Implementing Integrated Solid Waste Management Systems …...Implementing Integrated Solid Waste...

There are many challenges regarding the safe disposal of municipal solid waste in India. Recent attemptshave been concerned with finding ways to provide safe and sanitary disposal for solid waste so that ourenvironment is no longer damaged by polluting, open dumps.

December 2007

Report

Implementing IntegratedSolid Waste Management Systems in India

Moving Towardsthe Regional Approach

The Water and Sanitation Programis an international partnership forimproving water and sanitation sectorpolicies, practices, and capacities toserve poor people

The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed are entirely those of the author and should not be attributed in anymanner to The World Bank, to its affiliated organizations, or to members of its Board of Executive Directors or the companiesthey represent.

Implementing IntegratedSolid Waste Management Systems in India

Moving Towardsthe Regional Approach

Introduction 3

Objectives and Priorities 5

Where are We Now? 7

The Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Rules and Their Impact

What has Been Happening to Our Processing Plants?

Obstacles to Safe and Sanitary Disposal

Sanitary Landfilling 15

Key Principles

Emphasis on Operations

The Regional Approach 17

What is a ‘Regional Approach’?

Why is a Regional Approach Appropriate?

Challenges Associated with Regional Landfilling

What are the Arrangements?

Realizing Regional Disposal

Sustaining a Regional Disposal System

Involving the Private Sector

How Does It All Fit Together? 25

Chronological Planning

Institutional Structures

Financial Systems

Operational Procedures

Recommendations 27

Clarify Requirements and Objectives of MSW Rules

Develop Capacity

Enhance Knowledge Management

Inform, Involve, and Motivate Citizens

Ensure Financial Sustainability

Conclusions 29

Appendixes 31

Appendix A: Information about Workshops, and Presentersand Resource Persons

Appendix B: Definitions and Data Notes

Contents

Implementing Integrated Solid WasteManagement Systems in India:Moving Towards the Regional Approach

3

Introduction

This document is intended fordecisionmakers who are concernedwith reducing the pollution and healthhazards that are caused by theuncontrolled disposal of thousands oftons of waste each day in open dumps.It will also be helpful for decisionmakerswho are concerned with urbangovernance and urban management.While it does contain some technicalinformation, the messages can be easilyunderstood by those with an interest inmunicipal issues but no formal training inscientific or technical disciplines. Thechallenges of safe disposal of municipalsolid waste (MSW) were deliberated onat two workshops held in January2007, under the auspices of the Ministryof Urban Development with theparticipation of a wide range of expertsand practitioners, and the support ofWater and Sanitation Program-SouthAsia (of the World Bank). This documentechoes the opinions expressed in theseworkshops. Information provided bythe participants touched upon manycritical issues. The speakers presentedviews and experiences from state,national, and international levels.In particular, N. C. Vasuki drew onexperiences from Delaware in theUnited States as well as his extensiveknowledge of the issue in the Indiancontext. Adrian Coad also provided

inputs from global experiences onimplementing sanitary landfills. Briefinformation about the workshops, aswell as the participants and resourcepersons, is found in Appendix A.

The focus has been primarily on findingways to provide safe and sanitarydisposal for solid waste so that ourenvironment is no longer damagedby polluting, open dumps. Afterconsidering the present situation,available alternatives, obstacles, andchallenges, as well as the institutional,financial, and technical aspects, thisreport proposes some recommenda-tions for an approach that can meetthe basic and essential objective ofminimizing risks to public health andto the environment. This approachprovides a way for solid residues fromall towns and cities to be disposed of inan engineered disposal facility at a costthat is affordable.

This publication answers questionssuch as:

• To what extent are current solidwaste management practicesin India threatening our healthand environment?

• What are the reasons for the currentstate of affairs?

• What are the strengths andweaknesses of current strategiesfor disposing solid waste?

• What are the economically andenvironmentally sustainable optionsfor disposing waste from both largeand small communities?

Solid waste management suffersfrom vagueness in the definitions ofmany commonly used words, sofootnotes and Appendix B explainhow certain key words are used inthis report.

In India today, there is considerableconcern about why the compliancedeadlines of the Municipal Solid WasteRules of 2000 have not been met,more so since major allocations offinancial assistance are being madeavailable to fund improvements inwaste management.

An unprecedented initiative for providingtraining in solid waste management isalso gathering momentum. It is a timefor change, for progress. It is a time forbold yet thoughtful action.

It is sincerely hoped that this reportwill play a part in the achievementof a safer and healthier environmentthroughout the nation.


5

For decisionmakers working on solidwaste management, it is important togo back to first principles, that is, toclarify the objectives that need to bemet. Since there is a range of objectivesthat solid waste management canaddress, we need to decide how theseshould be sequenced in terms ofpriority. The choice of prioritization ofobjectives influences decisionmakingand thereby has a direct bearing on theoutcomes achieved. The following listsuggests some stated objectives thatoften govern decisionmaking in solidwaste management,1 and mentionsbriefly the consequences of adoptingeach of them as a primary objective.The reader is invited to considerthem carefully.

As the report will go on to show, mostof the generally accepted objectiveslisted below are essentially an outcomeof sound integrated municipal wastemanagement. For instance, pursuing thefundamental objective of protectingpublic health and the environmentthrough sanitary waste disposal doesnot preclude the other objectives,which should ideally be treated assub-objectives of the sector.

Safeguarding Public Health

It is not appropriate in this shortpublication to detail all the harmfulimpacts on health that can be causedby improper disposal2 of solid waste.Any review of the public health

Objectives and Priorities

implications of solid waste managementwould include the following categoriesof hazards:

• Inhalation of contaminateddust, toxins, and smoke fromburning waste.

• Breeding of vectors thatspread disease.

• Pollution of surface and groundwater.

• Injuries from sharp objects.

• Infection from contaminated wastes,especially if they are reused.

• Poisoning and injury by hazardouschemicals.

Any satisfactory method of wastedisposal must prevent or dramaticallyreduce the probability of all these threats.However, safeguarding public healththrough safe disposal also entails a safeand comprehensive waste collection andtransportation system which could bedesigned in a manner to incorporatesome of the other objectives listedbelow as sub-objectives.

Environmental Protection

Impacts on the environment can bedivided into two groups—those relatedto preventing pollution and thoserelated to conservation. In the contextof solid waste management, many ofthe reasons for striving to preventpollution are related directly to healthimpacts, but there are also globalconsiderations—primarily the reductionin the production of greenhouse gasesthat cause climate change. In addition,there is also the concern to reducethe consumption of raw materials andenergy, and also the areas of land used

for waste disposal. The focus thenis on reuse, treatment, and recyclingof waste, often neglecting, or in theabsence of, systems for safe disposal.Proper environmental protectiontherefore includes a safe disposalsystem and does not preclude theimportance of an efficient wastecollection and transportation system.

Beautiful Cities

It is desirable to clean cities beyond thestandard required for health protectionaccording to considerations ofeconomics and politics. However, thisperspective limits the focus to streetsweeping and waste collection, ratherthan treatment or disposal.

Employment Generation

This is another consideration thatsometimes influences decisions in solidwaste management, but again thisgenerally affects waste collection, nottreatment or disposal. Informal sectorrecycling provides a livelihood for manypeople, and this fact should be includedin decisions regarding waste treatmentand disposal.

Meeting Legal Requirements

Many local administrations show littleconcern for waste disposal for a varietyof reasons. In such cases attemptsmay be made to use legislation asthe motivating factor to achieveimprovements. Legislation is alsoused in some industrialized nations toencourage resource recovery.3 While1 Solid waste management is defined as all activities that aim to

minimize undesirable impacts of solid wastes and to derive somebenefit from these wastes.2 Disposal is the last stage of solid waste management. The onlysatisfactory method of disposal involves placing the remainingresidues into an engineered receiving area and minimizing theircontact with, and impact on, the external environment. Thisprocess is known as sanitary or engineered landfilling.

3 Resource recovery embraces all means of gaining someeconomic benefit from waste. This may involve reusing items in thewaste in their original form, processing them to make new materialsor products, or burning the waste or a product from the waste togain energy, which may be converted into electrical power.

6

In solid waste management it is important to first go back to principles, thatis, to identify the objectives that need to be met. The choice of objectiveshas a direct bearing on the outcomes achieved.

complying with legislation may bethe objective of a local administrativebody, it is important to take one stepback and ask (a) what objectives thelegislation addresses; and (b) if followinglegislation requirements leads to thedesired outcomes.

Being Modernand Sophisticated

This objective may sometimes bestated explicitly, but more often itappears to be implicitly influencingdecisions. The desire to be seen astechnologically very advanced may beevidenced by the interest in wastetreatment technologies that are still inthe experimental stage, or have notbeen exploited at more than the pilotscale in even the most industrialized ofcountries. (An alternative reason foradvocating sophisticated and unproventechnologies may be that simplertechnologies have been tried withoutsuccess, so that, in desperation,decisionmakers grasp at any otheroption. They fail to realize that if localmanagements have not been able tooperate a well-tried technologysuccessfully, they are very unlikely toenjoy success with a more complex andless understood process.) Persuasivesalesmen and seemingly attractivecontract conditions may influence someadministrations to opt for highlysophisticated technologies. In somecircles, the word ‘integrated’ has greatsignificance.4 Various modernconnotations are associated with thisword. Some people use it to insist on

intensive resource recovery. However,the concept of an integrated solid wastemanagement system, in which therequirements and impacts of each linkin the chain from generation to disposal5

should be considered in the design of allthe other stages, is of great significance,and is not new. An importantconsequence of the integratedapproach is that the disposal stageshould always be considered a vital partof every waste management system.

Satisfying Voters

In one sense, it is the essence ofdemocracy to provide the voterswith what they want. However, thedemocratic process generally results inshort-term horizons, and politicians aregenerally reluctant to impose fees ortaxes that will lead to sustainablesystems; they see little benefit inacquiring land that will provide a goodmeans of waste disposal for decadesrather than years.

Unless it is carefully done, acquiringland for waste disposal generatesopposition rather than votes, and sopoliticians may be unwilling to takeaction that will ensure good solutionsfor the disposal of waste. The bestwaste disposal solutions may involveaccepting waste from other localadministrations, and this can lead toadditional voter displeasure. Votescan often be won by a good wastecollection service, but very rarely by asound waste disposal system. Goodsolid waste management requiresleadership, vision, a consideration of the

longer term, and of ensuing benefits thatvoters might not understand.

Earning Money from Waste

Over the last two decades there hasbeen considerable interest in the ideaof generating profit from waste. Andwhile it is true that it is possible to sellcompost and electric power, the costsof producing these commodities fromwaste are usually significantly more thanthe prevailing market prices.

Usable energy can be obtained fromwaste, but these processes requiresubsidies even in countries where thewaste has high energy content. In manyindustrialized countries, legislation andtaxes imposed on disposal are neededto motivate local administrations to bearthe additional costs of treatmentprocesses that seek to gain some valuefrom waste.

Experience across the world suggeststhat the bulk of the revenues generatedin the sector arise from fees paid bywaste generators, not the financial valueof the waste itself.

In some situations, small-scalecomposting generates sufficient incometo support a family, especially wherethere is a dependable income from salesto plantations, commercial complexesor households owning exotic plants.

Any satisfactory waste managementsystem must be paid for. Nevertheless,in the minds of politicians anddecisionmakers, the attractivenessof the concept often outweighs theexperience and ground realities, andlarge sums continue to be invested inthe expectation of turning wasteinto wealth.

4 For more information on this approach, see the report of theCWG workshop, Planning for sustainable and integrated solidwaste management, which can be found on the Skat website atwww.skat.ch/publications/

5 The chain of solid waste management operations can, in broadterms, be taken to include the following stages: generation,storage, collection, treatment (or processing), and disposal.


7

It is necessary to know where we arebefore we can plan the route to theplace where we wish to be.

Box 1 provides a general overview ofthe situation in India.6 This overviewsuggests that while efforts are beingmade to improve collection andtransportation, the situation with regardto treatment and disposal of solidwaste in India is still very unsatisfactorywith much remaining to be done.

The Municipal Solid Waste(MSW) Rules and Their Impact

Following from a private petitionbrought to the Supreme Court, a groupof solid waste management specialistsdrafted the Municipal Solid Waste(Management and Handling) Rules 2000that define the standards that wereto be achieved by the end of 2003(see Box 2).

“Compliance [with MSW Rules] has beenpoor to moderate in respect of storage,collection, sweeping, and transportationof waste. Compliance has beenextremely poor in the area of treatmentand disposal of waste.”(P. U. Asnani)

Figure 1 presents the findings from asurvey in 2004, on the degree to whichClass 1 cities had complied with therequirements of the Rules. It is ofparticular note that the compliancefor processing7 of wastes and landfillingare very low indeed. The figurefor sanitary landfilling causesspecial concern because of the

Where are We Now?

associated health and environmentimpacts. It is to be expected thatprocessing incorporates more

challenges and difficulties because ofthe machinery and process controlrequirements, and because of the needto find markets or outlets for theproduct, yet we find that the amountof waste that is landfilled is even lowerthan the amount that is processed.

6 Information about presenters and resource persons is provided inAppendix A.7 Processing and treatment are considered to have the samemeaning in this report.

Box 1. The Present Scenario in India

• Streets are generally treated as the receptacles of waste. Consequently,unsanitary conditions affect overall health and environment.

• There is partial segregation of recyclable waste. Waste paper, plastic,metal, glass, rubber, rags, and so on are thrown on the streets along withdomestic, trade, and institutional wastes.

• Transportation is not well coordinated with primary collection, resultingin multiple and manual handling of waste. This is injurious to the healthof workers.

• Transportation systems are characterized by poorly maintainedequipment that is inefficiently operated.

• Waste is disposed of on the roadside or open spaces within or justoutside the city boundaries. The method of crude dumping8 is adoptedfor waste disposal. Waste is not spread, compacted or covered.

Source: Based on a presentation by P. U. Asnani.

Box 2. Mandatory Directions under Municipal Solid Waste(Management and Handling) Rules 2000

• Storage of waste at source.

• Segregation of waste at source.

• Primary collection from the doorstep and abolition of open wastestorage sites.

• Daily street sweeping.

• Transportation of waste in covered vehicles.

• Processing of waste by composting or for power generation.

• Disposal of nonbiodegradables only, at the sanitary landfill sites.

8 Dumping: Crude or open dumping refers to the unloading ofwaste without taking care to minimize pollution, utilize the land areawell, or restore the site when disposal operations cease. In suchsituations waste is often burnt, causing serious air pollution. Theword ‘landfilling’ should not be used to describe such operations.

The MSW Rules allow for only inertwaste to be disposed of to landfills.A particular consequence of thisrequirement is that cities that donot have an operational processingfacility for all their mixed waste feelprohibited from landfilling their waste(since it contains biodegradable waste)and so the waste of the city continuesto be dumped in an unsatisfactoryway, even if a landfill is available.It is clearly preferable to processbiodegradable waste in a satisfactoryway rather than to landfill it, but itis also clearly preferable to landfillbiodegradable waste rather than todump it.

Further, since landfills may be designedto accept only the proportion of wastethat cannot be processed or recycled,it is argued that they are too small to

receive all of the waste generated ona routine basis.

Recent attempts to analyze the issueinclude examining the reasons forthe negligible compliance with therequirements for processing andlandfilling, and to suggest remediesfor this situation.

What has Been Happeningto Our Processing Plants?

Over the last 15 years many treatmentprojects have been set up in thecountry—the majority of these arebased on aerobic compostingprocesses. The experience till now has,however, been discouraging. Most ofthe plants have shut down; the onesthat are operational are malfunctioningor operating well below capacity. Notmuch investigation has been done on

the reasons for this poor track recordof treatment plants. However, in arecent study undertaken at the behestof Water and Sanitation Program-South Asia (WSP-SA), based ondetailed assessments of some suchprojects, an effort was made todiagnose the reasons for failure as alsorecommendations for future projects.More information on this study isprovided below.

Apart from aerobic composting,other treatment options includevermicomposting—a modification ofthe composting process—that usesearthworms to process waste into avaluable compost product. Incinerationis another process that has a longhistory in the treatment of municipalsolid wastes. Very large incineratorsin industrialized countries are able to

Figure 1. Indication of Compliance with Municipal Solid Waste Rules 2000 for Class 1 Cities

Storageat source

Items to comply

Primarycollection

Streetsweeping

Storagedepot

Transportation Processingof waste

Disposal,sanitary landfill

41%

33%38%

72%

52%

1.4%0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Segregationof recyclables

29%

9%Per

cent

age

of t

owns

(with

ove

r 50

% c

ompl

ianc

e)

Source: Data compiled by P. U. Asnani, 2004.

While efforts are being made to improve collection and transportation, thesituation with regard to treatment and disposal of solid waste in India is stillvery unsatisfactory with much remaining to be done.

8


generate electricity using the heatderived from burning. Experience inIndia with this technology has beengenerally unfavorable. High moisturecontent and inert fractions, as well asthe diversion for recycling of drymaterials, such as paper and plastic,combine to make incineration anundesirable option for treatment ofmunicipal wastes.

Refuse-derived fuel (RDF) is anothertechnology that has been used forenergy recovery; the waste isprocessed so that it can be used as afuel for generating electricity or steam.For over a decade, cities in India havebeen considering biomethanation(anaerobic digestion) as a means ofproducing methane gas that can fuelelectricity generators.

All of these options have been triedin India. Unfortunately, very little efforthas been made to catalog theseexperiences for use in futuredecisionmaking. The WSP-SA studywas undertaken in an effort to reducethis knowledge gap.

The study of experiences with wastetreatment plants was undertaken byAsit Nema at the behest of WSP-SA(see Box 3). As part of this study, areview of waste treatment projectsimplemented in India over the last 10-15years was undertaken and lessonsdrawn from the same. A summary ofthe findings of this study is provided inBox 3.

“Japanese research has shown that thelargest generators of dioxins (a familyof toxic chemicals) in the world areburning dumps (not landfills) in Indiaand China.” (N. C. Vasuki)

“Even with the best efforts to improvecollection and transportation, publichealth is not safeguarded until urbanlocal bodies provide for safe andsanitary disposal.” (Vandana Bhatnagar)

The findings of this study clearlyindicate that, till now, failure ratherthan success appears to be thenorm in waste treatment projects.Some of the problems encountered(for example, siting, finance, andcontract management) can beovercome with enhanced capacity,improved procedures, andexpectations. However, problemsassociated with development andadoption of appropriate technologiesand lack of experienced operatorswill take time to overcome. TheMSW Rules need to be interpreted

in a way that recognizes theseground realities and allows timefor appropriate processes andmechanisms to be developed.

There is the risk that large sums ofmoney will be wasted if the mistakesof the past are repeated. There is alsothe risk that financial support for wastetreatment will not be available in thefuture if current investments provefruitless. Already one agency that hasbeen lending for biomethanationschemes has indicated that it is nolonger keen on considering furtherloans for such plants, and one privateagency that was involved in solidwaste composting for many years haswithdrawn from this activity. Repeatingunsuccessful experiences can be verycostly. We need to learn from pastexperiences, and be willing to admitthat mistakes have been made. Wealso need to face the fact that income

This biomethanation plant, costing over Rs 70 crore (approx US$17 million)9, is no longer operating.Wastes are being dumped on land adjacent to it because there is no sanitary landfill.

9 US$1 = INR 40.69 (as of September 7, 2007).Conversion rates are from www.xe.com; all conversions inthe text are approximations.

9

10

In 2000, a total of 88 medium- and large-scale plants were being planned or were in existence.10 More than 50 werecomposting plants with a total processing capacity of around 15,000 tons per day. There were four to five large-scalevermicomposting plants. Twelve biomethanation plants had been planned but only two had been implemented. There wasone large mass burn incinerator for energy recovery, but this was not being used. Of the five refuse-derived fuel (RDF) plantsthat had been constructed, only two were in operation. The status of these plants six years later was found to be that30 percent were in operation, 20 percent of them had been closed down, and 50 percent of those that were planned hadnot, in fact, been constructed. As part of the study, detailed analyses (including field visits) were done for nine treatment anddisposal facilities that included composting, biomethanation, and RDF plants located across the country.11 Field visits wereundertaken as part of the study during the period October 2005 to February 2006. Some were still operating, thoughmostly not at full capacity, but others had been closed before the end of their intended lifetime and some had actually beendismantled and removed. The lessons learned from these nine cases were summarized as follows:

• Protection of the environment and public health was not being addressed since untreated waste and residues werestill being dumped in an unsatisfactory way.

• Rapid wear and tear of equipment led to high maintenance costs.

• Seasonal and climatic factors (such as the seasonal demand for compost and the low demand for waste heat in hotclimates) reduced the financial viability of some processes.

• The inability or unwillingness of urban local bodies to contribute to the costs of the processing, coupled with anoverestimation of the revenue streams (from the sale of compost and energy), led to financial problems.

• The lack of operator control on the quality and quantity of the feedstock (the incoming waste) caused operational shortfalls.

• Inadequate allowance was made for the sensitivity of biological and microbiological processes. This is particularlysignificant for vermicomposting and in the anaerobic processes used in biomethanation, in which changes intemperature and feedstock can disrupt bacterial action.

• Large-scale plants were generally less reliable than small-scale operations, but the overall impact of small-scaleoperations on quantities requiring disposal was minimal.

• Odor emissions led to plant closures.

• Deficiencies in transparency and in public consultation during project development led to subsequent public opposition.

• Inadequate contract management (in terms of operational and financial control) was blamed for some difficulties.

• The importance of site-specific factors (such as location and markets) was not given sufficient attention.

Among the cases studied, one concerned a sanitary landfill facility that had been constructed but had not been used,and was deteriorating. The incoming waste was not being placed in the landfill because there was no effective treatmentsystem for the waste, and the Municipal Solid Waste Rules were interpreted to mean that the mixed waste (that is,including biodegradable waste) should not be disposed of in this facility. Instead, the waste was being dumped in a veryunsatisfactory way on unprepared ground adjacent to the facility. The result was continuing environmental pollutioncoupled with the wastage of a significant investment.

Additional information on the Hyderabad RDF plant (from a CPCB presentation): Located in Gandamguda village on10 acres of land, the plant has been working since December 1999. The plant’s processing capacity is 500 tpd (tons perday) of municipal solid waste in three shifts. Currently operating in only one shift, it was producing only 30 tpd of RDF.

Box 3. Operating Experience of Processing Facilities

Source: Based on a presentation by Asit Nema.

10 Devi, Kirti, and S. Satyanarayana. May 2001. Financial Resources and Private Sector Participation in Solid Waste Management in India. TCGI and Padco, Indo-US Financial Institutions Reform and Expansion(FIRE) Project. USAID.11 Thane, Trivandrum, Hyderabad, Bangalore, Surat, Lucknow, Mumbai, Vijaywada, and Suryapet.


from the sale of compost or energyis unlikely to be sufficient to covereven the operating costs of theprocesses—we must expect to haveto pay for treatment processes.

“Resource recovery has not ensured theachievement of the primary objectivesof protecting the environment andpublic health. Landfills are essential forbackstopping.” (Asit Nema)

The results of this study make for hardreading. However, we need to know thetruth about difficulties that have beenfaced so that decisions and strategiescan be based on realities rather thanmisplaced assumptions. There is anurgent need for more studies ofthis kind and for their widespreaddistribution among decisionmakersand engineers within India.

Given the funds being allocated underthe Twelfth Finance Commission andJawaharlal Nehru National UrbanRenewal Mission, it becomes even morecritical to internalize lessons from pastexperience and invest in projects thatare sustainable in the long term.

Obstacles to Safeand Sanitary Disposal

Even when there are effective andreliable systems that are processingall the treatable or recyclable fractionof the waste (and this is unlikely to beachieved in India in the short term),there will still be a need for sanitarylandfills to dispose of rejects, residues(from treatment processes), andnonbiodegradable material. Therefore,whatever the treatment system, asanitary landfill is an integral componentof a scientific waste management

The sanitary landfilling facility (top) is not in use because there is no treatment plant to process the waste and theuse of the site has been prevented on the grounds that the waste contains biodegradable material. As a resultthe waste is being dumped in an unsanitary way, as shown above, and the landfill facility appears to bedeteriorating through neglect.

11

system in order that the primaryobjectives of safeguarding publichealth and the environment be achieved.Sanitary landfills also offer opportunitiesfor resource recovery, for instance,methane gas can be collected fromlandfills and used to generate electricity.

In some cases decomposed wastecan be excavated and screened, andthen sold as soil conditioner, as hasbeen done in Mumbai.

In spite of the essential role of sanitarylandfills in modern, integrated solidwaste management, India has very few

operational landfills that meet thenecessary criteria for environmentalprotection. The following pointssuggest three basic reasons forthis gap.

• Technical capacity. India clearlyhas some engineers who are veryknowledgeable regarding the designof landfill sites, but there are too fewto meet the immediate needs ofeven the Class 1 cities.

There also appears to be a shortagein the numbers of indigenouscontractors with the specialist skills

needed to construct landfill sites.Perhaps the greatest lack is in theoperational skills and experienceneeded to operate a sanitary landfill.It is likely that most officials who areresponsible for waste management inClass 1 cities have never even seenan engineered sanitary landfill beingoperated. These gaps must be filled.

“Guidelines for closure of old wastedumps and for expansion of existingsites are needed.” (Manoj Datta)

• Cost. The general perception is thatlandfills require a substantial

There is a processing plant, but this is not safe and sanitary waste management.

12


investment with no scope forrevenue generation (unlike treatmentplants that offer some potentialfor generating incomes).

In addition, a tipping fee is alsorequired to be paid for landfillingon an ongoing basis. The coststend to be particularly intimidatingfor smaller municipalities given theirlimited finances and the absenceof scale economies in landfills ofthese sizes.

• Where to do it. Finding a sitefor a sanitary landfill is rarely aneasy matter. There are variouscriteria that need to be met, notleast the acceptance of theneighboring communities.

The practice of open dumpingand its associated hazards hasonly served to strengthen the ‘notin my back yard’ (NIMBY) sentimentvis-à-vis landfills that commonly tendto be mistaken for open dumps.

Large areas are required (preferablymuch larger than many that havebeen acquired so far) for reasonsgiven in Box 4.

The benefits of identifying sitesthat can serve a cluster of townsand cities will be discussed later inthis publication.

“Governance and land are the two mostcritical issues while developing landfills.”(Raghu Rama Swamy)

Some sites that have been acquired appear to be much too small, the area requirement being based on the assumptionthat only a small fraction of the waste will need to be landfilled (after all the waste has been processed and only inert materialthat has no recycling potential is left), and that a lifetime of 10 years or less is sufficient. Sites for landfills should be muchlarger for the following reasons:

• Landfill sites will be needed for the foreseeable future, so it is wise to acquire a site that will last for at least 20-25 years,especially since the cost of acquiring the land is low compared to the total costs of the site. If a new disposaltechnology replaces landfilling during this period, the site can be handed over to other purposes.

• The facility can be constructed incrementally. Since construction is usually the major cost (see Table 1) new cells can beconstructed as they are needed. It is cost-effective to concentrate landfilling operations on one large site rather thanusing many small sites, as will be discussed later.

• Not all of the site area can be used for landfilling. Space is needed for a buffer zone around the site (to hide operationsand prevent nuisance to, and opposition from, neighbors), for roads, parking, and administration, for storing covermaterial, and for leachate storage or treatment.

• It cannot be assumed that only nonbiodegradable waste will be needed to be landfilled throughout the lifetime of thesite, even though this is desirable and required by law. Treatment plants are shut down temporarily for many reasons, orthere may be other disruptions in operation. Delays in the implementation of treatment plants should not cause delays inimplementing safe and sanitary disposal. Landfills are robust and able to accept large changes in the quantities andcharacteristics of the incoming waste. This flexibility and robustness should not be constrained by inadequate facilitysizes or other flawed assumptions.

• As will be discussed later, there are advantages to a regional approach to landfilling, in which waste from a number ofneighboring towns and cities is disposed of in one landfill. Allowance should be made for the receiving of waste fromadditional communities.

• Rapid economic growth leads to increases in waste quantities and changes in waste composition. These changescannot be accurately predicted, so allowance for them must be made beforehand.

Box 4. The Size of a Landfill Site

13

From 1984-2006, nearly 3.5 million tons of waste were landfilled at this site.The remaining life of the site is more than 20 years.

Item or activity Percentage oftotal cost

Acquisition of land 1.7

Design and supervision of construction 7.8

Construction of the four cells that have been developed till now 77.0

Landfill gas collection and management system 4.1

Capping to close off completed sections of the site 9.8

Total 100.0

Table 1. Cost Components of Sanitary Landfilling(South Regional Landfill, Delaware, USA)

Source: From a presentation by N. C. Vasuki.

• Misapplication of MSW Rules.The Rules that have beenestablished to govern solid wastemanagement in India are intendedto improve public health and theenvironment, so they should notbe used to prevent environmentalimprovements, as has happenedin places where landfills are unusedbecause treatment facilities arenot available to process all ofthe waste.

Continuation of open dumping onthis basis is against the spirit andobjectives of the MSW Rules. Othersanctions should be used to obligeurban local bodies to set uptreatment systems for their waste.

14


Key Principles

“Each landfill has a site-specific design.Detailed engineering is important.”(Manoj Datta)

The scope of this document does notpermit a detailed discussion of thedesign features and techniques ofsanitary landfilling. Nevertheless, thebasic objectives of sanitary landfillingcan be summarized as:

• Averting water pollution.

• Preventing the air pollution thatresults from burning.

• Minimizing any nuisance tosurrounding communities (fromexplosive gases, odor, dust,windblown litter, appearance, noise,birds, and insects).

• Reducing hazards and nuisance topeople working on the site.

• Using the land in an economical wayand operating vehicles and machinesin an efficient way.

In addition to these basic objectives,and especially for larger landfills, areadded the objectives of minimizingthe escape of methane (which is agreenhouse gas that causes globalwarming), and of using the gas toprovide heat, generate electricity oreven serve as fuel for vehicles. Someof these objectives are discussed inmore detail in Box 5.

Emphasis on Operations

“Costs associated with disposal facilitiesare significantly backended—costs areincurred throughout the active life of thesite and after the flow of incoming wasteceases.” (Raghu Rama Swamy)

Sanitary Landfilling

This landfill cell has been lined with an impermeable plastic liner so that underground water will not bepolluted when solid wastes are placed in the cell.

Water pollution. A major reason for investing in sanitary landfilling is toprevent the pollution of water resources. Pollution from landfills cannot bereversed by standard potable water treatment technologies, and effects maypersist in underground aquifers for a century or more. Landfills, therefore, areeither sited in areas where the natural geology provides protection againstwater pollution, or are constructed in such a way that polluted water that hasbeen in contact with the waste is prevented from contaminating the outsideenvironment. Ideally both means of protection are used together. In all cases,the polluted water should be collected and treated so that it can be releasedinto the environment without causing harm.

Air pollution. Many people associate burning dumps with waste disposal.Smoke from burning dumps is a serious health hazard. However, a sanitarylandfill should be operated in such a way that there are never any fires on thesite. Fires in waste can burn for months, fuelled by methane gas generatedby decomposition as well as by the burning of the waste itself.

Method of laying the waste. Waste should be laid down in dense anduniform layers and covered to reduce nuisance and minimize difficultiesexperienced by vehicles operating on the site.

Economical use of the site. By placing the waste in dense, uniform layers,and working to a design for the final profile, it is possible to build a hill ofwaste of considerable height (30 meters or more). In this way a large volumeof waste can be placed in a given area.

Box 5. Brief Notes on Key Features of Sanitary Landfilling

15

Polluted water derived from thewaste itself or from incomingrainwater that has been in contactwith the waste is called leachate.This leachate is much more pollutingthan domestic wastewater. It shouldbe collected and recirculated,evaporated or treated. If untreatedleachate is allowed to escape froma sanitary landfill it has the capacityto seriously contaminate thesurrounding environment. Fires at abadly managed disposal site thatwas designed as a sanitary landfillcan be more intensive, since thegreater depth of waste may providea greater reservoir of methane to fuelthe fire, and make any attempt toextinguish the fire more difficult. If thewaste is not placed according tothe correct operating principles, thenuisance to neighboring communitiesof a badly managed landfill facility canbe the same as for an open dump.The same can be said for difficultiesin driving on the waste.

Designing and constructing asanitary landfill is not enough.The facility must be operated as asanitary landfill.

Box 6. Some Effectsof Bad Operation ofa Sanitary Landfill

Part of a sanitary landfill in the United States of America.

Sanitary landfilling is more about anactivity, not merely a facility. Theenvironment and public health are notprotected by a sanitary landfill, but bysanitary landfilling. The objective is todispose of waste in a safe and sanitaryway, not just to have a site where this

activity might be performed.Unfortunately it is very common foralmost all the attention to be focusedon the design of a site, with very littlethought being given to how the sitewill be used. There are many cases inwhich investments in sanitary landfill

Sanitary landfilling is more about an activity, not merely a facility.The environment and public health are not protected by a sanitarylandfill, but by sanitary landfilling.

When the waste reaches a predetermined height, it is covered and planted with vegetation. The vegetationstabilizes the soil and gives the completed landfill a pleasant appearance.

facilities have been wasted by ignoring therequirements of the operations phase.Box 6 suggests some ways in which awell constructed sanitary landfill facilitycan quickly become as, or even more,polluting as an open dump if operationsare not managed in a satisfactory way.

16


What is a ‘Regional Approach’?

As per the conventional approach towaste treatment and disposal, eachtown or city was expected to make itsown arrangements for these functions,independent of other urban areas.In contrast, the regional approachentails several autonomous urbanadministrations joining together to useone facility. One sanitary landfill mayserve two, three or even 20 cities andtowns. Box 7 looks at some institutionalaspects of the regional approach.

Why is a RegionalApproach Appropriate?

“NIMBY—not in my back yard—signifieslocal opposition to any waste manage-ment facility. In Kerala it is proposedto reduce the NIMBY syndromefrom 1,057 local bodies to just sixassociated with the regional facilities.”(Dr Kurian Baby and P. U. Asnani)

There are two strong arguments infavor of regional or inter-municipalassociations for disposal of solidwaste—one is an issue of cost and theother concerns expertise. Table 2illustrates the cost savings resultingfrom a regional approach.

“Several variables affect cost oflandfilling but size is one of the mostimportant.” (Vandana Bhatnagar)

Economies of scale. Since they arereceiving waste from a number ofcommunities, regional landfills are largerthan the facilities that would be set upby individual urban local bodies (ULBs).There are clear economies of scale12

The Regional Approach

for sanitary landfills (as discussed inBox 8 and illustrated in Table 3),allowing ULBs to save money onwaste disposal by partnering together.

“Though larger in size, regionalfacilities use land more efficiently.”(Vandana Bhatnagar)

Improved expertise. Expertise isneeded in setting up sanitary landfills,in operating them, and in monitoring.

Since the number of experts in thesefields is limited, better standards canbe achieved if the number of facilitiesis limited.

A regional facility entails some kind of an institutional arrangement thatenables the coming together of the partnering municipalities.

Attributes of the regional approach:

• It is constituted specifically to provide a particular service (namely, solidwaste processing and disposal).

• It is governed by a board of directors, a council or some similar executiveoversight body, unique to the organization.

• It is usually not dependent on taxes for funding, but raises funds throughservice charges (or tipping fees) paid by its customers—the partneringlocal bodies.

• It may or may not involve the participation of a private sectorservice provider.

• It often requires special legislation and ordinances for its establishment.

Box 7. Institutional Aspects of a Regional Approach

Source: From a presentation by Vandana Bhatnagar.

Factor Individual Regional Conclusionslandfills landfills

Total land area 2,316 957 Less than 42% is requiredrequired (hectare)

Land cost 0.40 0.18 Savings: Rs 754 crore(cost per hectare) (approx US$186 million)

Operations cost 555 388 Annual savings: Rs 13 crore(cost per ton) (approx US$3 million)

Source: From presentations by Dr Kurian Baby and P. U. Asnani.

12 An economy of scale is demonstrated when the unit cost (such asthe cost of disposal of 1 ton of waste) is less for a larger operationthan for an equivalent but smaller operation.

Table 2. Advantages of Regional Landfills: Estimates for Kerala

17

The cost of landfilling 1 ton of solid waste in a large landfill can be expected to be less than the cost of achieving the sameresults in a small landfill for the following reasons:

• Larger sites are cheaper to construct per square meter than several smaller sites with the same total area because thenecessary infrastructure that must be provided on all sites (weighbridge, site roads, among other things) can be usedmore intensively on a larger site. Moreover, since the ratio of perimeter to area is lower for a large site, the proportionalspending on perimeter fencing and buffer zones is less for a large site.

• For a given side slope (determined by considerations of slope stability, aesthetics, and ease of construction) a greaterheight can be reached if the dimensions of the base area are greater. This allows more waste to be placed on eachsquare meter in the parts of larger landfill sites where the depth is greater.

• Equipment (such as bulldozers and other specialized machinery) can be used more intensively on a large site, and thegreater workload allows specialized machines to be employed on larger sites.

The use of specialized machines allows greater efficiency. For example, a small site might be operated by a smalltracked vehicle with a combination bucket that allows it to bulldoze waste and spread cover soil, but it does notcompact the waste very significantly and may move slowly.

A large site might have a landfill compactor that compacts the waste to a higher density, a bulldozer for earthmoving,and a wheeled loader that can load and distribute cover material very efficiently.

Box 8. Reasons for Economies of Scale in Sanitary Landfilling

Cost of waste processingand disposal (Rs)

City (Revenue Town Population Waste Per ton Perdivision) classification in 2001 tons/day capita/year

Aurangabad Corporation 1,000,000 300 191.73 24.76

Latur (Aurangabad) Class 1 299,828 120 289.71 49.90

Wardha (Nagpur) Class 1 111,070 40 320.80 62.15

Yavatmal (Amravati) Class 1 120,763 25 562.72 50.14

Hingoli (Hingoli) B Class 69,552 15 617.19 57.29

Talode (Nandurabar) C Class 25,034 5 1,154.71 99.26

Source: Action Plan for Implementation of MSW Rules 2000 in Maharashtra. December 2004. AIILSG.

Table 3. Illustrations of Economies of Scale Using Data from India

a) Estimates of cost of treatment and landfilling

The regional approach entails several autonomous urban administrationsjoining together to use one facility. One sanitary landfill may serve two, threeor even 20 cities and towns.

18


b) Actual landfill construction costs

The first four results below show that the cost per m2 drops markedly with size, but the last two points show no trend.There are many factors that affect construction costs.

City Area (m2) Total cost (US$ million)* Cost/m2 (US$)

Ichalkaranji 8,070 0.15 17.96

Pune LF1 12,400 0.22 17.35

Solapur 19,600 0.32 15.80

Pimpri Chinchwad 22,800 0.29 12.28

Chandigarh 33,508 0.58 16.93

Pune LF2 45,000 0.78 16.95

Source: From a presentation by A. N. Purandare.

c) Examples of investment costs

Location Incoming Total investment Investment/input Proportion spent onwaste (tpd) (US$ million) (US$/tpd) infrastructure and

equipment

Coimbatore 550 4.72 8,600 15%

Solapur 350 1.99 5,600 32%

Ujjain 150 1.16 7,600 44%

Madgaon 40 0.69 17,200 70%

These data are based on small samples, but illustrate trends that have a theoretical basis. As a rule of thumb, Bhatnagarsuggested that sanitary landfills require a contributing population of 800,000 to one million people for economical operation.Less than half of India’s urban population lives in communities of this size. More than 98 percent of the urban communities aresmaller. Hence there is a clear need for urban local bodies to join together.

Source: From a presentation by A. N. Purandare.

Box 9 illustrates the reductions indisposal site numbers that havebeen achieved in the United States byadopting regional facilities. Smallernumber of sites also allow for betterquality of monitoring and enforcement.

There is no upper limit on the desirablelifetime of a sanitary landfill. The sitecan be constructed incrementally. Forexample, in a site that may be largeenough for 40 years’ operation, a cellthat is sufficient for only five years can

be constructed. Experience gained fromoperating that cell can be used toimprove the design and operatingefficiency of the next cell, and so on. Alarge site benefits from economies ofscale and allows the establishment of a

19

* US$1 = INR 40.69 (as of September 7, 2007). Conversion rates are from www.xe.com; all conversions in the text are approximations.

Several cities—One facilityCity A

Transferstation

City BCity C

City D

Integrated solidwaste facility

Several cities—One facilityCity A

Transferstation

City B

City C

City D

Integrated solidwaste facility

Solid wastes from all these towns and villages are disposed of at the regional sanitary landfill.

Source: From a presentation by N. C. Vasuki.

In 1978, the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s national opendump survey showed more than 8,500 dumps in the United States, eachusually serving only one town or city. This was when the EnvironmentalProtection Agency ordered the closure of open dumps. By 2002, the numberof disposal sites had dropped to 1,767. Now 200 of the nation’s sanitarylandfills receive 75 percent of the nation’s solid waste, and the biggest 250sanitary landfills are large enough to take all the waste of the United States.

Box 9. Experience of Reducing Sites in the United States

Figure 2. Regional Landfilling Scheme wide buffer zone (provided thatthere are strict measures to preventencroachment) so that complaints fromneighbors are reduced. It is importantto demonstrate that sanitary landfillsgive much less reason for protest thanopen dumps. They have lower nuisancevalue (appearance, odor, dust); havelesser health and environmental impact;are typically accompanied by organizedrecycling and treatment facilities withinthe same site; and allow reuse of theland once a landfill cell has been capped.When calculating the minimum life of thesite, it should be assumed that allwaste, inert and biodegradable, will belandfilled, because experience showsthat it is not possible to guarantee thatwaste treatment technologies will bereliable, especially in the short term.Such an assumption does notnecessarily imply wasteful allocation ofland, since even if high levels of recyclingor treatment are attained in due course,it will automatically extend the life ofthe landfill. Alternatively, additionalrecycling and treatment facilitiesmay be subsequently installed withinthe landfill premises. Nevertheless,on a precautionary basis, enoughland should be acquired upfront sothat at least 20-30 years’ operationis assured for waste generated(with little or no adjustment for recyclingand treatment).

Challenges Associatedwith Regional Landfilling

“The primary concern of urban localbodies is likely to be that sharing wouldlead to landfill life being exhaustedquickly.” (Raghu Rama Swamy)

Various challenges may arise in settingup a regional disposal scheme.

20


• Loss of political control. Solidwaste management may be oneof the main items on an urban localbody budget, and the leaders of theULB may not wish to pass controlof this item to others. In mostcases only a part of the solidwaste service will be managed bythe regional association so theULB will retain control of perhapsthe major part of solid wastemanagement expenditure, that is,collection, transportation, andmaybe even treatment. After theformation of a regional grouping,many of the decisions affecting solidwaste management will no longer bemade by the heads of the individualULBs, but instead by the regionalbodies. This loss of authority maybe a source of irritation to politicalleaders who enjoy the exercise ofpower. Additionally, ULBs in whichregional landfills are located may bereluctant to surrender their authorityfor the parcel of land given over towaste disposal. The degree ofcontrol that they retain for this sitemust be clearly defined in theagreement or constitution thatgoverns the regional association.

• Loss of management control. If theformation of the regional associationrequires ULBs to hand over land,vehicles, equipment, and staff, thisloss of management control maycause problems. For example, a ULBmay no longer be able to instruct atruck driver to work in a certainplace or do additional work, if thatdriver has been transferred to theregional body. Disciplinary action inconnection with transferred staffshould now be taken through the

regional association. There is also anissue of financial management. Theautonomous ULBs within anassociation are all expected to paytheir shares of the costs, and propermechanisms are needed to deal withULBs that do not pay, or delaypaying, their fees. Managementprocedures become morecomplicated, but ways can be foundto overcome these challenges.It is advisable to face them in theinitial stages when the rules ofassociation or the constitution arebeing developed.

• Initial negotiations. It will benecessary to invest considerabletime and effort on discussingand negotiating the institutionalarrangements for a new regionalassociation. It is important toachieve full agreement on modalities,responsibilities, and risks beforeoperations begin. A particular issueis whether all participating ULBs havethe same status or whether one isdesignated as the leading ULB.

• Reluctance of host communityto receive waste from anothercommunity. Often, a community thatis prepared to dispose of its ownwaste at a particular site objectsstrongly to the waste of othercommunities being disposedthere. The agreement of the hostcommunity may be obtained by thepayment of additional money bythe other communities involved, bythe provision of improved facilitiesor services, or by the promise ofemployment. Landfill sites should bedesigned in a way that is sensitiveto the concerns of the neighbors—

designers should put themselves inthe shoes of those living near thesite. Local residents should beinvolved in the monitoring of theoperation of the site.

• Additional expense. When switchingfrom dumping at a nearby opendump to disposal at a regionallandfill, extra expenditure can beanticipated. Small and slow vehiclesthat are not suited to transportingwaste over longer distances mustbe replaced or supplemented bylarger vehicles, often with theintroduction of transfer stations.These additional costs are usuallyoffset by the economies harnessedin regional landfilling. In many casesit is the change from dumping tolandfilling that entails the additionalexpense, rather than the changefrom a municipal landfill to a regionalone. Perhaps the motivation toimprove waste disposal must comefrom enforcement of the law, that is,ban on open dumping. When thatmotivation is present, regionallandfilling will generally be seenas an attractive option.

• Uncertainty about the future. Thelifetime of a sanitary landfill shouldbe more than 20 years wheneverpossible. So the question would be:How permanent are the institutionalarrangements that hold theparticipating communities togetherin a regional association? As politicaland administrative leaders andpolicies change, will one of theparticipating ULBs be left with theresponsibility for the site, or perhapsfor paying a contractor after theother ULBs withdraw? Because

21

of these concerns there should belegal, financial, and institutionalsafeguards that maintain the statusquo or allow it to change in a waythat does not threaten any of thepartners nor discourage anyfrom joining.

What are the Arrangements?

There is a wide range of possiblearrangements for the regional approach.Key aspects of a regional or inter-municipal arrangement include:

• The origin of the initiative that bringsthe ULBs together (such as: Did theidea originate with the ULBsthemselves or was it imposed froma higher tier of government?).

• What is the nature of the agreementbetween the participating bodies:informal, formal, contractual, legal?

• How is the leadership of theassociation arranged? Does oneULB play a leading role or are theyall equal institutionally?

• Is the private sector involved? If so,what are the contractual modalitiesand how is performance monitored?

• What services is the associationresponsible for? (It could be one ormore of the following: secondarytransport, treatment, and disposal.)

• What are the cohesive forces thathold the association together? Whatsanctions or incentives are availableto prevent any member fromresigning from the association?

• What measures are taken to ensurethat all participants honor theirfinancial obligations?

Delaware, United States: A publicly-owned but independent utility wasestablished to manage secondary transport and disposal services forDelaware state. The services are provided by the private sector. Severallandfill sites are used to cover the whole state. England: Counties (usuallyincorporating at least one city, several towns, and numerous rural districts) areresponsible for arranging and monitoring waste disposal, and invite bids fromprivate companies for waste disposal services. Several communities may useone landfill and several landfill sites may be used by each of the larger counties.Waste from one county may be landfilled in a neighboring county. Chile: Inthe area of the capital (Santiago), 16 municipalities joined to form an informalassociation for the purposes of waste disposal, and engaged a privatecompany to construct and operate one sanitary landfill. All the municipalitiessigned the concession agreement. Gaza: Eleven towns and villages formedan independent utility, which itself provides secondary transport and disposalservices, using one landfill site.

Box 10. International Examples of Regionalor Intermunicipal Arrangements

Figure 3. Generic Institutional Models for Regional Facilities

Urban local bodies Regional Facility

Governing body

ChiefExecutiveOfficer

Service provider(Private sector?)

Regional Facility

Lead urban local body

Service provider(Private sector?)

ContractsContracts

22

Urban local bodies

Urban local bodiesUrban local bodies


Several institutional arrangements arepossible for structuring a regionalfacility. Figure 3 shows some of thegeneric models. Box 10 illustrates therange of arrangements that are in useacross the world.

Realizing Regional Disposal

“Solid waste transfer stations areessential for efficient operation ofregional landfills.” (N. C. Vasuki)

Any proposal for a regional disposalscheme should make sense in terms ofgeography and economics. The firstchallenge is to find a suitable site,including the securing of the agreementof neighboring communities andobtaining the necessary environmentalpermits. The geography of the regionmust be considered, especially thedistances, travel times, and roadconditions between the disposal siteand the contributing communities.Economics will then dictate whichcommunities can be served by the site.Rules of thumb13 are useful in decidinghow far waste should be transported.However, it is also useful to carry outspecific calculations to estimate thecosts of transporting the waste frompotential partner communities to aparticular site. Because of the widerange of possible models or arrange-ments, it is not possible to define asimple procedure for setting up aregional disposal scheme. All of thefactors listed in the previous section(see ‘What are the Arrangements?’, onpage 22) must be considered carefully.The most appropriate arrangementmust be chosen from all the available

options. If the private sector is to beinvolved, the modalities and contractconditions must be selected carefully.Considerable negotiation will usually benecessary, particularly to gain agree-ment on the financial details, includinghow inequalities in transport distancesand waste quantity will be allowed for.Agreement may be necessary onconditions that will apply if one memberwishes to leave the association, or if anew member wishes to join. Box 11refers to steps that have already beentaken to establish regional disposalsystems in India.

Sustaining a RegionalDisposal System

“Urban local bodies’ sustainedcommitment is an absolutenecessity for meeting public healthobjectives.” (Raghu Rama Swamy)

There are two particular challenges tomaintaining a regional or intermunicipalassociation. One is the motivation topay for sanitary landfilling, especially

when it is cheaper to revert to opendumping. Municipal officials and localpoliticians are often unable to under-stand the need for sanitary landfilling,being more concerned about short-term issues and services that directlyaffect the main urban areas. Evenwhen there is general environmentalawareness, it is necessary to rely onlegislation that is enforced in an effectiveway, to ensure that satisfactorystandards of waste disposal areadhered to. It is important to note thatlegislation is not enough; there must beenforcement measures that work. Thesecond is the temptation to revert to anindependent, municipal-based service.This may be particularly attractive whenthe disposal service is combined withsecondary transport, and when oneULB acquires its own means ofsecondary transport, perhaps as agrant or soft loan from a governmentor development agency. That particular

13 Some experts suggest that transporting waste up to 50 km isaffordable in India. 14 Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority.

23

Andhra Pradesh:Andhra Pradesh:Andhra Pradesh:Andhra Pradesh:Andhra Pradesh: The state government has developed a strategy and issuedcomprehensive guidelines for setting up regional facilities. It is proposed togroup 134 urban local bodies into 19 clusters. Five proposals for regionalfacilities, covering 37 municipalities, were recently cleared by the stategovernment. Facilities are to be established and operated by the private sectorunder concession agreements. Gujarat:Gujarat:Gujarat:Gujarat:Gujarat: Regional landfill sites have beenidentified using geographic information system (GIS) techniques—45 siteshave been proposed for 130 municipalities, such that the maximum transportdistance is 25 km; 20 of these 45 sites had already been acquired. Proposalsenvisage private sector involvement, and the Gujarat State WasteManagement Company will be the sole contracting agent. Kerala:Kerala:Kerala:Kerala:Kerala: A recentstudy recommended that the state be divided into six zones, each with its ownlandfill site for receiving waste from all the towns in that particular zone.West Bengal:West Bengal:West Bengal:West Bengal:West Bengal: In the KMDA14 area, six municipalities propose to use onecommon landfill site. Regional landfills are also being planned in other parts ofthe state, for example, in Asansol-Durgapur.

Box 11. Regional or Intermunicipal Arrangementsunder Development—Indian Examples

ULB may then wish to withdraw from theagreement, thinking that it can provide asatisfactory and cheaper service using itsown resources. Development agenciesand governmental authorities should bemade aware of the need to supportregional schemes and work with regionalbodies rather than individual ULBs whensupplying certain types of equipment orfinancial assistance. Mechanisms forovercoming these challenges shouldbe built into the agreement betweenthe collaborating ULBs. Effectiveenforcement of environmental standardsand control of the granting of permits forwaste disposal can discourage ULBsfrom reverting to local open dumps.

“The quality of service delivery dependson both responsibility and capability.”(Vandana Bhatnagar)

Involving the Private Sector

Inputs from the private sector cantake many forms and provide manydifferent types of service. For instance,design consultants and constructioncontractors are usually involved in thepreparation of a landfill site. Consultantsmay also be engaged to assist with thedevelopment of institutional, financial,and legal arrangements, as well as todesign and lead a program of publicconsultation. The private sector may alsobe engaged to manage, operate, or owna site or facility. There are many ways inwhich a company may be involved in theoperation of a sanitary landfill, and thereader is referred to other publications(such as Cointreau-Levine, Coad, andGopalan 200015) for more detailed

information on this topic. The mainadvantages of involving the privatesector are listed in Box 12.

Apart from the generic prerequisitesfor the success of private sectorparticipation, it is important to note afew important points in the contextof treatment and disposal of waste:

• If more than one company isresponsible for the design,construction, and operation stages,it may be very difficult to allocateresponsibility for any shortcomingsthat become apparent during theoperation phase.

• Emissions (of leachate and gas) andsettlement continue after landfillingceases and the site has been closed,so the responsibility for monitoringthe site and correcting any problemsduring this post-closure stage shouldbe defined.

• Landfills are a viable businessproposition only if the operator ispaid appropriate compensation forthe activity. This typically takes theform of tipping fee. Care needs to betaken to ensure that this fee is fixed ata level that offers a satisfactory return

for the private operator, while alsobeing within the financial reach of thelocal body. Assumptions of revenuegeneration from carbon finance ortreatment facilities (if integrated withthe landfill) may be accounted forwhile calculating the tipping fee.Nevertheless, provisions should alsobe made for any recourse availableto the private operator in the eventof revenue streams not beingrealized (possibly due to factorsbeyond its control).

• Landfills need to be designed for aperiod of at least 20-25 years usingrealistic assumptions of the share ofwaste that will be treated or recycled.Over-optimistic assumptions onlevels of segregation and hencetreatment or recycling that can beachieved may result in the landfillgetting filled up within a much shortertimeframe. Alongside this, incentivemechanisms16 should also be putin place to maximize the life ofthe landfill.

15 Cointreau-Levine, Sandra, Adrian Coad, and Prasad Gopalan.2000. Guidance Pack: Private sector participation in municipal solidwaste management. Skat, Switzerland. It can be downloadedfrom http://rru.worldbank.org/Toolkits/SolidWasteManagement/

24

16 For example, the regulatory authority could mandate a phasedreduction in percentage of waste landfilled, or an acceleratedcharge could be imposed on local bodies for each ton of wastelandfilled, or a rent payment may be made to the private operatorfor unused land in the landfill area.

• The private sector often has better access than local government to capitalfor financing construction and investment in equipment.

• Specialized firms have more experience in waste disposal, and can provideshort- and long-term inputs as required. (However, a company that isexpanding rapidly may propose staff who have little or no relevant experience.)

• Performance and environmental standards can be enforced by means ofthe contract in addition to the application of environmental legislation(provided that the contract is well-written and effectively enforced).

• Costs and financial obligations are clearly defined.

Box 12. Advantages of Involving the Private Sectorin Waste Disposal


Chronological Planning

“We need a sense of urgency. We havelost time. We will keep this issue alive.”(Mr Rajamani, MoUD)

The chronological issue to consider is:At what stage is it appropriate tointroduce sanitary landfills in solid wastemanagement systems?

There is clearly an imperative need forsanitary landfills now. Open dumpingshould be stopped as a matter ofurgency because it offers no protectionto water resources.

The process of getting the land,designing the facility, obtaining thenecessary permits, and constructing thesite may take anything from six monthsto more than two years, so there is apressing need to start now. To supportthis process, there now exist adequatesources of finance as also a willingnessin the higher tiers of government toprovide the necessary technical supportto local bodies. So there is no reasonfor delay.

“All open dumps in Delaware wereclosed and that allowed developmentof engineered landfills. The landfillshave 20+ years remaining capacity forsolid waste disposal (currently 1 millionmetric tons per year).”(N. C. Vasuki)

How Does It All Fit Together?

Institutional Structures

Effective enforcement is needed sothat urban local bodies (ULBs) nolonger see open dumping as analternative. ULBs should be informedabout safe and sanitary waste disposal,and the benefits of the regionalapproach. Advice and support areneeded so that ULBs can be groupedtogether into regional units that canprovide economical and environmentallyacceptable sanitary landfilling. Theparticipation of the private sectorshould be negotiated carefully, withdue consideration of the range ofoptions available and meticulouspreparation of contract documents.In India, according to the 74thConstitutional Amendment, municipalsolid waste (MSW) management is theresponsibility of each ULB. If a regionalsystem is set up by the stategovernment, the responsibility ofULBs for this service may tend to getdiluted. Care should to be taken toprevent this from happening; localbodies need to retain responsibilityfor solid waste management, even ifsome of the operations are beingmanaged by a regional association.

“Active involvement of state agencies isneeded to encourage and facilitate theregionalization process... but the locusof responsibility for all aspects of MSW

management needs to remain withULBs. Therefore, it is necessary toensure proper consultation and theparticipation of ULBs at all stages ofdecisionmaking.” (Vandana Bhatnagar)

Financial Systems

ULBs should realize that safe disposalmust be paid for—typically in the formof tipping fees. If undertaken at aneconomically efficient scale, the costsof sanitary landfilling are not verydifferent from the costs of wastecollection; in many cases, they maybe even lesser. And they may often bepaid out of savings from improvedefficiency of the collection service.However, mechanisms for chargingfor disposal services should neitherbe so high as to encourage clandestineopen dumping, nor should they beso low as to discourage treatmentand recycling.

Operational Procedures

Much greater attention should be givento both theoretical and practical trainingfor landfill operations managers andplant operators. Site managers shouldbe given the resources that theyneed to operate their landfills to anacceptable standard. Enforcement ofoperating standards is needed so thatdue attention is paid to the properoperation of landfill sites.

25


Clarify Requirements andObjectives of MSW Rules

There is an urgent need to clarify thedemands of the MSW Rules to endassociated anomalous situations. Forinstance, the current practice of opendumping even when there is an availablesanitary landfill facility or state sectorstrategies that are in contradiction tothe MSW Rules. Priority should be givento setting up sanitary landfills along withtreatment facilities.

“Develop contingency plans [such as]Plan A, Plan B, and Plan C.” (N. C. Vasuki)

Develop Capacity

The capacities of both private andpublic sectors need to be improved sothat both sides are able to ensure safeand sanitary disposal of wastes. Thisrequires both theoretical and hands-ontraining. It also demands changes incareer structures and employmentpolicies so that personal developmentis encouraged. (Staff will not take timeto develop their competence in wastemanagement if they know that they arelikely to be transferred to a differentfield after a short time.) Coordination isneeded between urban local bodiesand states so that facilities that areoperating well can be used intensivelyfor providing site experience to thosewho have undergone classroomtraining. The MSW Rules and thefunding that is available will result in arush to implement new facilities. It islikely that the lack of experienced humanresources will pose a major constrainton the successful implementation ofeffective solid waste treatment anddisposal systems. Unfortunately,political and legal pressures may force

Recommendations

the authorities to press ahead withimplementation at a high speed,resulting in a shortage of qualifiedpeople to plan, design, construct, andoperate these facilities. It is likely thatthis will lead to disappointingperformance and an unacceptablewastage of public and private finance.Capacity building, which is much morethan classroom training, must be givencareful consideration now.

While there is a clear need for moreexperts in the fields of site selection andlandfill design, there are less obviousbut greater needs for much improvedcapacity in operating landfills, inspectingoperations, and enforcing standards, aswell as in working with the private sector.

Enhance KnowledgeManagement

Improvements in solid wastemanagement can be assisted greatly byknowledge management—the collectionand sharing of both descriptive andnumerical information. Regarding thelatter, many people think first of figuresthat refer to the composition and percapita generation of waste. Suchinformation is seldom reliable, and oftenit is not relevant to the final decision(Box 13).

Of great importance are data thatdescribe operating experience. In thecontext of this publication, the cost ofdisposal of 1 ton of waste is a veryuseful item of information. Even moreimportant can be accurate informationabout the performance of treatmentplants, particularly the associated costsand income, the inputs and outputs, andthe period during which the plant wasoperational. Objective accounts of

successes and difficulties are certainlyneeded. Without this information andits widespread publication, wrongdecisions will be repeated and the resultwill be unnecessary wastage of publicmoney. Box 4 has already discussedthis issue.

An important means for sharing ofinformation—apart from case studies,exchange, study trips, training—isnetworking. Solid waste managementin India is an evolving profession thatneeds to develop networking betweenprofessionals. Networking allows thesharing of experience-based informationthat is not, or cannot be, published.Networking enables us to contactfellow professionals and ask foradvice based on their experience, sothat we can learn from their experienceand avoid repeating mistakes.Professional associations help toset up such networks.

India now has its own professionalassociation for solid waste manage-ment—the Indian Association for SolidWaste Management (IASWM). Thisorganization will help memberscontact others who may have usefulexperience-based information to shareon an informal basis. It is a non-profit,national-level professional associationwith its secretariat in New Delhi.17

Inform, Involve, andMotivate Citizens

Most senior officials who are involvedin solid waste disposal are confident

17 The organization can be contacted at: Indian Association forSolid Waste Management (IASWM), Room Number 27,Dr Ambedkar Stadium, Delhi Gate, Delhi 110 002, India.Telephone: +91 11 23320271; Fax: +91 11 23318571;E-mail: [email protected]

27

about dealing with technical andfinancial aspects, but are uncertainabout social aspects—those relatingto the public.

The members of the public shouldbe informed about developments insolid waste management activitiesthat concern them. They should belistened to and consulted. If these stepsare not taken, the result may beconcerted opposition by groups ofcitizens after investments have beenmade, resulting in the abandoning ofexpensive facilities. Public awarenessof environmental considerations shouldbe developed so that citizens supportmeasures that protect and enhance theenvironment, and report illegal activitiesthat cause pollution. Such awareness

would also improve the citizens’willingness to pay for solid wastemanagement services. Wastemanagement organizations must learnto project a positive image of the workthat they are doing, in order to gainpublic support and citizen loyalty.

Ensure Financial Sustainability

It is an obvious fact that there mustbe sufficient income to pay for theequipment and technologies that weselect, and yet there seems to betoo little consideration given to theoperating costs of some treatmentsystems that are chosen to processsolid waste. At a time when governmentgrants or international funding are widelyavailable, it is easy to lose sight of the

Much effort has been wasted in collecting data on waste composition (the percentage of biodegradable material, plastic,paper, and so on). This wastage of effort can be attributed to:

• Such data are usually collected with little thought of the purpose that the information will be put to. For example,if it is desired to examine the potential for recycling plastic, it is not enough to determine the gross percentage ofplastic, but it may be necessary to separate the various polymers, separate molded plastic from plastic film, andchoose carefully the point in the waste management chain at which the analysis should be carried out. If it is desired toexamine the feasibility of incineration, accurate studies are needed of moisture content and of composition afterinformal waste picking, at different times of the year.

• Composition studies are often used to indicate the potential for composting. However, the potential for composting ismore often determined by the amount of biodegradable waste that is collected separately from other wastes (andtherefore not contaminated by glass, plastic, and so on) and by the potential market for the product.

• Waste composition results are strongly influenced by seasonal factors (weather and availability of fresh fruit andvegetables) and so should be carried out over a period that covers all seasons. Waste generation data are oftenunreliable and inadequate, since they may not take account of seasonal differences and waste picking, and do notconsider all streams of waste—domestic, institutional, commercial, market, street, industrial, and so forth. Themost useful data for management of sanitary landfills are the weights of incoming waste and of cover material, so aweighbridge is essential. It is also useful to determine the in-situ density of the waste by surveying the site at intervalsof six months or a year. There is a tendency to accept any available data without questioning its accuracy or reliability.Inaccurate data can lead to major mistakes, delays, and the waste of large sums of money.

Box 13. Some Warnings about Waste Data

need for recurrent funding to keepplants and facilities operating. Treatmentplants, despite their seeming potentialfor generating revenues, do requireconsiderable commitment to ongoingcost of operations (including availabilityof requisite technical manpower). Whilethis is the case with sanitary landfilling aswell, a unique advantage that it offers isthat it can be developed in stages. Froma financial standpoint, this implies thatafter the initial investment to acquire andprepare the site, the cells in which thewaste is deposited can be developedin a phased manner. The capitalexpenditure can therefore be spread outover a long period of time, and does notrequire a heavy financial liability to beincurred upfront by the local body.

The capacities of both private and public sectors need to be improved sothat both sides are able to ensure safe and sanitary disposal of wastes.

28


Priorities for waste managementshould be based upon clearly definedobjectives of public health andenvironmental protection. In situations inwhich a proportion of the solid waste isleft uncollected in urban areas or solidwastes are being left in open dumps,the urgent priority is to safeguard healthand the environment. The first steps insuch situations must therefore be toimprove collection services and ensuresafe and sanitary disposal of the waste.Means to minimize the waste streamflowing to the disposal may then bedeveloped through recycling andtreatment systems.

It is important to regard citizens—thewaste generators—as partnersand customers, and not just asbeneficiaries. Information, Education andCommunication (IEC) was referred to inmany of the presentations. Experiencehas shown that the last letter shouldstand for Consultation, or that thecommunication, at the very least,should be a two-way process. The USexperience of siting landfills showedthe benefits of involving neighboringpopulations in the site selectionprocess. The opinions of the widerange of stakeholders should be soughtrather than assumed. IEC is oftenoutside the comfort zone andexperience of many engineers andplanners. It is assumed that publicationof information on one occasion will besufficient to ensure a change ofbehavior. In reality, extended andmultifaceted campaigns are usuallynecessary to change stakeholders’behavior in the desired way. Educatedpublic opinion can be a useful ally ofpollution control agencies and others

Conclusions

who are seeking improved protectionof public health and the environment.

The issue of motivation shouldreceive careful consideration. Lawsand penalties are not the onlytools available for encouragingimprovements. Financial instruments,competitions, and public opinion can allbe effective in motivating change.

Achievement and progress shouldbe assessed on the basis of services,not on the basis of assets orinfrastructure. The number of wastecollection trucks is not important;the reliability of the service that theyprovide is. The existence of aprocessing plant means nothing; whatmatter more are environmental impacts,throughputs, unit costs, and theusefulness of the product. The designand construction standards of a landfilllose significance if the site is notmanaged correctly.

Unfortunately, treatment and landfillshave been viewed as competingalternatives rather than ascomplementary processes. Moreover,treatment has been given precedenceover landfills, as is evident from theIndian experience. The reasons for thisdistortion are likely to be a combinationof the following:

• There is insufficient awareness of thedifference between open dumpingand sanitary landfilling, so thatresponsible officials think thatsanitary landfilling is notenvironmentally acceptable or thatit does not require special inputs.

• Treatment has champions butlandfills do not. Many treatmenttechnologies are promoted by

persuasive salesmen with attractivevisual presentations, but thereis no comparable promotionalpressure by the advocates ofsanitary landfills.

• Treatment appears to meet the lessimportant objectives of appearingmodern or sophisticated and it isoften presented as a means ofgaining profit from waste. Theseinferior objectives often supersedethe key objectives of protectingpublic health and the environment.

All treatment technologies must beaccompanied by safe and sanitarydisposal systems for the disposal ofresidues and to take all of the wastewhen the treatment plants are notoperating. The only safe and sanitarydisposal system that exists at thepresent time is sanitary landfilling.

Sanitary landfills should be designedto accept biodegradable waste, sincethere are always biodegradableresidues from any treatment process(apart from incineration) and even well-operated treatment plants may beclosed from time to time. Sites forlandfills should be large enough for longperiods of operation—30 years, not fiveyears—so that worries about capacitydo not prevent the use of landfills whenthey are needed. In today’s world,sanitary landfilling is not an option,it is a necessity.

Unless they are managed by awell-trained team, facilities that aredesigned as sanitary landfills can quicklydegenerate into polluting dumps.Again and again we see disposalfacilities where very little effort hasbeen invested in training managers and

29

equipment operators. The operationalrequirements of sanitary landfills arenot highly complex or sophisticated,but it is essential that site managershave a strong and practicalunderstanding of the principles andtechniques involved.

There is an urgent need for enforcementof standards, so that communitiesdispose of their waste in sanitarylandfills rather than open dumps andsanitary landfills are operated tosatisfactory standards. This may requirea major campaign to recruit and traininspectors, as well as effective supportfrom the courts. It also appears thatthere is a need for clearly defining theroles and mandate of the pollution

• A sanitary landfill is an essential part of every solid waste management system.

• Sanitary landfills should be designed for at least 20-25 years of operation.

• After construction, close attention must be paid to the operation ofsanitary landfills, with adequate provision being made for both humanand financial resources.

• Regional landfills offer important advantages in most situations.

Box 14. Sanitary Landfills in Summary

control boards; in some cases theirinvolvement in implementationhas diluted their monitoring andenforcement functions. The groupingtogether of urban areas and settlementsso that they use one common sanitary

landfill can result in cost savings and

improved operational standards.

This regional approach should be

implemented wherever geography

and politics permit.

There is an urgent need for enforcement of standards, so that communitiesdispose of their waste in sanitary landfills rather than open dumps andsanitary landfills are operated to satisfactory standards.

30


Many of the quotes and other dataprovided in this report were presentedat two workshops organized in January2007, sponsored by the Ministry ofUrban Development, and supported byWater and Sanitation Program-SouthAsia (of the World Bank).

The main components of theworkshops, as well as informationabout the presenters and resourcepersons, are summarized below.

Puri Workshop,January 10 to 12, 2007

• Introduction by Deepak Sanan

• Questionnaire forms were filledin at the beginning and end of theworkshop to determine the opinionsof the participants and to seewhether those opinions had changedas a result of the presentationsand discussions

• ‘Why Manage Solid Waste?’ byN. C. Vasuki

• ‘Status of Solid Waste

Appendix A

Management in India’by P. U. Asnani

• ‘Past Experience with MSWTreatment and Disposal Projectsand Lessons Learnt’ by Asit Nema

• ‘Landfill: Necessity in MSWHandling’ by A. N. Purandare

• ‘Strategy for Collection andTransportation under NirmalnagarProject’ by C. M. Ramakumar

• ‘Experiences with Community-Based Models in SWM: Lessonsin Collection and Transportation’by Sanjay K. Gupta

• ‘Business Model for Collection andTransportation at Scale: CDCExperiences’ by Dr Vivek S. Agrawal

• ‘Indian Association for Solid WasteManagement (IASWM)’ by RaviDass, President, and A. K. Vidyarthi

• ‘Regional SW Facility: Concept andRationale’ by Vandana Bhatnagar

• ‘Regional Approaches:

31

International Examples and GeneralComments’ by Adrian Coad

• ‘State-Level Experiences withRegionalization in Andhra Pradesh’by Dr G. Malsur

• ‘Integrated Solid WasteManagement in Kerala: MoveTowards Regional Approach’by Dr Kurian Baby

• ‘Gujarat: Regional Approach—ABeginning’ by Lekhan Thakkar

• ‘Framework for Implementation’presented by Raghu Rama Swamy

• Breakout session: The roles of thedifferent organizations and variouslevels, considering communicationstrategies; capacity building;rules and guidelines; financing;implementation; monitoring andenforcement. One of the groupswas formed by participants fromthe hill states

• Panel discussion

Chennai Workshop,January 17 to 19, 2007

• Introduction by Deepak Sanan

• Questionnaire forms were filled inat the beginning and end of theworkshop to determine the opinionsof the participants and to seewhether those opinions had changedas a result of the presentationsand discussions

• ‘Status of Solid Waste Managementin India’ by P. U. Asnani

• ‘Why Manage Solid Waste?’by N. C. VasukiDelegates at the Puri workshop, which was organized from January 10 to 12, 2007.

Presenters andResource Persons

S. K. AdhikariSenior Environmental Engineer, WasteManagement Cell, West Bengal PollutionControl Board, KolkataE-mail: [email protected]

Dr Vivek S. AgrawalTrustee Secretary, Centre forDevelopment Communication, JaipurE-mail: [email protected]

P. U. AsnaniSenior Partner, Urban ManagementConsultants, AhmedabadE-mail: [email protected]

Dr Kurian BabySenior Advisor, Socio EconomicUnit Foundation, KeralaE-mail: [email protected]

P. R. BaviskarChief Executive Officer, KolkataMetropolitan Development Authority,Urban Development Department,Government of West Bengal, Kolkata

Vandana BhatnagarUrban Sector Specialist, Water andSanitation Program, World Bank,New DelhiE-mail: [email protected]

Adrian CoadConsultant, EgyptE-mail: [email protected]

S. DasguptaConsultant, IFC and the World Bank,New DelhiE-mail: [email protected]

Professor Manoj DattaDepartment of Civil Engineering,Indian Institute of Technology, New DelhiE-mail: [email protected]

32

• Inaugural address by guest ofhonor, Mr Rajamani, Joint Secretary,Ministry of Urban Development

• ‘Landfills: Existing Guidelines andSome Experiences’by Professor Manoj Datta

• ‘Two Lessons from InternationalExperience’ by Adrian Coad

• ‘Recent Treatment and DisposalProjects in India: Case Studies’by Asit Nema

• ‘Regional SW Facility: Concept andRationale’ by Vandana Bhatnagar

• ‘Regional Approaches:International Examples and GeneralComments’ by Adrian Coad

• ‘Indian Association for SolidWaste Management (IASWM)’by Mr Khandelwal, Vice President,and Mr Ananthaswamy, responsiblefor IASWM affairs in the South

• ‘State-Level Experienceswith Regionalization in AndhraPradesh’ by Lokesh Jayaswal,Joint Secretary

• ‘Gujarat: Towards a RegionalApproach in SWM’ by K. Srinivas

• ‘Kolkata Metropolitan DevelopmentAuthority’, a presentationby P. R. Baviskar

• ‘Model Facility for Demonstrationof Management of Municipal SolidWaste, and MSWM in West Bengal’by S. K. Adhikari

• ‘Integrated Solid WasteManagement in Kerala: MoveTowards Regional Approach’presented by P. U. Asnani

• ‘Private Sector Participationin Regional Landfilling’by Adrian Coad

• ‘Framework for Implementation’presented by Raghu Rama Swamy

• Breakout Session and Feedback:Exploring the perceptions andreactions of stakeholders

• ‘Presentation of a CompetitionScheme in Maharashtra’by Sunil Soni, Director ofMunicipal Administration

Delegates at the Chennai workshop, which was organized from January 17 to 19, 2007.


Sanjay K. GuptaProgram Manager, Urban Services,USAID (GMED Program),JaipurE-mail: [email protected]

Lokesh JayaswalJoint Secretary, Municipal Administration& Urban Development Department,Government of Andhra Pradesh,Hyderabad

Dr G. MalsurProject Director, Andhra Pradesh UrbanReforms and Municipal Services Project,Urban Department, Governmentof Andhra PradeshE-mail: [email protected]

Asit NemaFoundation for Greentech EnvironmentalSystems, New DelhiE-mail: [email protected]

A. N. PurandareDirector, Eco Designs India PrivateLimited, PuneE-mail: [email protected]

C. M. RamakumarFormer Deputy Advisor, KarnatakaUrban Infrastructure Developmentand Finance CorporationE-mail: [email protected]

Deepak SananFormer India Country Team Leader,Water and Sanitation Program-SouthAsia, World Bank, and PrincipalSecretary, Department of UrbanDevelopment, Himachal PradeshE-mail: [email protected]

K. Srinivas, IASManaging Director, Gujarat UrbanDevelopment Co Ltd, GujaratE-mail: [email protected]

33

D. T. V. Raghu Rama SwamyHead, Urban and Industrial Infrastructure,Infrastructure Development Corporation(Karnataka) Ltd, BangaloreE-mail: [email protected]

Lekhan ThakkarVice President, Gujarat UrbanDevelopment Co Ltd, GujaratE-mail: [email protected]

N. C. VasukiPE, DEE, Chief Executive Officer (retired),Delaware Solid Waste Association,and Past President of the InternationalSolid Waste AssociationE-mail: [email protected]

A. K. VidyarthiEnvironmental Engineer,Central Pollution Control Board,DelhiE-mail: [email protected]

Definitions and Data Notes

BiomethanationThis is a process used to produce methane gas, which can be used as a fuel, by means of bacteria that feed on the waste whenthere is little or no oxygen present. A more general term is anaerobic digestion. The conditions of the process (amount of water,temperature, and characteristics of the waste) must all be carefully controlled.

ChainThe chain of solid waste management operations can, in broad terms, be taken to include the following stages: generation,storage, collection, treatment (or processing), and disposal.

CPCBCentral Pollution Control Board

Crore10 million

DisposalDisposal is the last stage of solid waste management. The only satisfactory method of disposal involves placing the remainingresidues into an engineered receiving area and minimizing their contact with, and impact on, the external environment. This processis known as sanitary or engineered landfilling.

DumpingCrude or open dumping refers to the unloading of waste without taking care to minimizing pollution, utilizing the land area well, orrestoring the site when disposal operations cease. In such situations waste is often burnt, causing serious air pollution. The word‘landfilling’ should not be used to describe such operations.

Economy of scaleAn economy of scale is demonstrated when the unit cost (such as the cost of disposal of 1 ton of waste) is less for a largeroperation than for an equivalent but smaller operation, for reasons that are linked to the size of the operation.

Hectare10,000 square meters or 2.471 acres

Lakh100,000

LandfillReferring to a sanitary landfill, which is an engineered secure waste disposal facility incorporating environmental safeguards such asliner, leachate control systems, gas collection systems, and so on.

MSW(M)Municipal solid waste (management). Municipal solid waste is generally taken to include domestic, institutional, commercial, andstreet wastes. Agricultural wastes and hazardous solid wastes from industries and hospitals are excluded from this category,and construction and demolition waste is also usually excluded.

ProcessingProcessing and treatment are considered to have the same meaning in this publication.

34

Appendix B


RDFRefuse-derived fuel, which is made from solid waste and is used as a substitute for coal in boilers. It may be in the form of short,extruded cylinders or as loose material, known as ‘fluff’.

Resource recoveryResource recovery embraces all means of gaining some economic benefit from waste. This may involve reusing items in thewaste in their original form, processing them to make new materials or products, or burning the waste or a product from thewaste to gain energy, which may be converted into electrical power.

RsIndian Rupees or INR (US$1 = INR 40.46, as of September 7, 2007).

Solid wasteAny item or material that is no longer of interest to the person who was responsible for it and that is not discharged through apipe or directly into the air. (Laws and contracts may provide different definitions.) The ownership of solid waste at any stage ortime can be an important issue in the context of recycling and legal liability.

Solid waste managementAll activities that aim to minimize undesirable impacts of solid wastes and to derive some benefit from these wastes.

Tonssee ‘tpd’

tpdTons per day. For the purposes of this report, the difference between the avoirdupois ton (2,240 lb) and the metric ton or tonne(1,000 kg, equivalent to 2,205 lb) is of no significance. The short ton (2,000 lb) is rarely heard of outside the United States.The megagram (Mg) is the same as the tonne.

TreatmentWaste treatment is taken to mean any process that changes the nature of waste in order to gain some benefit from it (such asenergy recovery or using it as an input in a manufacturing process) or reduces the costs, risks or pollution associated withsubsequent handling. Most treatment processes produce residues that require disposal. In other words, treatment is rarely thelast stage in the solid waste management chain.

35

Water and Sanitation Program-South AsiaWorld Bank55 Lodi EstateNew Delhi 110 003India

Phone: (91-11) 24690488, 24690489Fax: (91-11) 24628250E-mail: [email protected] site: www.wsp.org

December 2007

WSP MISSION:To help the poor gain sustained accessto water and sanitation services.

WSP FUNDING PARTNERS:The Governments of Australia, Austria, Belgium,Canada, Denmark, France, Ireland, Luxembourg,the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland,the United Kingdom, the United States ofAmerica; the United Nations DevelopmentProgramme, The World Bank, and theBill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

AusAID provides WSP-SAprogrammatic support.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:This report was peer reviewed by Deepak Sananand Shubhagato Dasgupta

TASK MANAGER:Vandana Bhatnagar

PREPARED BY:Adrian Coad

Editor: Anjali Sen GuptaPictures by: Asit Nema, N. C. VasukiCreated by: Write MediaPrinted at: PS Press Services Pvt. Ltd.

Implementing Integrated Solid Waste Management Systems …...Implementing Integrated Solid Waste...

Documents

Transcript of Implementing Integrated Solid Waste Management Systems …...Implementing Integrated Solid Waste...