Paper (Non-Recyclable)
4. Textile
7%
0%
1% 5. Grass and wood
4%
2% 6. Plastic (recyclable)
5%
7. Plastic (non-recyclable)
1%
4% 8. Leather and rubber
49%
1%
2% 9. Metal (recyclable)
7% 10. Metal (non-recyclable )

11. Bottle and glass (recyclable)
6%
2% 12. Bottle and glass (non-recyclable)
4% 5%
13. Ceramic, stone and soil etc.
14. Domestic hazardous wastes
15. Sieve Remaining >6mm
16. Miscelleneous
Graph 4: Average Composition of Household Waste
Results are in conformity with the characteristics of typical developing countries. Over 70%
values, Biodegradable and Recyclables and Combustibles are the important components
following these. Detailed data for the waste composition survey for each source is given in
Annexure II. Results obtained from each income level, commercial, markets, institutions,
street sweeping and park were considered graphically.
18 | P a g e
3.2.1. Low Income Areas
Results of the samples taken from low income area are shown in Graph 5. The most
important waste type in the results is biodegradable wastes with 61% proportion.
Low Income
1. Kitchen waste
3%
4. Textile
0%
1%
1%
1%
6% 7. Plastic (non-recyclable)
1% 46% 8. Leather and rubber
3%
9. Metal (recyclable)
5%
10. Metal (non-recyclable )
14%
12. Bottle and glass (non-recyclable)
2% 4% 3%
15. Sieve Remaining
16. Miscellaneous
Graph 5: Waste Composition for Low - Income Households
Other prominent components are plastic, metal and ceramics and their percentages by
weight are 5%, 6% and 7% respectively. The remaining waste types are all present, but in
low percentage, which is directly linked with socio-economic condition of the area.
19 | P a g e
3.2.2. Middle Income Areas
Even though in other groups biodegradable waste has the highest percentage reaching up to
61%,this value was expected to be lower in middle-income areas, in this case 56%.Other
prominent waste components are Paper 9%, Plastic 8%, and miscellaneous 8%. Within the
miscellaneous components, 4% accounts for tetra-packs and 3% for diapers. Waste content
of middle-income level is presented in Graph below.
Middle Income
1. Kitchen waste
4. Textile
8%
0%
5%
1%
1% 53%
3% 11. Bottle and glass (recyclable)
2%
6%
15. Sieve Remaining
16. Miscellaneous
Graph 6: Waste Composition from Middle Income Group
20 | P a g e
3.2.3. High Income Areas
The most interesting waste type in the results is biodegradable wastes with 47% proportion,
which is lesser than other income-groups as expected.
High income
1. Kitchen waste
4. Textile
0%
2%
1%
3% 47% 8. Leather and rubber

0%
0%
3% 7%
15. Sieve Remaining >6mm
16. Miscelleneous
Graph 7: Waste Composition from High Income Group
Recyclable wastes are in high proportion in high-income urban areas compared to the other
income levels. Other prominent waste components include miscellaneous amounting to
12% which again is predominated by tetra-packs (8.5%) and diapers (2%). Graph 7 presents
the average composition of waste collected from high – income areas.
21 | P a g e
3.2.4. Commercial Areas - Restaurants
The waste characterization pie chart for the commercial category that covered restaurants
is close to what can easily be predicted for the culinary industry. Being a food service sector
the waste stream was seen to be dominated by kitchen or food waste. The results are
displayed in Graph 8.
This category, comprising of fresh vegetable and fruit scraps and peelings, contributed 51%
to the waste stream that came from this sector. Recyclable paper, plastics and recyclable
glass bottles were seen to be the next in-line prominent components in the waste. These
contributed to about 33%. These are prominent components due to the sector’s utilization
and discarding of recyclables from everyday use in cuisine and as throw-away by the
customers.
Restaurants
1. Kitchen waste
0%
4. Textile
6%
1%
10% 0%
6. Plastic (recyclable)
1%
3% 0% 0% 7. Plastic (non-recyclable)
8. Leather and rubber
51%
15%
2%
0%
8%
15. Sieve Remaining
16. Miscelleneous
Graph 8: Waste Composition of Commercial Restaurants
22 | P a g e
3.2.5. Other Commercial Establishments
This category covers the other commercial establishments like shopping centres and
markets at its heart. Clothing brands and retail shops were sampled for their waste
characteristics.
The waste stream arising from the sector vividly reflects the activities that are primarily
occurring at the sampled sites. The first most prominent component is biodegradable
waste contributing 36% while recyclable paper makes up 25% of the waste that comes
from this category. Third category is plastic and recyclable glass and bottles that account
for 18% that can be viewed in Graph 9.
Shops
1. Kitchen waste
4. Textile
1% 0% 8% 5. Grass and wood
2%
1%
9%
1% 0%
5%

0% 25% 12. Bottle and glass (non-recyclable)
6%
15. Sieve Remaining
16. Miscellaneous
Graph 9: Waste Composition from Commercial Waste Generation Sources
23 | P a g e
3.2.6. Market Areas
Waste composition in markets is presented in Graph 10 below. While looking at this

representation of various components on percent proportion the component that catches
the eye is presence of all waste types in considerable and balanced proportion. Kitchen
waste or biodegradable waste does not account for majority here but paper, plastics, and
textile, all share their presence at more or less same ratio.
Commercial Markets
1. Kitchen waste
5% 4. Textile
0% 0% 9%
5. Grass and wood
15%
1%
7%
14%
0%
15. Sieve Remaining >6mm.
16. Miscellaneous
Graph 10: Waste Composition from Market Container
24 | P a g e
3.2.7. Institutions
In this category, waste samples from educational institutes and offices were collected and
analysed for composition.
According to the composition analysis presented in Graph 11, paper stands as the major
component, contributing 42% to the total percentage composition. Organics contribute22%,
plastic contributes 24%, and miscellaneous contribute 10% to the total.
Institutions
1. Kitchen waste
0% 4. Textile
10% 2%
4% 0% 5. Grass and wood
4% 0% 6. Plastic (recyclable)
2% 0% 30%
0%
9%
15% 12%
10% 1%
15. Sieve Remaining
16. Miscellaneous
Graph 11: Waste Composition from Institutions
This sort of composition that is dominated by recyclable and non-recyclable paper primarily
due to the fact that all the sampled organizations use large amounts of papers and
packaging boxes or cartons e.g. schools, colleges and offices and so, there is no wonder
associated to its percentage that the statistics reveal.
25 | P a g e
3.2.8. Street sweeping
Waste from street sweeping contained the highest proportion of organic waste, paper,
plastics, and miscellaneous. Composition analysis indicates about 23% of paper, while 24%
of plastics and 9% is of glass and bottles, and 20% is miscellaneous (12% of tetra-packs). The
waste composition highlights littering behaviour of the society as well as unavailability of
waste bins or collection containers at most of the road network.
The composition of waste analysed from street sweeping is depicted in Graph 12.
Street Sweeping
1. Kitchen waste
4. Textile
20% 17% 5. Grass and wood

6. Plastic (recyclable)
2% 7%
2%
7%
1%
4% 8%
1%
1% 23%
15. Sieve Remaining
16. Miscellaneous
Graph 12: Waste Composition from Street Sweeping
26 | P a g e
3.2.9. Parks Area
Graph 13, shows that the organic waste proportion comes into view as the largest
category that makes up the waste load, contributing 32% to the total percentage
composition. This includes plant pruning and loose tree leaves. Paper contributes 20%
bottles and glass 15%, and miscellaneous as 18% each in the total waste composition.
Tetra-packs again show a staggering percentage at public places since this component
alone accounts to 15% within the portion of miscellaneous wastes.
Parks
1. Kitchen waste
4. Textile

13%
0%
3%
1%
5% 7% 12. Bottle and glass (non-recyclable)
6% 2%
15. Sieve Remaining
16. Miscellaneous
Graph 13: Waste Composition Statistics from Park Area
27 | P a g e
ANNEXURE:
28 | P a g e
PART II
WASTE COLLECTION & TRANSPORTATION PLAN
i|Page
Waste Collection & Transportation Plan
Table of Contents
Waste Collection & Transport ......................................................................... 1
Introduction .................................................................................................. 1
Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan ...................................................... 3
Operational Principles of Waste Management ............................................. 3
Generation .................................................................................................... 4
Storage at Source .......................................................................................... 4
Existing Situation....................................................................................... 4
Proposed System ........................................................................................ 5
Strategy...................................................................................................... 5
Collection ...................................................................................................... 6
Issues......................................................................................................... 7
Proposed System ........................................................................................ 8
Strategy...................................................................................................... 9
Route Plan and Vehicle Deployment Plan ................................................. 12
Secondary storage ....................................................................................... 12
Communal Storage ................................................................................... 12
Issues....................................................................................................... 13
Proposed System ...................................................................................... 14
Transfer Stations ......................................................................................... 14
Issues....................................................................................................... 14
i|Page
Proposed System ...................................................................................... 14
Secondary Transport ................................................................................... 15
Flow Diagram ISWM .................................................................................... 18
Special Waste .............................................................................................. 21
Construction Demolition Waste ................................................................ 21
Hospital Waste ......................................................................................... 21
Silt & Gravel............................................................................................. 22
Human Resource Management .................................................................... 23
Public-Private Partnership (PPP) options...................................................... 24
Awareness and Community Participation .................................................... 25
ii | P a g e
Acronyms
ERRA Earthquake Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Authority
MCM Municipal Corporation Muzaffarabad
WACS Waste Amount and Characterization Survey
ISWM Integrated Solid Waste Management
PPP Public Private Partnership
iii | P a g e
Waste Collection & Transport

Introduction
Muzaffarabad city has a population of around 150,000 people, housed in around 27,000
households. As per the per capita generation of daily waste estimated under the WACS
2019, which is 0.33kg, the city wide waste load comes to around 50 tons per day. This
however excludes the bulk waste like garden waste, silt and gravel from the drains, and
the construction & demolition debris. In addition to that, the city also has to deal with
the special wastes like hospital and hazardous components in municipal waste.
As per Local Government system of the State, the responsibility for the city’s solid waste
collection, transport, treatment and final disposal rests with the Municipal Corporation
Muzaffarabad (MCM). Since the 2005 earthquake rehabilitation, the MCM has been
provided with new equipment and machinery under the ERRA programs. Much of that
machinery is close to completing its useful life. Full time sanitary workers employed by
the MCM are not sufficient to handle complete amount of the daily waste generated in
the city, and the workforce is supplemented by 25 workers from the private contractor.
The MCM has a piece of land of roughly 40 acres, dedicated for daily dumping and
disposal. This designated dumpsite is situated at a distance of 26 km from the city
center.
Under the NJ power project funding, there is a component of the environmental impact
mitigation, under which the city plans to modernize the waste management system and
set up a waste recycling and composting plant, at the existing dumpsite. The current
consultancy report on the primary collection and transport is part of the overall
integrated solid waste management plan.
1|Page
Figure 1: Satellite imagery of the city. Aug 2019
2|Page
Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan

Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM) is a comprehensive waste prevention,
recycling, composting, and disposal program. An effective ISWM system considers how
to prevent, recycle, and manage solid waste in ways that most effectively protect
human health and the environment. Since the city aims at implementing a citywide
ISWM with the recycling and composting plant as an integral part of the system, there is
a need to ensure that the collection, storage and transport components are designed
and implemented to achieve the overall objectives and the waste that arrives at the
treatment plant is suitable for the purpose.
The proposed system of primary collection and transport follows the ISWM hierarchy
given below, so that the final disposal is minimized.
Figure 2: Integrated Waste Management Hierarchy
Operational Principles of Waste Management
While designing a system of waste management for the city, two fundamental principles
should be guiding the operations:
3|Page
1. As far as possible, the waste should not touch the ground, before it reaches a landfill
site.
2. Waste transfer transactions should be minimized during the whole chain of activities
from primary collection to final disposal.
Generation
The integrated waste management system originates with the generation of waste at
the 30,000 odd property units in the city of Muzaffarabad. This includes roughly 27,000
residential units and an estimated 3000 commercial, industrial and institutional units.1
This generation is a daily, rather twenty four seven activity and the daily total comes to
around 50,000 kg per day.
This daily load of 50,000 kg is generated by the following main sources:
Type of Waste Estimated kg/day

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) 50,000
Construction and Demolition waste @7.5% of MSW 3,750
Fruits and Vegetable Markets @5% of MSW 2,500
Commercial Waste @ 5% of MSW 2,500
Street Sweeping@2.5% of MSW 1,750
Sludge/ Silt@2.5% of MSW 1,750
Parks @0.5% of MSW 250
Hospital waste@0.5% of MSW 250
Total Waste 62,750
Storage at Source
Existing Situation
Currently waste at the source of generation is stored in a mix form, in plastic bags,
baskets or in open. This waste is then thrown into the streets, or at the nearest street
collection point, on a daily basis. There is no fixed timings for collection and the waste
1 GIS section @Land Use Planning Unit of P&D, AJK
4|Page
turns into litter in the streets for most of the day, until collected which is usually before
afternoon. In commercial areas, the practice is to clean the shops in the morning, when
the markets open, starting at 9 or 10 am.
The issue with this kind of informal storage is that it mixes all kind of dry and wet waste
with the result that recyclable paper and other materials, no longer remain good for
recycling. Moreover, since there is no fixed time for collection, in many cases, the
households keep throwing the garage out on to the street throughout the day. In
addition, waste generated in the commercial areas and in the streets from vendors and
commuters is not stored anywhere, rather littered directly onto the streets,
necessitating daily street sweeping.
Proposed System
Since the whole system of SWM is being designed with an objective to operate the
recycling & composting plant at the end of the stream, therefore it is imperative to keep
it as close as possible to the theoretical framework of ISWM. This implies that it is
desirable to keep the waste streams as segregated as possible and the logical strategy is
to start it at the source of generation.
The most advanced system would need a 3 bin storage system at the points of
generation, especially where mixed waste is generated, i.e. households. One bin to cater
for organic waste, like kitchen and food waste, second for inorganic dry recyclables and
the third is for hazardous components like battery cells, medicines and electronic parts,
which are increasingly becoming a problem and hazard.
Strategy
Expecting the 27,000 houses to follow this system of 3 bin system in the short term
would be unrealistic. The proposed strategy is to start with a 2 bin system, for dry and
wet waste and educate the citizens accordingly. In this way,the aim should be that at
least a majority of the houses adopt this method within a period of 1-2 years and
considering the overall literacy rate in the city and provided that a sustained campaign is
run. It is suggested that this practice should start in areas where door to door collection
can be initiated and which are relatively well-off localities.
5|Page
Figure 3: We can start with 2 bin system for inorganic & organic domestic waste
Collection
Primarily, the system for primary collection of waste from generation point is, by street
sweeping in single wheel barrows, for which the MCM deploys around 200 sanitary
workers. These workers are not enough to cover the whole city and many areas
especially in the peripheries of the city are left-out without regular staff, eventually to
be cleaned periodically as extra work.
The sanitary workers start work early in the morning (official collection timings are 8 am
to 2 pm) and use wheel barrows, mostly adapted to raise body sides with cardboards
and tin sheets, increasing the capacity. Many a times, the workers do a quick &cursory
sorting of the waste, collecting metal and recyclables in separate bags, to be sold later
to scavengers and kabariyas.
6|Page
In some posh and planned areas, the MCM collects the waste in door to door manner in
small pick-up vans and the recently procured bike-rickshaws.
Figure 4: Suzuki Pick up for waste collection
Tractor Trolleys: MCM is operating 6-8 working trolleys. Each trolley is operated by
one driver and one loader, and provided with a daily quota of 10 liters diesel. These
trolleys carry the waste from communal collection points to three main collections
points, from where the waste is loaded on the dump-trucks that finally carry the waste
to the landfill site.
Tractor trolleys in general are perhaps the most inefficient vehicle for urban waste
management and give an untidy look as well. The suggested way forward is to replace
these with motorbike rickshaws and mini-tippers, the kind of which MCM has recently
purchased. These could be used for door to door collection and transporting the waste
to the proposed transfer station.
Issues
Street sweeping method of collection leads to a number of issues and environmental

problems. As mentioned above, the streets are littered almost whole day by
households, shops and commuters, while the collection and sweeping is a one-time
activity with the exception of Sundays; impact of cleanliness remains short lived and
fades away in a few hours. The same happens with the numerous collection points in
almost all areas of the city, giving an unaesthetic look for most of the day.
7|Page
Proposed System
The consultants would suggest taking the city to a stage, where the primary method of
waste collection is shifted to door to door collection system. This might look over-
ambitious, but considering that we are heavily investing in the overall system reform, if
the impact on the street is not created, it would be unfortunate. It may be mentioned
that many cities in the developing countries have been able to achieve this apparently
daunting task, through well designed system, practical strategies and persistent action.
A case in point is Indore Municipality2 in Madhya Pradesh, India.
One of the benefits of this strategy is that there would be no scavengers in the city, who
keep on spreading waste around bins and add to littering. Furthermore, the streets
would not need daily sweeping and may be only once a week sweeping would be
enough to keep the streets clean. There would be no collections dumps in the city and
the streets would give a tidy look throughout the day. Some studies suggest that if
managed efficiently, the door to door collection system ends up being less expensive
than the street sweeping method, as it requires fewer workers. Last but not the least,
this system of collection is more acceptable to the workers as it is less hazardous for
their health. All these benefits make a strong case for introducing this system.
2https://www.smartcityindore.org/solid-waste/
8|Page
Figure 5: A handcart with raised sides. one of many options and designs
Strategy
Starting from the current situation and reaching a target of 100% door to door collection
needs a strategy, designed for achieving the target in 2 years’ time. This would require:
1. Acquiring the requisite machinery and vehicles
2. Training of staff
3. Awareness and behavior change program, spread over 2 years
4. A phased approach of starting with smaller and well-planned areas and gradually
increasing the coverage
For the purpose of future program, the collection system is designed for 30,000
properties (including household, commercial as well as small industrial units). The
proposed vehicles for collection could be mini-tippers, bike-rickshaws and newly
designed wheel barrows. Since not all the areas of city are similar in their geographical
nature and topography, combination of these three types of vehicles will have to be
considered. Initially existing fleet can be used to kick-start the system and further new
9|Page
machinery could be added to the existing one, while continuing with the awareness
campaign with the citizens. A vehicle (estimated capacity of 400-600 kg) can cover
around 250 households in a day, provided we have a transfer station within the area,
and the vehicle can make 4-5 trips during on shift.
10 | P a g e
Figure 6: Normal Vehicles could be modified to suit for segregated collection3
Figure 7: Newly purchased bike-rickshaws for door to door collection
3 Picture courtesy Times of India
11 | P a g e
The cost estimates for the door to door collection is:
Estimated Cost for Door to Door Collection

Vehicle Work- HH Labor cost Fuel Fuel Total / Cost / Cost / Total Total Cost
L/ ve- HH
Wheel Barrow 1 100 20,000 0 20,000 240,000 2,400 3,000 7,200,000
Bike Rickshaw 2 300 40,000 2 6,240 46,240 554,880 1,850 14,000 25,894,400
Mini Tipper 2 500 40,000 5 15,600 55,600 667,200 1,334 13,000 17,347,200
50,441,600
Assumptions: A worker on wheel barrow can make 3 trips and cover around 100 houses per day (includes commercial as well)
around 10% of hh are covered by workers with wheel barrows, a total of 30 workers deployed
rest of the 24,000 hh are covered by tippers and richshaws, depending upon layout and streets.
Route Plan and Vehicle Deployment Plan
An efficient and successful door to door collection system necessitates that the MCM
develops a GIS based route & vehicle deployment plan. This would enable the
supervisors to allocate vehicles and to publicise the daily waste collection timings. The
GIS section at the Planning & Development Department of the Govt. of AJK is very well
capacitated and have the requisite maps and expertise to support the MCM in route
planning. It is suggested that the department may be contacted by MCM formally to
support them in route and vehicle deployment plans.
Secondary storage
Communal Storage
Currently most of the waste is collected through street sweeping, therefore, there are
uncountable waste collection points in the city. The nature and facilities available at the
waste collection points varies from one point to another. Most of them are just open
heaps, some are metallic containers, and feware masonry enclosures. Interestingly, a
unique sophisticated chute type collection point was also observed which serves the
purpose of collection of waste from the upstream homes, down into a masonry
collection point, from where it can be loaded onto a trolley.
12 | P a g e
Issues
These communal storage points have a couple of issues that create an environment
which renders the city an unclean look. The most important reason is that the waste is
constantly thrown out of the properties for the whole day, while collection by MCM is
just once or twice a day. The result is that most of the day, these heaps in the city
remain littered with garbage, giving a dirty and unhygienic look. In most cases, even if a
metallic container at the site of collection point is placed, smell and spread of waste
makes it difficult to use the bin and people just throw away from a distance spreading it
even farther. These collection points attract not only stray dogs, cats and mice, but also
scavengers. Scavengers also prefer that waste is not binned, rather spread on the road,
as it makes their job easier and more profitable. Dry waste, once dumped in the bin,
gets mixed with wet organic waste and loses value.
13 | P a g e
These open heaps would continue to stay as such, unless the system of door to door is
introduced.
Proposed System
The new system of ISWM being proposed in this report assumes that gradually the city
would be shifted to 100% door to door collection which would be free of communal
collection points or open heaps. However, the proposal is to divide the city into 3 zones,
each comprising about 10,000 properties, and each served by a purposed built waste
transfer station. The door to door collection vehicles would bring the waste directly to
these transfer stations, at selected locations, from where waste would be directly
loaded on to dump-trucks, and transported to the landfill.
In the initial phases, until a complete ISWM system is in place we might need a couple of
communal storage points. These have to be well-designed masonry structures, so that
open heaps are not visible.
Transfer Stations
Issues
Currently, the dump trucks of MCM having a waste carrying capacity of around 8 tons
are used for transporting waste to the landfill, which is 26km away from the city. The
waste from primary collection vehicles, and wheel barrows is collected at 3 selected
points in the city.
This however is uneconomical, as the carrying capacity of the dump-trucks, per trip is a
maximum of 8 tons, but the way these are loaded, it does not utilize the vehicle to its
full capacity. The trucks can easily make 2 trips a day, however, in the absence of any
route plan these trucks only make one trip a day, thus seriously compromising the
overall waste transportation capacity. It also highlights that there is a dire need to
design a monitoring mechanism to ensure and verify these trips
Proposed System
The proposed system is that the city needs to be divided into 3 zones, depending upon
the rivers, the road network and the bridges. Each zone needs to have a Waste Transfer
Station (WTS), at a convenient central location. A simple transfer station requires 8-10
kanals of land approximately, and facilitates in efficient waste transportation system
design.
14 | P a g e
Figure 8: Simple Design of Waste Transfer Station
This is the simplest system design of a waste transfer station where the primary
collection vehicles reach the platform through a ramp and directly unload the waste into
the dump truck, thus reducing the need for a loader.
Secondary Transport
Dump Trucks: There are 8 dump-trucks which receive 23 liters of diesel per day for
secondary transport to the landfill. The staff claims to carry 8-10 tons of waste in a trip,
however the volumetric capacity of these dump trucks is inefficient, as the density of
waste is much less than that of the building materials. These could be replaced with
dump trucks of 18-20 tons, which are available in the market. These bigger vehicles
could be filled in directly through unloading of primary collection vehicles thus saving
the cost of loading.
15 | P a g e
Figure 9: Trolleys seem to have outlived their useful life
Figure 10: Trolley has lesser heightso volumetric capacity is reduced
16 | P a g e
Figure 11: Dump-truck for secondary transport
SWM Vehicles & Machinery of MCM
Sr. # Vehicles Quantity Capacity Service
1 Dump Trucks 8 5 tons Transport from City to LFS

2 Tractors 8 2 tons Collection of waste from
open dumps to main
collection points
3 Tractor with 3 - Loading of vehicles from
Bucket open dumps
4 Wheel Loader 2 - Loading of dump trucks at
Main Collection points
5 Pick up 1 1.5 ton Door to Door Collection
(Datsun)
6 Suzuki Pick up 1 1 ton Door to Door Collection
7 Sweeper 1 - Sweeping of main roads
8 Excavator 2 - LFS for soil cover
9 Motor Cycle 5 0.75 ton Door to door collection
Rickshaw (Recently added)
Total 31
Table 1: SWM Vehicles and Machinery available with MCM
Vehicle Trackers & Dashboard: All vehicles need to be fitted with trackers and
monitored on a dashboard by the head of operations and other officers of the sanitation
section.
17 | P a g e
Flow Diagram ISWM
18 | P a g e
Figure 12: The Rivers and the bridges can be used as boundaries for the collections
19 | P a g e
Figure 1113: The Road network can be used to separate different collection zone
20 | P a g e
Special Waste
Construction Demolition Waste
In addition to the construction and demolition debris from routine development works,
there is persistent generation of stone and gravel that reaches the city with rain from
the mountains. It fills open drains and require regular cleaning, adding to the work load
of sanitary staff.
However, the benefit of a hilly station is that it offers ample opportunities for using
debris and gravel as earth filling material for low lying plots and construction sites. It is
advised that the gravel from drains and debris be collected separately, may be in re-
designed tractor trolleys and used for earth filling. If suitably managed, this could even
be used as a source of income for the MCM, since private plot owners might be
attracted to buy it.
In most of the cities, the construction debris, when mixed with garbage becomes an
eyesore. However, if the primary collection of waste is managed through door to door
collection, the construction debris would not appear as garbage when it is carried away
in tractor trolleys.
Hospital Waste
Hospital waste is one of the most critical components of the city’s solid waste, as it is
hazardous and a potential public health threat. Muzaffarabad has a couple of major
hospitals and many smaller ones, as well as private clinics and clinical laboratories. All
these entities generate waste which contains upto 15% hazardous waste; syringes,
dressings, body organs and other highly infectious materials. Currently this waste is
being collected and disposed of as part of the municipal waste. During visit, it was
observed that hospital waste is mixed with the municipal waste and stored in the same
containers. The consultants were told that this is the normal practice, as none of the
hospitals has any facility for disposal of infectious waste, such as incineration or
autoclaves. This practice endangers the city’s public health and there is a dire need to
manage this waste.
The consultants propose that one of the two big hospitals (CMH or Civil Hospital) should
set up a disposal facility that would be sufficient for all public & private sector hazardous
waste. However, experience has shown that instead of than establishing any incinerator,
a bigger challenge is the system for segregation of hazardous from non-hazardous waste
in the hospital and the transfer of hazardous waste to the incineration facility. A
planned, designed and sustained training program and provision of separate containers
at source of generation are critical for the success of this system.
21 | P a g e
Silt & Gravel
Most of Muzaffarabad city sewerage network is based on open drains. These drains
require periodic cleaning by the same sanitary workers who are responsible for waste
management. The city being a valley has to face an added problem of gravel & small
stones that flow into these drains after every rain, as part of the run-off. As a result, silt
removal load is increased.
Currently the workers clean these drains at periodic intervals and leave the silt for a day
or so on the sides to let it dry, before transporting the same through open tractor
trolleys. This step of drying silt is deemed necessary, as the trolleys are not leak proof.
The relatively dried silt is transported with rest of the waste to the landfill site.
This practice, of leaving the silt and gravel on the sides for drying, is another source of
environmental pollution for the city. It is, thus, proposed that MCM may acquire a
vehicle that can be used exclusively for silt transportation. The vehicle should be leak
proof as its best if the silt is directly shifted to the vehicle and is not left on ground for
drying. This would not only be more cost efficient, but less cumbersome since the
shifting transactions are minimized. Second proposal is that as much as possible, waste
should not be left on the ground, as it leads to seepage of water into the soil and in the
long term becomes a constant nuisance of bad smell.
Figure 14: A mini tipper could be used for transport of silt & gravel from the drains. This would be leak
proof and hence no time-delay for drying
22 | P a g e
Figure 15: This mini excavator mounted on a tractor could be used for larger drains.
Human Resource Management

Workers: MCM has a total of around 200 workers in the sanitation sector. Of these, 125
are regular employees who are paid by the Finance Department of the Government of AJK.
Another 50 are hired as work charge employees and paid by the MCM from its own sources. Yet
another category (25 workers) is that of contingent paid employees. These are also paid by the
MCM.
For a city of 150,000 people and considering a benchmark of one worker for a
population of 1000 residents, the number of required workers is 150. However, owing
to the fact that these workers are also responsible for clearing the open drains, at least
25% more workers would be needed making the required strength of 180 staff.
Supervisors: The City is divided into 6 areas for purposes of cleaning. The
whole workforce is, however, supervised by 8 supervisors. Each supervisor has around
25-30 workers under his command, which is reasonable team strength.
Capacity Building: It is strongly recommended that a professional training program

for the entire SWM team at the MCM, right from the head of the department, down to
the sanitary workers. It has been observed in almost all the cities of the country, that
there is hardly any training imparted in this sector, which results in below-average
performance. The trainings would significantly improve service delivery which is paid
back well in terms of level of service and efficient operations.
Key areas that need attention under the capacity building program include:
 Door to door collection

 Waste segregation and treatment
 Route planning and optimization for collection vehicles
23 | P a g e
 Awareness &behavior change strategies &communication programs

 Vehicle maintenance
Public-Private Partnership (PPP) options

One of the components of waste management that could be outsourced to the private
sector under PPP arrangement is the secondary transport i.e. from the transfer station
to the landfill.
An essential requirement would be a good and reliable weigh bridge, on the way from
transfer station to the landfill. The MCM would need to calculate the operational cost of
transferring waste on the 18-20 ton dump trucks. This calculation would be:
Calculating the cost of waste transfer from WTS to LFS Muzaffarabad
Capital Investment:
Cost of Dump Truck
Cost of Financing
Operational Cost
Driver s salary
Driver s salary / Trip
Helper s salary /
Helper salary / trip
Diesel / Trip
Oil & Lubricants (Lump sum)
Repair Maintenance (per Month)
Assumptions:
Distance between WTS and LFS: 25 km. Round trip= 50 km
Distance travelled per Liter of Diesel:
Average weight of truckload: 15 tons
Daily the Truck makes 2 trips
Working days @ 26 / Month
Figure 16: Cost of Waste Transport from WTS to LFS
24 | P a g e
Once this per ton cost of transfer of waste is calculated, the MCM could outsource this
component of service to the private sector contractors / truck operators, keeping the
key parameter of per ton cots as the bidding criteria.
This option offers significant operational advantages to the MCM. The Municipality
would not need to purchase trucks from the public funds. There would be no burden of
hiring drivers and helpers in addition to payment of salary, pension and other liabilities.
Moreover, the monitoring of operation would become much simpler, from the tedious
and multistage input based monitoring (Driver attendance, diesel, number of trips,
unloading at landfill, filling the truck to capacity, ensuring that all waste is transferred
etc.) to a simple output based monitoring of just weigh bridge and landfill point
monitoring. With the help of computerized CCTV cameras and computerized weigh
bridge, the whole operation would be less prone to manipulation or leakages. Most
importantly, private operators would be interested in clearing as much waste as
possible, since every ton that he carries would enhance his income. This is in real
contrast to the existing system, where the MCM drivers can save fuel if they make lesser
number of trips and filling the truck to the full capacity has no premium. This option is
one of the simplest forms of PPP and one that is easy to monitor.
There is, however, a risk that the contractor would be tempted to increase the weight of
waste by loading heavier stuff like silt, debris and wet waste. Nonetheless, MCM can
have penalty clauses, in case the percentage of such materials increases beyond an
agreed ratio.
Awareness and Community Participation

Muzaffarabad is one of the cities, with a high literacy rate, and hence the chances of a
successful social mobilization program are fairly high. However, it is important to note
that what is being suggested is not just a traditional cleanliness weak or a one-time
campaign, but a continuous program spread over at least two years. In fact this activity
is as routinely as the daily waste collection activity itself.
The MCM would need to establish a small unit within the corporation that looks after
this program. The program could be managed with the help of NGOs and student
volunteers to keep it low budget. An effort could be made to take all sections of society
on-board especially teachers, religious leaders at the mosque, traffic wardens and even
housewives. Additionally, the MCM need to design a complete portfolio of printed and
digital materials, aimed at these sections of society. This message must be disseminated
at least once a week for 2 years to ensure that not only the message is received, but also
has resulted in a changed behavior into a culture of cleanliness, no littering and
cooperation in door to door collection.
25 | P a g e
Annex
Justification for Transfer Stations
The following graph depicts the efficiency value of building a waste transfer station from
where larger capacity vehicles make operations more economical. It is estimated that if
the round trip is more than 35 miles (55km), there is a justification for TS. However, this
figure would vary for every city, depending upon the factors given below.
Calculating Transfer Station Break-Even Points

To calculate the break-even point for a specific facility, first determine the following
values:
 Transfer Station Cost (cost to build, own and operate transfer station, in
dollars per ton)
 Direct Haul Payload (average payload of collection truck hauling directly to
landfill, in tons)
 Transfer Haul Payload (average payload of transfer truck hauling from
transfer station to landfill, in tons)
 Trucking Cost (average cost of direct or transfer hauling, in dollars per mile)
Once these values are known, use the following formulas to calculate cost at
different distances:
Cost of Direct Haul (without the use of a waste transfer station)
Distance (miles) multiplied by Trucking Cost (dollars per mile) divided by Direct
Haul Payload (tons)
Cost of Direct Haul
Transfer Station Cost (Rs. per ton) plus Distance (miles) multiplied by Trucking
Cost (dollars per mile) divided by Transfer Haul Payload (tons)
26 | P a g e
4 Waste Transfer Stations; A manual for Decision Makers; US EPA (2010)
27 | P a g e
Municipal Corpration Muzaffarabad

Waste Management System
Estimated cost of Waste Managemnet
Vehicle Number Diesel /d total diesel PKR / L Diesel / day diesel /m Driver Loader HR cost miscell cost /m cost/y
Trollyes 6 10 60 128 7,680 199,680 40,000 25,000 65,000 50,000 314,680 3,776,160
Dumpers 8 23 184 128 23,552 612,352 40,000 25,000 65,000 100,000 777,352 9,328,224
Rickshaws 6 5 30 128 3,840 99,840 40,000 25,000 65,000 25,000 189,840 2,278,080
Transport 15,382,464
Regular Labour 125 25,000 3,125,000 37,500,000
Workcharge 50 13,000 650,000 7,800,000
Contigent Paid 20 13,000 260,000 3,120,000
Total 63,802,464
Figure 17: Operational cost of existing system
Municipal Corpration Muzaffarabad

Waste Management System
Estimated cost of Waste Managemnet : Proposed Model
Vehicle Number cost/unit m Cost m Diesel /d total diesel PKR / L Diesel / day diesel /m Driver Loader HR cost miscell cost /m cost/y
Trollyes 2 2 4 10 20 120 2,400 62,400 40,000 25,000 65,000 50,000 177,400 2,128,800
Dumpers 2 12 24 23 46 120 5,520 143,520 40,000 25,000 65,000 100,000 308,520 3,702,240
Wheel Barrows 50 0 0 - - 0 - -
Silt Cleaner 2 2 4 10 20 120 2,400 62,400 40,000 25,000 65,000 20,000 147,400 1,768,800
Mini Tippers 26 1.5 39 10 260 120 31,200 811,200 40,000 25,000 65,000 20,000 896,200 10,754,400
Rickshaws 40 0.4 16 5 200 120 24,000 624,000 40,000 25,000 65,000 25,000 714,000 8,568,000
Transfer Station 2 10 20 0 - - 25,000 25,000 25,000 50,000 600,000
Transport 107 26,922,240
Regular Labour 125 25,000 3,125,000 37,500,000
Workcharge 50 13,000 650,000 7,800,000
Contigent Paid 20 13,000 260,000 3,120,000
Total 107 75,342,240
Figure 18: Estimated cost of proposed Model.
28 | P a g e
1|Page

Waste Amount & Characterization Survey and Primary Collection & Transportation Plan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Waste Amount & Characterization Survey and Primary Collection & Transportation Plan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Municipal Corporation Muzaffarabad

Azad Jammu & Kashmir

WASTE AMOUNT & CHARACTERIZATION SURVEY

International Consulting Engineers of Pakistan

Waste Amount and Characterization Survey

1.1. Objectives of the Survey ....................................................................... 5

1.2. Scope of Waste Amount and Characterization Survey .......................... 5

1.3. Project Description ............................................................................... 7

2.1. Training of the Enumerators ................................................................ 8

2.2. Waste Amount Survey .......................................................................... 9

2.2.1. Sample Collection ................................................................................ 9

2.2.2. Waste Measurement and Recording ................................................... 12

2.3. Waste Composition Survey................................................................. 12

2.3.1. Physical Composition ........................................................................ 13

3. RESULTS OF WAC SURVEY ..................................................................... 16

3.1. Waste Generation Analysis................................................................. 16

3.2. Physical Composition ......................................................................... 18

3.2.1. Low Income Areas .............................................................................. 19

3.2.2. Middle Income Areas ......................................................................... 20

3.2.3. High Income Areas............................................................................. 21

3.2.4. Commercial Areas - Restaurants ....................................................... 22

3.2.5. Other Commercial Establishments .................................................... 23

3.2.6. Market Areas ..................................................................................... 24

3.2.7. Institutions ........................................................................................ 25

3.2.8. Street sweeping ................................................................................. 26

3.2.9. Parks Area ......................................................................................... 27

ANNEXURE: DATA SHEET ............................................................................ 28

Table 2: Number of Samples for Physical Composition Analysis...................... 13

Table 3: Waste Components for Physical Composition Analysis ...................... 14

Figure 2: Map of Muzaffarabad (Planning and Development Department,

Figure 3: Marking of Sample Codes ................................................................ 10

Figure 4: Waste Bags Distribution and Public Sensitization............................ 10

Figure 5: Sample Collection ............................................................................ 11

Figure 6: Waste Sample Counting ................................................................... 11

Figure 7: Weighing of Samples ........................................................................ 11

Figure 8: Segregation of Samples .................................................................... 12

Graph 2: Average per Capita Waste Generation at Household Level ................ 16

Graph 4: Average Composition of Household Waste ........................................ 18

Graph 5: Waste Composition for Low - Income Households ............................ 19

Graph 6: Waste Composition from Middle Income Group................................ 20

Graph 7: Waste Composition from High Income Group ................................... 21

Graph 8: Waste Composition of Commercial Restaurants ............................... 22

Graph 9: Waste Composition from Commercial Waste Generation Sources..... 23

Graph 10: Waste Composition from Market Container .................................... 24

Graph 11: Waste Composition from Institutions ............................................. 25

Graph 12: Waste Composition from Street Sweeping ...................................... 26

Graph 13: Waste Composition Statistics from Park Area ................................ 27

1.1. Objectives of the Survey

i. Amount of waste generated

1.2. Scope of Waste Amount and Characterization Survey

Figure 2: Map of Muzaffarabad (Planning and Development Department, Government of AJK)

1.3. Project Description

The survey was conducted in the following sequence:

2.1. Training of the Enumerators

2.2. Waste Amount Survey

 Residential Areas (High Income, Middle Income, Low Income)

The detail of samples is provided below.

2.2.1. Sample Collection

Table 1: Number and Categories of Waste Samples

Types Waste Amount Survey

Photographs of the sample collection are presented below.

Figure 3: Marking of Sample Codes

Figure 4: Waste Bags Distribution and Public Sensitization