general observations - andhra pradeshsac.ap.gov.in/sac/userinterface/downlaods/draft...

General Observations :

1. The data projected in DPRs is differing from the real time data appraised

by the Commissioners during the meetings for all most all the

municipalities in terms of Population, area, existing equipment etc.

Commissioners shall provide ULB- specific information to the Consultant

and take ownership of DPR.

2. The estimates of the solid waste quantity generated and presented were

not matching to the ULB information. The consultants shall reconcile the

figures and arrive at the final quantities.

3. The analysis of the solid waste with respect to composition is not

realistic, which may be due to improper sampling collection or testing

procedure. The consultants shall engage a NABL accredited laboratory

other than one engaged earlier for re – sampling of MSW in all the ULBs

(vertically composite samples shall be collected at each monitoring

station). These samples shall be analyzed for component fraction and

Physico - chemical parameters. 3 additional sample collection per ULB

(Exiting old dump, fresh MSW at dump site, fresh MSW at dump site,

random sample in the city) shall be taken and analyzed wherever

composition does not reflect the actual composition.

4. The specific areas of disposal like existing land or new area of inert

disposal was not mentioned. In the calculations the consultant should

have made an estimate of the inert material left out after the conversion

or disposing to integrated Municipal Solid waste processing plant. The

inert material requires how much land for 20 years (up to 2030) required

and whether land has to be acquired or the existing land is sufficient to

dispose was not mentioned.

5. The location specific studies were not made as to which type of facility is

suitable. The consultant should take in to cognizance of the existing

system and prepare the draft accordingly.

6. Study does not reflect the ground water conditions, soil percolation back

ground air quality in the existing dump yards and the habitation or land

use land cover in the existing dup yards or new dump yards identified.

7. The DPR’s in nut shall should reflect the local conditions and should

suggest specific solid waste management facility that is specific to that

locality. The draft DPRs are more or less generalized rather than specific

to that location.

8. The equipment should be minimized after calculating the trips and

available machines. The optimization of transport is not discussed.

Prioritization and phasing out of the activities is not discussed by the

consultants.

N. Sateesh Babu, FIE B. Tech (Civil Engg.), ME (Env. Engg.), Research Scholar (Chem. Engg. IIT), PG Diploma (Env. Economics) Former EE, CPCB; Chairman-Env, ASCI; Technical Director, Weston Solutions India; VP, IL&FS Env.

A Note from N. Sateesh Babu, FIE, Expert Associate of the Swachha Andhra Corporation, Government of Andhra Pradesh - Submitted on October 3, 2015 204, Maithri Enclave, Shyam Karan Road, Ameerpet, Hyderabad; [email protected]; cell:91-9959090230; tel:040-23734180; skype: sateeshbabun

The Swachha Andhra Corporation MA&UD Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh

Hyderabad October 3, 2015

Sub: Interactive Meetings Organized by Swachha Andhra Corporation to Review

ULB-Specific First Draft DPRs Prepared by Consultant for MSW Management - September 29th Meeting in Vijayawada for ULBs in Krishna District and September 30th Meeting in Guntur for ULBs in Guntur District.

This note is organized into following Sections: 1.0 Proceedings of meetings 2.0 Specific concerns of ULBs 3.0 Generic observations on structure, coverage etc. 4.0 Regional concept and simultaneous studies 5.0 ULB specific reports, observations and recommendations to SAC 5.1 Specific observations on draft DPR prepared for Vijayawada 5.2 Recommendations to Swachha Andhra Corporation Each of these are discussed below:

1.0 Proceedings of Meetings

The Swachha Andhra Corporation organized Interactive Meeting on September 29th at Vijayawada Municipal Corporation and on 30th at Guntur Municipal Corporation to review the first draft DPRs prepared by M/s. Tata Consulting Engineers Ltd., consultant engaged for the purpose, in respect of identified ULBs. The interactive meetings to review ULB-specific first draft DPRs were chaired by Mr. Muralidhara Reddy, Managing Director, SAC. Mr. N. Sateesh Babu, FIE, an expert associate of SAC has facilitated interactive meeting between the Consultant, M/s. Tata Consulting Engineers Ltd. and the Municipal Commissioners and their Officers participated in both Meetings. The Tata Consulting Engineers Ltd. is represented by Dr. Alok Kumar, DGM and Mr. Kiran Babu, Manager. List of participated Commissioners and Officers from Krishna and Guntur Districts are placed at Appendix I and Appendix II. Press Coverage of Vijayawada and Guntur are given in Appendix III and Appendix IV. ULBs covered/participated in both district-specific interactive Meetings are given below:

S.

No Krishna District Guntur District

ULB Revised Current MSW Generation,

TPD

ULB Revised Current MSW

Generation, TPD 1 Vijayawada

Municipal Corporation

550 Guntur Municipal Corporation

320

2 Machilipatnam 80 Tenali 69 3 Gudivada 50 Narasarao Peta 65 4 Jaggayya peta 34.5 Bapatla 38 5 Nuzvidu 28 Repalle 22

Interactive Meetings Organized by the Swachha Andhra Corporation to Review ULB-Specific First Draft DPRs Prepared by Consultant for MSW Management -

September 29th Meeting in Vijayawada for ULBs in Krishna District and September 30th Meeting in Guntur for ULBs in Guntur District.

A Note from N. Sateesh Babu, FIE, Expert Associate of the Swachha Andhra Corporation, Government of Andhra Pradesh - Submitted on October 3, 2015 Page 2 of 31

6 Pedana 11 Chilakaluri peta 68 7 Nandigama 21 Ponnuru 25 8 Thiruvuru 17 Mangalagiri 40 9 Vuyyuru 15 Macherla 25 10 Sattenapalli 24 11 Vinukonda 30.5 12 Piduguralla 28 13 Tadepalli 30

Sh. Muralidhara Reddy, Managing Director invited all the participants for this interactive meeting and briefed background for the initiative. He has emphasized that active interaction between Commissioners and Consultant is an imperative for comprehensive data collection, ULB-specific suitability analysis of various technologies in order to prepare detailed project report (DPR) to the satisfaction of the State and Central Agencies. He has also explained the procedure for exploring central grants for the proposed MSW management in ULBs and indicated that a maximum sealing for fund under the Scheme is limited to INR 320/- per capita in each ULB. Therefore, the suggested technological choice by the consultants be reviewed for appropriately utilizing the possible funds for improved solid waste management. Mr. Sateesh Babu explained DPR preparation process, data requirement, interpretation of data, technology assessment, reporting requirements. He invited active participation in ULB-specific review and to assume ownership on the respective DPR. Dr. Alok Kumar, DGM, TCEL made presentations on scope, approach and findings of the initially acquired data and analysis results. Mr. Sateesh Babu mentioned that there is a need to arrive at actual MSW generating today corresponding to the population, and the projections made by the consultant shall be discussed with the Commissioners for adopting appropriate growth projection method. MSW quantification and projections/waste generation factors shall be based on actual quantities being generated in respective ULB and predicted future developmental scenario. Land-use of municipal areas, population, type and capacity of the bins, different modes of collection fleet and their obsolescence rates are important to arrive at status and needs for effective collection over the time. The appropriate treatment at ULB level and possible synergies between ULBs shall be explored to form clusters for availing break-even capacities for respective treatment technologies for maximizing economic benefit. It has been largely felt that additional samples be taken as component analysis of MSW presented in first draft reports is far from the real time situation. Accordingly, Mr. Sateesh Babu ascertained the possibilities for additional sampling in ULBs and second round visits to the Commissioners for appraising choice of technologies and their cost-effectiveness for securing their views on draft final report. Dr. Alok Kumar, TCEL agreed for taking 3 additional samples in each ULB, by engaging a laboratory having NABL certification, other than the previously engaged firm. Standard representative sampling as per protocols need to be followed (100 Kgs sample from existing dump and fresh MSW at disposal site; and maximum possible quantity of MSW before disposal into bin, at source of MSW generation, or by taking composite sample by mixing vertically collected MSW sample at 3 to 4 depths within the bin/dump - consultant may use hand-auger for taking vertically composite sample at every identified location to ensure representativeness). Therefore, each ULB may identify appropriate locations for testing by the TCEL laboratory in their presence and also




interact with the Consultant on environmental, technological, costing and operational issues of the treatment & disposal options, in order to arrive at combination of treatment & disposal options that is appropriate for respective ULB. Management/redevelopment/new site development for MSW management shall cover and integrate existing MSW dump management as well (segregation, recovery and disposal of inerts into new SLF) in the proposed DPR. Cost effective locations for establishing transfer stations and clusters besides SLF shall be identified and site suitability index as per CPHEEO shall be developed for existing and new sites in each ULB. Vijayawada MSW dump-site at Ajith Singh Nagar was already studied extensively over an year under the World bank funded Project by APPCB, which shall be considered for remediation and redevelopment as per the findings and recommendations. This extensive study is an indication for need to clear the existing dumps once the new facilities are designed under DPRs. Mr. Kiran Babu, Manager, TCEL collected contact details of all the ULBs and also given a list of information that is required from each of the ULBs i.e. municipal administration area, land-use pattern, ward-wise population, location of bins, size and age of bins, existing collection fleet and age; surveyed map of disposal site/ transfer station, newly proposed disposal sites, if any; geotechnical data i.e. bearing capacity, shear strength etc. In the concluding session of the meeting after correcting each ULB-specific quantity and specific environmental, legal, and public concerns besides opportunities for exploring major industries to extend CSR towards MSW management etc. the Managing Director mentioned that after collecting additional samples and personal interaction between consultant and Commissioners, the final draft reports shall be prepared and sent to the Municipal Corporations to invite their final views, if any, in couple of weeks, for consideration by the Swachha Andhra Corporation. Commissioners were asked to interact with and communicate the concerns to the Consultant with a copy to CE, SAC, on all the matters to ensure appropriate DPRs are made for exploring central grants. The meeting ended with thanks to the Chair.

2.0 Specific Concerns of ULBs

The participants raised wide range of issues connected to the DPR preparation. These questions were discussed and clarified during the Meeting and also mentioned that when the Consultant visits them back, along with an improved DPR incorporating all these concerns, may review and seek clarification. Captured issues are listed below for ready reference:

1. Total quantity of MSW generation reported in the first drat DPR is to

be changed. 2. MSW characterisation in terms of percentages of plastic and paper is

substantially higher, which is not an usual order. Requires re-sampling. 3. Cadmium and lead in MSW samples is reported as substantially higher

from MIGs/HIGs, which is abnormal. 4. Transportation from current disposal site to newly proposed integrated

facilities could not be borne by the ULBs.




5. Whether funding considers investment and operations including

transportation of MSW from our ULB to other identified places? If it is a cluster, how costs are shared?

6. There are new sites identified, as existing dump is adjacent to water

canal/railway line etc. but farmers are objecting. 7. Received directions from APPCB regarding pollution. 8. Every one says that a Waste to Energy Plant is coming up in Naidu pet,

therefore new measures proposed are not being considered. How that WtE plant works and who will pay for transportation and disposal?

9. Sanitary inspectors scope has been substantially increased and no

dedicated staff are defined for waste processing. 10. Manpower deployment for ULB shall consider population but areal

spread, as well. 11. How MSW collection in rainy season (in case of 4 to 5 days of continuous

rain), at bins, transfer stations and in integrated facilities are managed? 12. Whether new improved models for transfer stations (elevated) are being

considered? Please suggest desirable specifications for procurement by various ULBs.

13. ULB hired vehicles, which are shown as owned in the report. needs to

be changed. As suggested, will revise data on existing bins and fleet with their age.

14. There are dumps through which drain is passing. No consent

applications are filed so far to APPCB. 15. With National Green Tribunal (NGT) reference, individual ULBs are

being asked to appraise MSW management practices. 16. Mass recruitment for environmental engineers is made and allocated.

Many of them now left the job, but there is no replacement. There shall be at least one environmental engineer regular/contract to implement DPR and EMP.

17. Training and capacity building programmes on choice of technologies

and identifying appropriate combination and practices may be organized for ULBs.

18. There are public complaints on existing collection site. Exploring

alternate sites 19. Site suitability index as per CPHEEO is not yet conducted in ULBs. 20. Procedure for sampling and three modes of analysis may be shared by

the consultant/SAC i.e. 1) component analysis; ii) sieve analysis up to 10 mm, 10-20, 20-50, 50-100 and more than 100

mm; iii) Physico chemical properties




21. Up-take of MSW by nearby industries and the operation of segregation plant are being explored through their CSR budget (2% of profit as per the Companies Act).

22. Currently disposing MSW in quarries, no segregation or processing is

practiced. Still much area is available for disposal. 23. We are not getting any acceptance for new MSW disposal sites,

therefore taking small sites and disposing. When the complaints are more finding alternatives. It may be better for us to go for compacters for long distance transfer and disposal through waste to energy.

24. Specific concerns expressed and discussed in detail for appropriate

consideration in DPRs, including following:

Vijayawada ULB - Biggest constraint in getting site for disposal; relying only on Naidu pet WtE project with compacters for transportation; Singh nagar above ground MSW clearance is being pursued but the Dump below the cover for remediation is to be included for complete site clean-up.

Machilipatnam ULB - Sampling and analysis of MSW in residential areas and need for rechecking the quality. As such, the WtE facility for this envisaged cluster is not being pursued by SAC.

Gudivada ULB - Public complaints and Court case on current site Vuyyuru ULB - Machilipatnam site is at longer distance, would be

interested in possible alternatives Pedana ULB - Financial crisis with tiny ULBs - Council resolution

to seek financial support for about a truck load per day shifting to Machilipatnam (11 KM).

Guntur ULB - Interested in composting. Very high paper and plastic share (more than 50%) of MSW is misleading i.e. as if WtE plants are readily viable. The current site is not in municipal limits and hence requires Panchayat permissions for major new projects such as WtE, while the site is away from habitation.

Macherla ULB - Pursuing corporate sector for MSW management under CSR activities;

Tenali ULB - For efforts already initiated Bapatla ULB - Bapatla ULB may also be considered for inclusion

in Guntur cluster for availing possible benefits Vinukonda ULB - For factoring their concerns in DPRs and need

for re-sampling Tadepalli ULB - Rational allocation of manpower - Not only

population but also the area of coverage Mangalagiri ULB - New designs for transfer stations and rainy

day MSW management issues Repalle ULB - Guntur is at longer distance than Machilipatnam,

hence seeking to de-link from Guntur cluster Narasarao pet ULB - While vermi compost is being generated,

there is no buyers identified for utilizing the same. Compost quality is being tested now. Requires some facilitation in respect of market linkages.

Piduguralla ULB - Quarry disposal and space availability and utilization

Mr. Uday Singh Gautam - Dedicated staff, capacity development and instrument specifications, which he would give in writing to TCEL.




3.0 Generic Observations on Structure, Coverage etc.

1. Structuring of DPRs It is important to maintain same structure for the DPRs among all the

ULBs, for possible synchronization and clubbing for the organized/re-organized cluster-wise approach, based on policy decisions. As such, the JnNURM tool kit for preparation of DPRs specifies Chapters for strictly following the same headings in the DPR for verification by CPHEEO. Therefore, it is advisable to follow the same structure for all the DPRs, to avoid duplication of work and to match with Format to explore central grants.

Desired format contains following Chapters: 1. Background, Context & Broad Project Rationale 2. Project Definition, Concept and Scope 3. Project Cost 4. Project Institution Framework 5. Project Financial Structuring 6. Project Phasing 7. Project O&M Framework and Planning 8. Project Financial Viability/Sustainability 9. Project Benefits Assessment

2. The Consultants may ensure compliance to the check-list

provided by MoUD while fulfilling the scope of work in the Contract to ensure DPR is complete in all respects to explore central funding. Check-list as provided by SAC for verification of DPR is placed at Appendix V, MoUD check list for review of DPRs is placed at Appendix VI and Scope of Work is placed at Appendix VII.

Therefore, all the desired information by MoUD shall be present in 9

chapters, as stated in point 1 above, as sub-heads. An appendix may also be given by the consultant stating check-list

point wise relevant Chapter/Sub-section in the DPR for the ready reference of MoUD.

3. Quantification of MSW shall cover: Current population based on

appropriate projection synchronizing with city development plans/master plan, if any, quantity of MSW generation, waste generation factors, current and future MSW collection efficiency, year-wise projection of MSW generation from the city and its break-up in terms of i) slums, posh areas, and remaining residential areas; ii) commercial areas; iii) institutional areas; iv) markets, farms, parks, slaughter houses; v) industrial areas etc.). This area-wise MSW generation is essential for decision making process.

Besides, existing quantity of dump, spread of waste & land availability

for future waste handling, environmental and social concerns need to be ascertained

4. Qualitative analysis shall cover following:

1. Characterisation of fresh MSW from above (point 3) categorized areas

2. Centralized treatment/disposal facility 3. Existing dump and its conditions




Characterisation shall be in three modes i.e.

1. Component analysis - Weight percentages of Paper, plastic, metals, glass, organic material, sand & gravel, others

2. Fractional/Sieve analysis - 0-10mm; 10-20mm; 20-50 mm; 50-100

mm; and more than 100 mm 3. Physico-chemical analysis for many a number of parameters, which

typically include: Bulk Density, kg/m3; moisture; CV; loss on ignition; ash content; pH; Conductivity, µs/cm; Phosphorous, mg/kg; Potassium, mg/kg; Aluminium, %; Arsenic, mg/kg; Cadmium, mg/kg; Total chromium, mg/kg; Cr6+, mg/kg; Cr3+, mg/kg; Copper, mg/kg; Fe, %; Pb, mg/kg; Mn, mg/kg; Hg, mg/kg; Zn, mg/kg; Colour, Hz; Moisture, %; Volatile Matter, %; CV, cal/grams; Ash Content, wt%; C, %; N, %; C:N; TKN, mg/kg; NH3, mg/l

5. Choice of technology considers: National funding Schemes and Synchronizing State Policies:

State policies in respect of regional cost-effective cluster specific common infrastructure, centrally funded by the State Department for establishment (mostly full funding) and viability gap funding for their operations.

Legal Cases: Prioritizes interventions as per the judicial verdicts Techno-Scientific Considerations:

1. Quantity of waste and its break-up in terms of recyclable, organic

and inerts 2. Technology specific break-even capacities 3. Characteristics of waste for compatibility 4. Site suitability index (location, geological, social, environmental

attributes) - Ref. CPHEEO (Re-development of existing dump-site; or a green-field site)

5. Cost-effectiveness and operability considerations Financial Considerations: Development and operations (in phases)

shall synchronize with availability of resources By internalizing all above considerations, regional and individual ULB-

specific appropriate cost-effective operational model shall be arrived. 6. Detailing of specifications and respective costing Design considerations shall have some basis and valid reference, if

primary data is not collected at this stage. Shall have incorporated each and every feature required as per MSW Rules. Total break-up of cost for investment and operations shall be provided for initial investment and first five years of operational costs, besides others.

7. Chapter 4 to 9 as per point 1 shall be followed. If the cost of the

proposal is more than 100 crores, a comprehensive socio-economic study for inclusive development need to be included.




8. Data presentation in main text: Calculations and details in Appendices and main text shall highlight considerations for calculations and findings only, for the benefit of readability. More number of plots/figures and summary tables are preferred than lengthy excel calculations and data Tables in main text.

9. Focus of DPR shall be on ULB: Entire main text shall have focus on

to the respective ULB. Generic technology comparison may be in Appendix but the site-specific suitability analysis only be in main text.

10. SWOT analysis and clarity in recommendations: Conclusions and

recommendations shall be clear and loud for facilitating decision making. Action points are preferred. To use SWOT analysis for taking decisions where there multiple combination of choices have to be compared.

11. Spell check and proof reading: Not even draft report shall be

permitted without proof reading and language check. In consistencies in logic flow, sentence framing and spelling mistakes speaks the quality of reporting from a Firm.

4.0 Regional Concept and Simultaneous Studies

1. SELCO Plant in Mahaboobnagar experience is of any indication, transportation cost of pellets from Gnadhamguda to SELCO plant is a burden. It is unviable during rainy season due to higher moisture and auxiliary fuel has to be availed continuously to maintain heat content. Therefore, it was felt cost effective to have bio-mass as a regular back-up in place of RDF, which was relatively having better consistent CV. Otherwise, RDF plant shall preferably be in the same premises of power plant.... Whereas, in that case, entire waste has to be brought up to the centralized facility - may not be cost-effective in all cases.

2. Karimnagar experience shows that a private power company finds it

viable to establish and operate about 100 TPD trammel for segregation and to avail fluff (paper, plastic, cotton, clothes etc.) for its power plant at about 25 KM away from segregation facility. The private management gets MSW for free and does not take care of rejects management.

3. Above two points drive us to consider that fluff is readily preferred by

industries as fuel than RDF, followed by organic matter for compost (for which market linkages will have to be established).

4. WtE plant technology selection is important. 5. Pellets transportation even for 25 KM is considered unviable in critical

seasons - therefore, long distance transportation for WtE is quiet expensive.

6. Therefore, cost-effective model, particularly for the Capital Region

districts of AP would be to explore a combination of recovery of fluff; next composting of organics as there is a demand for crops, and in case of unseason, then converting organic portion in to brickketts /pellets for utilization as fuel in the nearby power plants, furnaces of metal industries, cement industries etc. As a last option transportation of Fluff/ RDF/ MSW as it is through compactors may be considered. Please note segregation facility substantially reduces quantity to be transported for long distances.




7. Point 6 above clearly indicates that WtE is viable only when the

vertical growth of cities is very high resulting least lateral transportation distances. Even then, the per tonne cost of disposal is quiet expensive - making its affordability limited to elite areas, such as down town of proposed capital city.

8. Point 6 and 7 above coupled with projected rapid population growth

in the region is of any indication, WtE plants can be explored in phases i.e. for first 10 years from now, one WtE plant can be envisaged between Vijayawada and Guntur bit away from the crowded areas (cumulative least per tonne transportation distance from all the charging points of MSW - For cost effectiveness). After say 10 years, the existing WtE facility may be moved away beyond Guntur (Equipment transfer), as by then the site is likely to cause impacts due to surrounding growing settlements. Relocated plant machinery, at some cost, can still serve entire Guntur region from the Krishna River. At the same time, a new WtE facility may be established to serve Vijayawada, Eluru and Machilipatnam areas. as by then sufficient viable capacities would be attained. If current Naidu pet site is considered for WtE plant, then the transportation costs for first 10 years would be substantially higher. A comparative analysis of costs may be prepared by the consultant.

9. The above model, beyond administrative boundaries, would facilitate

during critical times for proper disposal of MSW, while it is relatively expensive. As such, the Krishna and Godavari basin being a rice bowl, the maximum emphasis shall be on composting to explore win-win model for cultivation of paddy. Proposed WtE shall only be a fall-back mechanism that surely solves the MSW problem at a higher price - this consideration seeks conservative capacity selection.

10. The above model demands a transfer station for every say 100 -200

TPD (if the distance is more, less capacities are also justified with or without segregation) with segregation facility and selling of fluff to meet operational expenses of transfer station. Remaining Organic matter shall be converted into Compost/RDF which is self sustainable over the time. Whereas rejects management including secured disposal is a burden for which recurring fund support is required. Means atleast say about 20% of MSW management costs are a deficit for financial viability, unless there is a huge demand for fluff/ compost and RDF in the immediate vicinity. That means, the fund deficit can be partially off-set by the existing major operating furnaces/boilers such as power plants, metallurgical industries, cement plants etc. in the vicinity.

11. It implies, ULBs that generate MSW may be clustered based on

proximity to have about 100-200 MT and design a transfer station. These dynamics may change as the individual ULB wise quantities increases with time. Similarly, if composting is possible and demand exists in the vicinity, minimum cut-off capacities may be attained by pooling wastes from ULBs to a place having least transportation costs for maximization of benefit. If composting is not viable, possibility of RDF plant for pellatisation may be explored, if the economics are acceptable to capture fuel content of surplus organic matter. For slaughter house/market wastes, biomethanation has been time tested and hence be considered appropriately. The current practice of vermi composting may be continued with possibilities for enhancing the capacity. Mass burn technology to recover energy out of MSW is obviously an opportunity but attached with higher scale of operation i.e. say about 500 MT of MSW and associated flue gas cleaning system,




which adds to cost of disposal. Therefore, number of factors will have to be considered while selecting a suitable option for given conditions. As such, all the inert material and other components having no value requires safe disposal in land-fill, which shall be scientifically designed i.e. 1. site should be suitable for such structure; 2. Bottom liner system; 3. Leachate collection system; 4. Capping of land-fill with gas collection system and impervious layers; 5. Monitoring wells around the SLF to monitor the leakage, if any from the SLF. Besides, requires other auxiliary facilities and best operating practices to have least impacts.

12. Complete designs of all components, plan and cross-sectional details,

specifications, item-wise costing as per scheduled rates are required to be incorporated.

5.0 ULB Specific Reports, Observations and Recommendations to SAC

Vijayawada and Guntur DPRs have relatively more number of Chapters, which will have to be re-organized in any case, as per the headings and coverage discussed earlier. These reports are incomplete, sub-standard and requires substantial improvement. As such, Guntur DPR write-up is almost similar to that of Vijayawada, therefore, entire text of Vijayawada report is reviewed and the observations are given in Section 5.1. All remaining ULB-specific "so called" DPRs are provided with quantity of MSW generation based on national/reference WGFs and analysis results of MSW samples collected by TCEL. The population estimates are not on the basis of WGFs from current situation in ULB. All the projections are averaged instead of selecting the one suitable for ULB through discussion with commissioners, consulting city development plans, envisaged development scenarios in each ULBs etc. ULBs disowned the MSW quantity figures and revised with their measured quantities. Besides, characterisation is questioned by almost all ULBs. Therefore, these DPRs are mere skeletons, which requires entire revision.

5.1 Specific observations on draft DPR prepared for Vijayawada Chapter-I: Project background and scope ... equipment , storage... may be replaced by collection equipment and mode of transportation Composting and WtE shall not be viewed as waste reduction/volume reduction but as availing wealth out of waste... Worth re writing

1.1.1 Quality estimate - Quality has been assessed actually, hence why to mention estimate.. It shows less confidence of representative sampling

1.1.2 second bullet - 4 set of components given above.. - Which are these 4 components? 2.1 Step 2 first bullet - Quantification estimate - shall be based on actual quantification in terms of trucks (volume) and measured average density .....and for future




quantities are projected based on established correlation between past population and respective MSW generation Characterisation based on assumptions - Characterisation shall be based on actual sampling and analysis as per scope of work - Why on assumptions? 2.1 Step 3 first bullet - Shall include social acceptability 2.1 Step 3 second bullet - operability may be included 2.1 Step 4 first bullet - Section-I point 5 may be referred. 2.1 Step 5 first bullet - Cost preparation be replaced by cost estimate Figure 1: Is it a generic picture showing the concept? Needs clarification reg. segregation at what stage and treatment within the land-fill site or transferring to elsewhere i.e. common WtE plant, RDF ... etc. 2.2 Methodology first line - All ULBs - Need to focus on the ULB of main concern with information that others were also studies for possible cluster approach. 2.2 Requires language check 2.2 Task 4 Methodology - Draft Rules, 2015 were mentioned in Chapter I but not here Classification of cities: DPRs may follow the terminology of MoUD, as follows: o Metropolitan cities - having population more than 10 lakhs o Class-I cities - Having population more than 1 lakh o Statutory Town -Municipality, Corporation, cantonment Board or

notified town area committee o Census town - Minimum population of 5,000; and 75% of male

workers are engaged in non-agricultural pursuits; and density of population of atleast 400 per Sq. KM

Chapter 3.0 Vijayawada - Generates 550 MTPD - Has it been given or verified through the log books? what is the percent collection efficiency? let it be on log-book based for realistic assessment, in absence mislead entire projections and leads to over sizing of the processing/treatment capacities/procurement of trucks. Chapter 3.0 Vijayawada - Within 5-10 years population growth would be more than 20% over and above the natural growth - Whether this consideration is taken into account in population projection exercises subsequently considered? These statements shall synchronies with the Master Plan finalized for the CRDA as well. Chapter 3.1 Population Projection - Linking of sentences with reasoning requires revision, please Chapter 3.1 - Figures should be in Text and Tables in the Annexure, please. Which projection is considered appropriate for Vijayawada? Whether the projections made are synchronizing with the Master plan of CRDA?




What is the comparative analysis of CRDA MSW plan and this DPR?

Chapter 3.2 - Section 1 point 3 of this review note be referred for making needed changes. Figure 5 - Height may be enlarged to visualize the variation and requires change in title. 3.2.1 - Language correction is required What is the contribution from industrial areas? any sample taken to check the quality? Section 3.3 - What are the findings of InCAP? and KPMG on clustering? Collection system requires elaborate discussion based on land-use, population and MSW generation - Please refer point 3 in Section 3 of this Note and assess need for varying sizes of bins, present status of bins etc. and presentation of respective mode of transportation Section 3.3.3 - Waste processing and treatment - Shall cover present practice, experiences learnt from past practices, future developmental proposals including remediation of the existing dump-site Table 7 - should have covered autonagars, as well. Section 3.4.3 - Whether the percentage share is on weight basis? if paper and plastic share is more than 50% at dump-site, why recyclable portion is only 20%? Table 8: How Singh Nagar dump-site has much higher plastic waste % than other areas of MSW generation? No rag-pickers in city? How come kitchen waste is zero from residential areas? 3.4.4 Physico-chemical Assessment - When more than 50% of MSW is of paper and plastic, why CV is low? Table 10 - Cadmium is substantially high in MIG and HIG areas? A distinction of autonagars shall be maintained, for possible areal segregation Table 10 - Lead and Chromium in some pockets are high, which need to be segregated from rest, while planning for the technology suitability. Figure 7: Not even land-use based segregation considered. How much is CV of other wastes? How much is CV of biomethanation and composting rejects? Segregation shall be at transfer station, as it separates more than 50% of recyclable waste (as per reported MSW components), which does not require to be transported to centralize facility for recovery, if there is provision for disposal.

Figure 11: Requires revision in terms of size of the bins and respective mode of transportation Table 11: Rationale followed for arriving at number of equipment and trucks need to be given in Text. immediate requirement for effective collection shall be arrived considering existing equipment and their life. Table 12: Is this existing strength or requirement?




Table 13: What does this Table convey? why do we need to be informed about investment cost at the end of 2040? Table 14: Where are the calculations for arriving at foot print? If land-fill area is not available, then how the number is one? How 20 hectares are arrived? Chapter 4: Shall refer recent MoUD guidance Document developed with the help of GIZ. Chapter 4 page 39: "A cow emits around 600 liters of methane per day" - Text shall refer to the context... requires rewriting/editing. Table 18: (Regarding incineration) - Sl. no. 8 refers to temperature - standard refers to bacteria??? Table 18: (Regarding incineration) - Sl. no. 11 - NOx not greater than 30 ppm? Table 18: (Regarding incineration) - Sl. no. 16 - 3% fly ash including flue gas treatment residues? Table 19: Environmental sensitivity and Impacts are having different levels of concern? Is this Table fine tuned for Vijayawada? or a generic Table? If it is generic, better to keep in Appendix Table 20: What is the reference for this break even capacities? Who has written this Table specifically waste suitability? Perhaps complete review is required from given context. Section 4.3 Page no.52: Metals presence in waste requires source segregation and of course leachate treatment. Investment on thermal oxidation system and flue gas treatment (Page 52) - The consultant shall explore the feasibility to avail existing power plants and cement and steel plants for availing the thermal oxidation - a win-win model (no investment and facilitates the industries as an auxiliary fuel, as long as the transportation costs makes it economically viable. Section 4.4: Exact quantities of waste suitable for various technologies w.r.t. time scale (corresponding to break-even capacities) needs to be arrived. This chapter has to be conclusive with specific capacities and suitability (pros and cons Table - perhaps SWOT analysis is better). Table in Section 4.4 does not sync with characteristics (speciation) - Section 3 point 5 of this note may be seen for up-dation. Chapter 5: Siting of transfer stations is an essential component in cost-effective transportation of MSW. It requires spatial analysis, future projections, connectivity, land availability etc. before field level investigations to ascertain suitability and sensitivity attached to the site etc. Elevated bridge having continuous road model is better. Requires re-consideration of the model foot-print. (1. No attempt has been made to identify the location of transfer stations...!!!; 2. Take a map, identify the quantity of waste generation from different pockets; 3. Chose a TS where the distance is optimal and land is




available bit away from the sensitive surroundings; 4. This is a must for cost optimization - can't think of using individual vehicles transporting for farthest distances - Whole city will stink by such choice instead of a location)

Chapter VI Sanitary land-fill: The discussion shall be focused on the site in Vijayawada. Chapter VI 6.3: Why geotechnical studies and topographical survey would be conducted later? Without these essentials such as bearing capacity with depth and Shear strength, how designs are arrived? is there any other available reference? Chapter VI 6.4: It needs substantial improvement Chapter VI 6.5 a: Why 20 years is considered..? the text also mentions that the area is not enough for SLF? Chapter VI 6.5 e: Why 3.5% increment in MSW? when the text of this report mentions more than 20% population increase after 5-10 years? Chapter VI 6.4 g: When only inerts are expected to reach SLF, corresponding density would be more... is it not? Chapter VI 6.4 h: Needs to calculate soil cover requirement based on dimensions. Why compost is to be used as cover material, when it has market price? Chapter VI 6.4J: Depth of land-fill is considered as 15 m.. is it compatible with bearing capacity? Chapter VI 6.4 l: Structural stability of slide slope need to be seen as it is steep. Is it in rocky area? Chapter VI 6.4 O: Top liners with gas collection system need to be designed. Section 6.13: Leachate from entire disposal facility including composting , if any etc. need to be considered for critical rain fall condition. Others to include: Administrative block, green belt, peripheral road, approach roads, monitoring wells, Peripheral boundary wall, access restriction, safety and health management plan and equipment etc. Section 8.1 bullet point 3: Does not match design considerations Section 8.1 bullet point 4: This report discussed 2% growth rate earlier and 3.5% in design considerations.. and in conclusion 5% and in the introductory text 20% above the average growth rate in coming 5-10 years.... !!! Consistency need to be maintained. Section 8.2 bullet 6: Composting recommended with least justification Section 8.2 bullet 7: Mass burn incinerator is recommended with continues auxiliary fuel supply - Expensive recommendation




Section 8.2 bullet 8: RDF facilities are recommended. Whether existing power plants can purchase the RDF? Please check for their willingness Recommendations are generic and subjective for further discussions.

5.2 Recommendations to Swachha Andhra Corporation

1. Commissioners shall provide ULB-specific information to the Consultant and take ownership of DPR

2. SAC may ensure that Consultant (TCEL) deputes a competent Team

for the Project including local field Team for data collection & interactions with ULBs, through a field Office in either Guntur/Vijayawada. The Team shall be guided by experienced professional in MSW management.

3. TCEL shall engage a NABL accredited laboratory other than one

engaged earlier for re-sampling of MSW in all the ULBs (vertically composite samples shall be collected at each monitoring station). These samples shall be analysed for component, fraction and physico-chemical parameters, as discussed in this Note earlier. During the Interactive Meetings agreed before MD, SAC for 3 additional samples collection per ULB (existing old dump, fresh MSW at dump site, random sample in the city), however, SAC may decide on further increasing the numbers as the earlier characterisation was not accepted by ULBs in both districts.

4. TCEL shall revise contents of DPR incorporating standardized structure

(May be same for all consultants) incorporating all the check-list items as sub-sections.

5. Revise the schedule of timelines for collection of samples, meetings with

Commissioners, submission of final draft DPRs to SAC. Only when these final draft DPRs are in a shape, worth seeking views of the Commissioners.

6. If TCEL submitted reports are of any indication, there is a need for

careful review of their subsequent Reports, in future as well. 7. SAC may like to seek commitment from TCEL top management in

writing on time lines and quality, with penalty clauses.

N. Sateesh Babu, FIE B. Tech (Civil Engg.), ME (Env. Engg.), Research Scholar (Chem. Engg. IIT), PG Diploma (Env. Economics) Former EE, CPCB; Chairman-Env, ASCI; Technical Director, Weston Solutions India; VP, IL&FS Env.

A Note from N. Sateesh Babu, FIE, Expert Associate of the Swachha Andhra Corporation, Government of Andhra Pradesh - Submitted on October 3, 2015 204, Maithri Enclave, Shyam Karan Road, Ameerpet, Hyderabad; [email protected]; cell:91-9959090230; tel:040-23734180; skype: sateeshbabun

APPENDIX-I Swachha Andhra Corporation, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad

List of Participants Attended Interactive Meeting to Review ULB-Specific First Draft Reports in Vijayawada at VMC on Sept. 29, 2015




Swachha Andhra Corporation, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad List of Participants Attended Interactive Meeting to Review ULB-Specific First Draft Reports in Vijayawada at VMC on Sept. 29, 2015




Appendix -II Swachha Andhra Corporation, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad

List of Participants attended Interactive Meeting to Review ULB-Specific First Draft Reports in Guntur at GMC on Sept. 30, 2015




Swachha Andhra Corporation, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad List of Participants attended Interactive Meeting to Review ULB-Specific First Draft Reports in Guntur at GMC on Sept. 30, 2015




Appendix III Swachha Andhra Corporation, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad

Interactive Meeting to Review ULB-Specific First Draft Reports in Vijayawada at GMC on Sept. 29, 2015: News Clipping




Appendix IV

Swachha Andhra Corporation, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad Interactive Meeting to Review ULB-Specific First Draft Reports in Guntur at GMC on Sept. 30, 2015: News Clipping




APPENDIX - V

Check List for Review of DPRs

A General Components 1 Project justification / need Need for MSW management in the ULB and project 2 Scheme of the project / fund for project Funding agency for the project

Any similar projects Funds already granted of any Details on ongoing MSW project - funding agency, population, infrastructure, capacity of compost

plant, landfill 3 Compatibility between existing MSW

system and proposed MSW system

4 Administrative and political jurisdiction map

ULB boundary map in the district

5 Land use of the ULB / Master Plan Master plan prepared, if any? Present land use in the ULB Land use map

6 Consent / Clearances from SPCB, SEIAA/SEAC/EAC, Airport/Airfield authorities, Flood Control / Groundwater Management Authorities, etc. if any

EC before setting up of the plant Consent from SPCB for setting of the MSWM facility Any other clearances if required?

7 Executive summary of DPR Executive summary to be provided. B Existing Status 1 MSWM Facility Area and availability of land

Land acquisition status – acquired or in process of acquisition, no land (proof is any) for setting up of MSWM Facility/transfer stations Topographic map of the project area Geo-technical investigation reports for the MSWM site Electric feeder line to MSW plant / Transfer station and agreement / commitment from Electricity

department Is the land / site location as per the Master Plan Any clearances or consent obtained from authorities.




2 Waste generation Quantification surveys - per capita waste generation and waste generated per day in the ULB Sources of waste generation Characteristics of waste – collection of composite samples by accredited lab Certified lab reports

3 Collection and transportation Route maps ( ULB has to provide) Door to door collection Collection from open areas, community bins Hazardous, bio-medical waste collection Transfer stations, if any. Operating schedule of primary and secondary collection vehicles - no. of trips, timing

4 Processing, Treatment and Disposal Open dumping, Any consent or clearances obtained for processing, treatment and disposal Detailed note on existing solid waste management system

C Proposed Interventions 1 Waste generation and segregation Population projections as per CPHEEO Manual

Consideration of floating population Per capita waste generation Estimated waste generation for future 30 years Strategies for 100% source segregation

2 Waste collection and transportation Whether proposed primary and secondary collection is as per CPHEEO Manual – no. and type, trips, additional vehicles/equipments

Need for transfer station and design features ( based on ULB to dump yard distance, quantity of waste generated)

Traffic diversion / control during construction phase 3 Waste processing, treatment and disposal

at MSWM facility Major components of the project, its conceptual design and drawings as per CPHEEO manual Selection of proven technologies considering the ULB profile Whether the proposed land area for MSWM facility and its future expansion serves designed

period of 30 years? Opportunities for reclamation and bio-mining of old dump sites.

4 Compost plant/RDF/Biomethanation/WtE etc

Capacity, area Marketing of compost / RDF/PPA, arrangements , if any? O&M

5 Landfill Quantity of waste to be accommodated in landfill ( ULB wise or Regional) Capacity of landfill, area




Covering material (earth) required for landfill Detailed design ; O&M

6 Leachate Leachate collection system Leachate treatment plant – generation rates, capacity of plant, area, treatment technology,

treated leachate standards 7 Conceptual Drawings Process flow diagram for entire MSWM system

Detailed drawings to scale of all components of facility and ancillary works D Project Cost 1 Major components of the project and its

cost Cost for all major components of the project Any modular approach proposed for setting up of the facility? Whether BOQ and cost estimates as per latest SOR? Authenticated documents for various

equipment / machinery, pro-forma invoices, etc. 2 O&M cost and revenue generation details

(existing & proposed), annual SWM cess Compost plant O&M Landfill O&M

3 Internal return of rate / economic rate of return

E Other Activities 1 Others

Source: As provided by SAC

Project implementation schedule Provision for IEC activities Institutional and financial status of project executing agency Service level benchmarking Environmental and social problems if applicable Provision for capacity building of ULB @ 0.5% of project cost? Action plan for capacity building

programme PPP component and funding pattern Association of waste pickers organization R&R plan if applicable Period of completion of project Options for using the inert material like Construction & Demolition waste. Proposed measures for involvement of stakeholders in MSWM. Measures for leadership development and change management. Cluster approach if required.




Appendix VI

MoUD Check List for DPRs

S. No.

Check List 1 Project justification / need 2 Scheme of the project / fund for project 3 Compatibility between existing MSW system and proposed MSW system 4 Administrative and political jurisdiction map 5 Land use of the ULB / Master Plan 6 Land acquisition status (certificate is acquired) for setting up of MSWM Facility/transfer stations 7 Action plan for acquisition of land, in case land not acquired. 8 Consent / Clearances from SPCB, SEIAA/SEAC/EAC, Airport/Airfield authorities, Flood Control / Groundwater Management

Authorities, etc. 9 Electric feeder line to MSW plant / Transfer station and agreement / commitment from Electricity department 10 Topographic map of the ULB / project area 11 Geo-technical investigation reports and bore hole logs for the MSWM site 12 Executive summary of DPR 13 Population projections as per CPHEEO Manual 14 Consideration of floating population 15 Garbage survey – per capita waste generation and waste generated per day 16 Characteristics of waste - composite sample and certificate from accredited lab 17 Covering material required for landfill 18 Detailed note on existing solid waste management system 19 Transfer station and operating schedule of primary and secondary collection vehicles, no. of trips, timing 20 Details on ongoing MSW project - funding agency, population, infrastructure, capacity of compost plant, landfill 21 Proposal of major components of the project, its design and detailed drawings as per CPHEEO manual – door to door collection,

primary collection, secondary collection, treatment & disposal facilities, leachate collection system, LTP – capacity, technology , treated leachate standards

22 Major components of the project cost and its sub costs 23 Hazardous waste generation and its treatment 24 Biomedical waste generation and its treatment 25 Primary and secondary collection route maps




26 Process flow diagram for entire MSWM system 27 Drawings to scale of all components of the facility 28 Geometry of land certified 29 Selection of proven technologies considering the ULB profile 30 Is MSW facility site location as per Master Plan ? 31 Whether the proposed land area for MSWM facility and its future expansion serves designed period of 30 years? 32 Any modular approach proposed for setting up of the facility? 33 Whether BOQ and cost estimates as per latest SOR? Authenticated documents for various equipment / machinery, pro-forma

invoices, etc. 34 Provision for IEC activities 35 Detailed drawings for components and ancillary works 36 Provision for DG set, capacity calculations 37 Implementation schedule 38 Internal return of rate / economic rate of return 39 Traffic diversion / control during construction phase 40 Institutional and financial status of project executing agency 41 Marketing of compost / RDF, tying up with an agency? 42 O&M cost and revenue generation details (existing and proposed) and annual SWM cess 43 Service level benchmarking 44 Environmental and social problems if applicable 45 Provision for capacity building of ULB @ 0.5% of project cost? Action plan for capacity building programme 46 PPP component and funding pattern 47 Association of waste pickers organization 48 R&R plan if applicable 49 Period of completion of project





Appendix VII

Scope of Work as per RFP for MSW DPR Project

S. No.

1 Realistic assessment of quality, Characterization and classification of MSW, the current scenario in each ULB. 2 Planning-Detailed planning for resource requirement and implementation strategy. 3 Proposed DPR shall be in line with MSW rules, 2000 of GoI and the toolkit of the Government of India for MSW projects. 4 The DPR to address the policy requirements for the following:

5 Strategies for 100% source segregation and door to door collection of household & commercial waste, street sweeping, silt removal, vegetable & fruit market waste, slaughter house waste etc. and suitable incentive structure to promote source segregation & recycling.

6 Options for production of compost preferably in a decentralized manner, and generation of green energy through bio-mechanization where appropriate, sustainable, environment and eco-friendly and protects public health, and identification of ideal site for their setting up in the proposed ULB/Cluster of ULBs as per feasibility.

7 Transportation of resource from the secondary collection point to the proposed processing plant with detailed process. 8 Analysis of the need for Transfer station and its basic design features. 9 Tie-ups for inorganic waste and suggestions for sustainable technologies for processing. 10 Options and strategies for processing of organic waste. 11 Opportunities for involvement of various groups of the society for MSWM activities. 12 Techno-economic and environmental analysis of various options for MSWM processes and institutionalization. 13 Road map towards achieving zero land fill facilities. 14 Innovative incentive structure to the operating personnel for motivation and for ensuring sustainability of MSWM. 15 Exploring innovative processes and their enforcement for making the habitations liter free, bin free and dump free so as to prevent

and health hazards. 16 Creating and sustaining a supply chain for recycled waste (products and employment) 17 Availability of land for proposed landfill.




18 Availability of power supply and exploration of renewable sources of energy. 19 Implementation strategy including resource requirement. 20 Information, Education and Communication (IEC) campaign models and enforcement plans. 21 Training and competency building plans. 22 Streamlining and optimization of transportation system. 23 Options for using the inert material like Construction & Demolition waste. 24 Opportunities for reclamation and bio-mining of old dump sites. 25 Impact of the proposed MSWM system on community health and environment. 26 Proposed measures for involvement of stakeholders in MSWM. 27 Measures for leadership development and change management. 28 The study should also consider the existing projects being implemented on cluster-basis in consultation with the concerned Municipal

Commissioners & CDMA. The consultant shall study the land availability for land fill in each ULB within the proposed cluster and the distance to the centre of the clusters, and quantity of rejects to be taken to the land fill. In each Region clustering is done wherever practicable.

29 The DPR submitted should be practical and thoroughly implementable with zero landfill concept and with Operation & Maintenance strategies of MSWM.

30 The DPR should propose a practical action plan for each ULB with cost implications and financial requirements for each suggested methodology and consolidating for each cluster and overall cost of implementation for the entire state.

31 The DPR to suggest implementation strategies for the MSWM plans for (i) individual ULBs which are not part of the clusters (ii) for the cluster of ULBs (iii) for improvements in the clusters in which MSWM project is under implementation.

32 The consultant should provide independent DPRs for each proposed cluster. Separate action plan shall be proposed for each ULB activity wise duly coated indicating responsible personnel to undertake each activity and proposed financing pattern.

33 Based on the Feasibility Study, the numbers of clusters that can be formed in the Region are to be proposed. One DPR is to be prepared for each ULB. The DPR for the ULB in which the Common Processing Unit is proposed for the cluster should contain complete details of the Technology and Cost estimate of the processing unit.


Lr.No SAC/COO/ISWM/F.No45/15.D.No41/15,date:14.10.2015 Sub: Sending data to DPR consultants Ref: MSW DPR Review Meeting held on Sep 28, 29, and 30, 2015. With reference to the cited, the data given in Appendix I may be ensured / provided by the ULBs to the DPR consultants to avoid discrepancies in the report, future waste projections and analysis in choosing the technology for processing and disposal of MSW. Encl: Appendix I.

Sd/- Swachha Andhra Corporation

To, All Municipal Commissioners of ULBs of Andhra Pradesh

Appendix I

S.No. Data required Status of submission (Yes / No)

Remarks if any

ULB Name:

1 Quantity of waste generated in the ULB including drain silt (along with weigh bridge proof)

2 Waste collection route map

3 Town map

4 Sanitation proforma (3C)

5 Drain cess / SWM cess

6 Income / Revenue last 5 years

7 Service level bench marks

8 Filled in MoUD check list for review of DPR

Name of the ULB:

Name of the Commissioner:

Signature of the Commissioner:

Date:

Check List for Review of MSW

DPR

S.No. Check List Points for addressal / inclusion in DPRA General Components1 Project justification / need Need for MSW management in the ULB and project2 Scheme of the project / fund for project Funding agency for the project

Any similar projects

Funds already granted of any

Details on ongoing MSW project - funding agency, population, infrastructure, capacity of compost plant, landfill

3 Compatibility between existing MSW system and proposed MSW system

4 Administrative and political jurisdiction map ULB boundary map in the district5 Landuse of the ULB / Master Plan Master plan prepared, if any?

Present landuse in the ULB

Landuse map6 Consent / Clearances from SPCB,

SEIAA/SEAC/EAC, Airport/Airfield authorities, Flood Control / Groundwater Management Authorities, etc. if any

EC before setting up of the plant

Consent from SPCB for setting of the MSWM facility

Any other clearances if required?

7 Executive summary of DPR Executive summary to be provided.

S.No. Check List Points for addressal / inclusion in DPRB Existing Status1 MSWM Facility Area and availability of land

Land acquisition status – acquired or in process of acquisition, no land (proof is any)

for setting up of MSWM Facility/transfer stations

Topographic map of the project area

Geo-technical investigation reports for the MSWM site

Electric feeder line to MSW plant / Transfer station and agreement / commitment from Electricity department

Is the land / site location as per the Master Plan

Any clearances or consent obtained from authorities.2 Waste

generation Quantification surveys - per capita waste generation and waste generated per day in

the ULB

Sources of waste generation

Characteristics of waste – collection of composite samples by accredited lab

Certified lab reports

S.No. Check List Points for addressal / inclusion in DPRB Existing Status3 Collection and

transportation Route maps ( ULB has to provide)

Door to door collection

Collection from open areas, community bins

Hazardous, bio-medical waste collection

Transfer stations, if any.

Operating schedule of primary and secondary collection vehicles - no. of trips, timing

4 Processing, Treatment and Disposal

Open dumping,

Any consent or clearances obtained for processing, treatment and disposal

Detailed note on existing solid waste management systemC Proposed Interventions1 Waste generation and

segregation Population projections as per CPHEEO Manual

Consideration of floating population

Per capita waste generation

Estimated waste generation for future 30 years

Strategies for 100% source segregation

S.No. Check List Points for addressal / inclusion in DPR

C Proposed Interventions2 Waste collection and

transportation Whether proposed primary and secondary collection is as per CPHEEO

Manual – no. and type, trips, additional vehicles/equipments

Need for transfer station and design features ( based on ULB to dump yarddistance, quantity of waste generated)

Traffic diversion / control during construction phase3 Waste processing,

treatment and disposal at MSWM facility

Major components of the project, its conceptual design and drawings as per CPHEEO manual

Selection of proven technologies considering the ULB profile

Whether the proposed land area for MSWM facility and its future expansion serves designed period of 30 years?

Opportunities for reclamation and bio-mining of old dump sites.4 Compost

plant/RDF/Biomethanisation/WtE etc

Capacity, area

Marketing of compost / RDF/PPA, arrangements , if any?

O&M5 Landfill Quantity of waste to be accommodated in landfill ( ULB wise or Regional)

Capacity of landfill, area

Covering material (earth) required for landfill

Detailed design ; O&M

S.No. Check List Points for addressal / inclusion in DPRC Proposed Interventions6 Leachate Leachate collection system

Leachate treatment plant – generation rates, capacity of plant, area, treatment technology, treated leachate standards

7 Conceptual Drawings Process flow diagram for entire MSWM system

Detailed drawings to scale of all components of facility and ancillary works

D Project Cost1 Major components of the project

and its cost Cost for all major components of the project

Any modular approach proposed for setting up of the facility?

Whether BOQ and cost estimates as per latest SOR? Authenticated documents for various equipment / machinery, pro-forma invoices, etc.

2 O&M cost and revenue generation details (existing & proposed), annual SWM cess

Compost plant O&M

Landfill O&M


S.No. Check List Points for addressal / inclusion in DPRE Other Activities1 Others Project implementation schedule

Provision for IEC activities

Institutional and financial status of project executing agency

Service level benchmarking

Environmental and social problems if applicable

Provision for capacity building of ULB @ 0.5% of project cost? Action plan for capacity building programme

PPP component and funding pattern

Association of waste pickers organization

R&R plan if applicable

Period of completion of project

Options for using the inert material like Construction & Demolition waste.

Proposed measures for involvement of stakeholders in MSWM.

Measures for leadership development and change management.

Cluster approach if required.

Check List for Review of MSW DPR

as per MoUD,

Check List as per MoUD, March 2012

S.No. Check List Inclusion in DPR

1 Project justification / need

2 Scheme of the project / fund for project

3 Compatibility between existing MSW system and proposed MSW system

4 Administrative and political jurisdiction map

5 Landuse of the ULB / Master Plan

6 Land acquisition status (certificate is acquired) for setting up of MSWM Facility/transfer stations

7 Action plan for acquisition of land, in case land not acquired.

8 Consent / Clearances from SPCB, SEIAA/SEAC/EAC, Airport/Airfield authorities, Flood Control / Groundwater Management Authorities, etc.

9 Electric feeder line to MSW plant / Transfer station and agreement / commitment from Electricity department



10 Topographic map of the ULB / project area

11 Geo-technical investigation reports and bore hole logs for the MSWM site

12 Executive summary of DPR

13 Population projections as per CPHEEO Manual

14 Consideration of floating population

15 Garbage survey – per capita waste generation and waste generated per day

16 Characteristics of waste - composite sample and certificate from accredited lab

17 Covering material required for landfill

18 Detailed note on existing solid waste management system

19 Transfer station and operating schedule of primary and secondary collection vehicles, no. of trips, timing



20 Details on ongoing MSW project - funding agency, population, infrastructure, capacity of compost plant,landfill

21 Proposal of major components of the project, its design and detailed drawings as per CPHEEO manual – door to door collection, primary collection, secondary collection, treatment & disposal facilities, leachatecollection system, LTP – capacity, technology , treated leachate standards

22 Major components of the project cost and its cost

23 Hazardous waste generation and its treatment

24 Biomedical waste generation and its treatment

25 Primary and secondary collection route maps

26 Process flow diagram for entire MSWM system

27 Drawings to scale of all components of the facility

28 Geometry of land certified



29 Selection of proven technologies considering the ULB profile

30 Is MSW facility site location as per Master Plan ?

31 Whether the proposed land area for MSWM facility and its future expansion serves designed period of 30 years?

32 Any modular approach proposed for setting up of the facility?

33 Whether BOQ and cost estimates as per latest SOR?Authenticated documents for various equipment / machinery, pro-forma invoices, etc.

34 Provision for IEC activities

35 Detailed drawings for components and ancillary works

36 Provision for DG set, capacity calculations

37 Implementation schedule




39 Traffic diversion / control during construction phase

40 Institutional and financial status of project executing agency

41 Marketing of compost / RDF, tying up with an agency?

42 O&M cost and revenue generation details (existing and proposed) and annual SWM cess

43 Service level benchmarking

44 Environmental and social problems if applicable

45 Provision for capacity building of ULB @ 0.5% of project cost? Action plan for capacity building programme

46 PPP component and funding pattern

47 Association of waste pickers organization

48 R&R plan if applicable

49 Period of completion of project

Scope of Work provided in RFP for DPR review

S.No. Scope of Work as per RFP for MSW DPR Project To Review1 Realistic assessment of quality, Characterization and classification of

MSW, the current scenario in each ULB.2 Planning-Detailed planning for resource requirement and

implementation strategy.3 Proposed DPR shall be in line with MSW rules, 2000 of GoI and the

toolkit of the Government of India for MSW projects.4 The DPR to address the policy requirements for the following:

Keeping wet and dry waste streams separated at the household/source level itself.

Door step collection, Segregation of wet waste.

Composting of biodegradable waste.

Recycling of dry waste by category.5 Strategies for 100% source segregation and door to door collection of

household & commercial waste, street sweeping, silt removal, vegetable& fruit market waste, slaughter house waste etc. and suitable incentivestructure to promote source segregation & recycling.

6 Options for production of compost preferably in a decentralized manner,and generation of green energy through bio-mechanization whereappropriate, sustainable, environment and eco-friendly and protectspublic health, and identification of ideal site for their setting up in theproposed ULB/Cluster of ULBs as per feasibility.

S.No. Scope of Work as per RFP for MSW DPR Project7 Transportation of resource from the secondary collection point to the

proposed processing plant with detailed process.8 Analysis of the need for Transfer station and its basic design features.9 Tie-ups for inorganic waste and suggestions for sustainable technologies

for processing.10 Options and strategies for processing of organic waste.11 Opportunities for involvement of various groups of the society for

MSWM activities.12 Techno-economic and environmental analysis of various options for

MSWM processes and institutionalization.13 Road map towards achieving zero land fill facilities.14 Innovative incentive structure to the operating personnel for motivation

and for ensuring sustainability of MSWM.15 Exploring innovative processes and their enforcement for making the

habitations liter free, bin free and dump free so as to prevent and healthhazards.

16 Creating and sustaining a supply chain for recycled waste (products andemployment)

17 Availability of land for proposed landfill.18 Availability of power supply and exploration of renewable sources of

energy.19 Implementation strategy including resource requirement.

S.No. Scope of Work as per RFP for MSW DPR Project20 Information, Education and Communication (IEC) campaign models and

enforcement plans.21 Training and competency building plans.22 Streamlining and optimization of transportation system.23 Options for using the inert material like Construction & Demolition

waste.24 Opportunities for reclamation and bio-mining of old dump sites.25 Impact of the proposed MSWM system on community health and

environment.26 Proposed measures for involvement of stakeholders in MSWM.27 Measures for leadership development and change management.28 The study should also consider the existing projects being implemented

on cluster-basis in consultation with the concerned MunicipalCommissioners & CDMA. The consultant shall study the land availabilityfor land fill in each ULB within the proposed cluster and the distance tothe centre of the clusters, and quantity of rejects to be taken to the landfill. In each Region clustering is done wherever practicable.

29 The DPR submitted should be practical and thoroughly implementablewith zero landfill concept and with Operation & Maintenance strategiesof MSWM.

S.No. Scope of Work as per RFP for MSW DPR Project30 The DPR should propose a practical action plan for each ULB with cost

implications and financial requirements for each suggested methodologyand consolidating for each cluster and overall cost of implementation forthe entire state.

31 The DPR to suggest implementation strategies for the MSWM plans for(i) individual ULBs which are not part of the clusters (ii) for the cluster ofULBs (iii) for improvements in the clusters in which MSWM project isunder implementation.

32 The consultant should provide independent DPRs for each proposedcluster. Separate action plan shall be proposed for each ULB activity wiseduly coated indicating responsible personnel to undertake each activityand proposed financing pattern.

33 Based on the Feasibility Study, the numbers of clusters that can beformed in the Region are to be proposed. One DPR is to be prepared foreach ULB. The DPR for the ULB in which the Common Processing Unit isproposed for the cluster should contain complete details of theTechnology and Cost estimate of the processing unit.

general observations - andhra pradeshsac.ap.gov.in/sac/userinterface/downlaods/draft...

Documents