studyon the waste treatment facility bot project in dki jakarta, the

STUDY ON PRIVATE-INITIATIVE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES IN FY2011

STUDY ON THE WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY

BOT PROJECT IN DKI JAKARTA,

THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA

FINAL REPORT

February 2012

Prepared for:

The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry

Prepared by:

EX Research Institute Ltd. ARAX Corporation

Reproduction Prohibited

Preface

This report has been compiled by EX Research Institute Ltd. and ARAX Corporation, contracted by the

Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, under the Study on Private-Initiative Infrastructure Projects in

Developing Countries in Fiscal Year 2011.

The Study on the Waste Treatment Facility BOT Project in DKI Jakarta, the Republic of Indonesia aims to

identify the feasibility of securing land in Tangerang Regency in order to construct and operate

intermediate treatment facilities and a final disposal site at the cost of 29,569,251,000 yen, in order to

resolve the issue of ensuring appropriate treatment and disposal for the increasing municipal solid waste in

DKI Jakarta.

We hope that this report will support the realization of the said project and will prove useful for all relevant

parties in Japan.

February 2012

EX Research Institute Ltd.

ARAX Corporation

Abbreviations Abbreviation Description

3R Reduce, Reuse, Recycle AMDAL Analisis Mengenai Dampak Lingkungan (Environment Impact Assessment) ANDAL Analisis Dampak Lingkungan

(Environmental Impact Assessment Study) ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations B3 waste Limbah Bahan Berbahaya Dan Beracun

(Hazardous and Toxic Waste) BAPEDAL Badan Pengendalian Dampak Lingkungan

(Environmental Impact Management Agency) BAPPEDA Badan Perencana Pembangunan Daerah

(Regional body for planning and development)) BAPPENAS Badan Perenchanaan Pembanguan Nasional

(National Development Planning Agency) B/C Benefit/cost BH Bohrium BHC Benzene Hexachloride BKPM Badan Koordinasi Penanaman Modal

(Investment Coordinating Board)) BOD Biological Oxygen Demand BOT Build Own Transfer

BPPT Badan Pengkajian Dan Penerapan Teknologi (Agency For. Assessment And Application Of Technology)

CB Consensus Building CD Cost Down CDM Clean Development Mechanism CER Certified Emission Reduction COD Chemical Oxygen Demand C/N Carbon to Nitrogen Ratio CSR Corporate Social Responsibility DB Decibel DKI Jakarta Propinsi Daerah Khusus Ibukota Jakarta

(Special Provincial District of Capital of Jakarta) DO Dissolved Oxygen DDT Dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane EIA Environment Impact Assessment EIRR Economic Internal Rate Of Return EIS Environmental Impact Statement FDI Foreign Direct Investment FID Flame Ionization Detector FIRR Financial Internal Rate Of Return F/S Feasibility Study GDP Gross Domestic Products GHG Greenhouse Gas HDPE High Density Polyethylene

Abbreviation Description

Hz Hertz IMF International Monetary Fund IPP Independent Power Producer ITF Intermediate Treatment Facility JBIC Japan Bank For International Cooperation JI Joint Implementation JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency JPY Japanese Yen KA-ANDAL Kerangka Acuan ANDAL

(Terms of Reference for ANDAL) KLH Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup

(Ministry Of The Environment) KLHS Kajian Lingkungan Hidup Strategis

(Strategic Environmental Assessment) KPU Kementerian Pekerjaan Umum

(Ministry of Public Works) KSNP-SPP Kebijakan dan Strategi Nasional Pengembangan Sistem Pengelolaan Persampahan

(National Policy And Strategy For Waste Management System Development) LNG Liquedified Natural Gas MBAS Methylene Blue Active Substance MBT Mechanical Biological Treatment M/D Minutes of Discussion M/P Master Plan MJ Megajoule MOU Memorandum Of Understanding MSW Municipal Solid Waste MPA Master Plan Study for Establishing Metropolitan Priority Area for Investment and

Industry MPL Maximum Permissible Level MPN Most Probable Number NDIR Non Dispersive Infra Red NEXI Nippon Export And Investment Insurance NGO Non Government Organization NIMBY Not In My Back Yard NPC-WMSD National Policy And Strategy For Waste Management System Development NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units O&M Operation And Maintenance PDCA Plan-Do-Check-Action PE Polyethylene pH Potential Hydrogen, Power Of Hydrogen PP Polypropylene ppm Parts Per Million PPP Public Private Partnership Pre-F/S Pre-Feasibility Study PU Departmen Pekerjaan Umum

(Ministry Of Public Works) RDF Refuse Derived Fuel

Abbreviation Description

RKL Environmental Management Plan Rp Rupiah RPL Environmental Monitoring Plan SAPROF Special Assistance For Project Formulation SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment SNI Indonesian National Standard SOP Standard Operating Procedures SPA Transfer Station SPC Special Purpose Company SS Suspended Solids TCU True Colour Units TDS Total Dissolved Solids T-N Total Nitrogen T-P Total Phosphorus TPA Final Disposal Site TPS Temporary Disposal Site NIMBY Not In My Back Yard SAPROF Special Assistance For Project Formulation TDS Total Dissolved Solids TPST Tempat Pengolahan Sampah Terpadu TSP Total Suspended Particles US United States USD United States Dollars VAT Value-Added Tax VE Value Engineering WJEMP Western Java Environment Management Project

Table of Contents

Chapter 1 Overview of the Host Country and Sector. .................................................................................... 1

1.1 Economic and Financial Status of Indonesia ..................................................................................... 3

1.2 Outline of the Target Sector ............................................................................................................... 6

1.3 Situation of the Target Area .............................................................................................................. 18

Chapter 2 Study Methodology ................................................................................................................... 21

2.1 Contents of the Study ....................................................................................................................... 23

2.2 Methodology and Organization ........................................................................................................ 24

2.3 Schedule of the Survey ..................................................................................................................... 28

Chapter 3 Justification, Objectives and Technical Feasibility of the Project ............................................. 33

3.1 Background and Necessity of the Project ......................................................................................... 35

3.2 Examinations Necessary for Determining the Project Contents, etc. ............................................... 53

3.3 Outline of the Project Planning ........................................................................................................ 66

Chapter 4 Evaluation of Environmental and Social Impacts .......................................................................129

4.1 Analysis of the Present Environmental and Social Conditions .......................................................131

4.2 Environmental Improvement Effects of the Project ........................................................................143

4.3 Environmental and Social Impacts of the Implementation of the Project .......................................144

4.4 Summary of Regulations regarding Environmental and Social Considerations in the Partner Country.

.................................................................................................................................................................151

4.5 Items to be borne by the Recipient Country (Implementing Agency and other Related Agencies) for

Realizing the Project .............................................................................................................................158

Chapter 5 Financial and Economic Evaluation .........................................................................................161

5.1 Cost Estimation for Project Expense ...............................................................................................163

5.2 Outline of Preliminary Financial and Economic Evaluation of the project ..................................173

Chapter 6 Planned Project Schedule ...........................................................................................................185

6.1 Assumptions ....................................................................................................................................187

6.2 Implementation schedule of the project ..........................................................................................188

Chapter 7 Implementing Organizations ......................................................................................................189

7.1 Implementing Organizations in Jakarta ...........................................................................................191

7.2 Organizations concerned of Central Government ...........................................................................195

Chapter 8 Technical Advantages of Japanese companies ..........................................................................199

8.1 Opportunities of participation for Japanese companies (investment, supply of material, operation

management of facility) ..........................................................................................................................201

8.2 Superiority of Japanese companies during the implementation of the project (technological side,

economic side) ........................................................................................................................................202

8.3 Measures required to promote order intakes by Japanese companies .............................................204

Chapter 9 Financial Outlook .......................................................................................................................205

9.1 Fund source and funding procurement plan ....................................................................................207

9.2 Feasibility of fund procurement ......................................................................................................207

9.3 Cash flow analysis. ............................................................................................................................208

Chapter 10 Action Plan and Issues ............................................................................................................ 211

10.1 Activities towards realization of the project ..................................................................................213

10.2 Activities of Indonesian governmental agencies and implementing bodies towards the realization of

the project ..............................................................................................................................................214

10.3 State of presence of legal and financial restrictions in Indonesia ..................................................215

10.4 Requirement to carry out further detailed analysis ........................................................................222

i

Executive Summary

iii

(1) Background and Necessity of the Project 6,200 tons of municipal solid waste (MSW) is generated daily in Special Capital Territory of Jakarta

(hereinafter Jakarta) which is mostly landfilled at Bantar Gebang final disposal site located in Becasi, West

Java Province, which is located to the East of Jakarta. Considering this situation, from the perspective of

efficient transport system, it would be more effective to have a final disposal site for the Western part of

Jakarta. This is the reason why Jakarta had planned to construct and operate waste treatment facilities in

Ciangir, Tangerang Regency, Banten Province. However, as the project site was designated as residential

area, it became impossible for Jakarta to construct waste related facilities in that area.

Meanwhile, Tangerang Regency has shown interest in providing land in Jati Waringin as an alternative

project site. The objective of the proposed project is to secure land in place of Jakarta and to operate waste

treatment facilities under the BOT scheme in Jati Waringin, Tangerang Regency. This project will construct

waste treatment facilities for the Western part of Jakarta and will contribute to environmentally sustainable

and economically efficient waste management.

/

(2) Basic Policy for Determining the Project Contents The basic principle for the determination of the content of the project is the realization of an

environmentally sustainable system for treatment and disposal system of MSW that can be achieved at low

cost. Therefore, this project aims to reduce environmental impact while realizing economic benefits.

(3) Project Outline The outline of the project is shown in Table-1

Table-1 Project scale and component facilities

Item Contents, Capacity and Component Equipment, etc.

Target wastes MSW (Municipal solid wastes) discharged in Jakarta

Capacity 1,500t/d

Facilities Managed final

disposal site

Semi-aerobic landfill structure with landfill area of 16 hectares and landfill

capacity of 2.5 million m3 (stable gradient earth-fill dam utilizing excavated

earth, sandwich building method, seepage control structure, gas extraction

pipes, leachate collection and drainage system, leachate treatment system)

MBT (mechanical

bio-treatment)

facilities

Daily treatment capacity 1,410 ton (1,185 + 225 ton), treatment method:

resources screening facilities, crushing facilities, belt conveyor, fermentation

tank, buildings, post-treatment screening facilities, storage facilities,

packaging facilities

iv

Item Contents, Capacity and Component Equipment, etc.

RDF

manufacturing

facilities

Treatment capacity: 480 t/d (quantity of product: 430 t/d）

Compost facilities Treatment capacity: 410 t/d (334 + 76 t/d) (quantity of product: 165 t/d）

Project period 20 years

Project ordering mode Build, Operate Transfer (BOT) project (ordering entity: Jakarta)

(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)

a. Total Project Cost

The total cost of the project (CASE 1) is 29.6 billion yens (3.4383 trillion Rp or 381.5 million USD) as

shown in Table-2.

Table 2 Total Project Cost

Item CASE 1

1,000Rp 1,000 yen

Land acquisition 60,000,000 516,000

Commercialize cost 2,325,000 20,000

Initial investment 1,061,537,000 9,129,000

Operation & maintenance 1,614,651,000 13,886,000

Financing cost 245,700,000 2,113,020

Contingency 186,035,000 1,599,902

Tax 268,061,000 2,305,329

Total 3,438,309,000 29,569,251

Total (thousand USD) 381,539


b. Results of Preliminary Financial and Economic Analysis

As a result of financial analysis, it was shown that FIRR of the project is 12.2%, net present value

(NPV) is 5.8 billion yens, and that benefit/cost (B/C) ratio is 1.24. It is evaluated that the project is

commercially feasible as the cash flow was maintained and FIRR was 12.2%, which exceeds the

interest rate of the long-term Indonesian government bonds. The values of NPV and B/C also

showed commercial feasibility of the project.

As a result of economic analysis, it was shown that when (1) the reduced pressure to existing

disposal sites, (2) reduced transportation cost to existing disposal sites, and (3) reduced green house

gas emissions are taken into consideration, EIRR is 6.68%. As this exceeds the interest rate of the

long term Indonesian government bonds, it is considered that this project is economically beneficial.

v

c. Examination of Environmental and Social Aspects

Table-3 and Table-4 summarize the present environmental and social conditions in addition to

expected environmental and social improvements and impacts by the implementation of the

project. These items were studied for both (1) areas near the Bantar Gebang final disposal site and

(2) project site.

Table-3 Present environmental and social conditions and expected environmental and social

improvements and impacts by the Project (in areas near the Bantar Gebang final disposal site) Item Current Conditions Improvement Effect Impact

Environment Waste is being concentrated into 1 final disposal site, causing overload, and there is concern over air pollution, etc. caused by transporting vehicles.

Construction of a new treatment facility will mitigate load, reduce the number of incoming vehicles and improve air pollution. Construction of a disposal site in the West side of the regency will resolve the issue of over-concentration on the east side.

－

Society Concentration of incoming vehicles is causing traffic congestion.

The number of incoming vehicles will fall, leading to improvement in traffic congestion.

Reduction in the amount of incoming waste will lead to reduced employment on the disposal site.

(Source: Compiled by the Study Team)

Table- 4 Present environmental and social conditions, environmental and social improvement

effects and likely impacts of the implementation of the Project (in areas near the Project site) Item Present Conditions Improvement Effects Impacts Environmental Aspect

Air There is air pollution caused by smoke from the autogenous ignition of waste at the existing disposal site. At one survey site, the TSP value of 414

g–Nm3 far exceeds the reference value (230

g-Nm3).

The Project will have the effect of improving the existing disposal site, preventing autogenous ignition to improve the air environment. For the new disposal site, the sanitary landfill method with no autogenous ignition will be adopted.

The increased number of vehicles transporting waste will increase the overall amount of emissions while the increased amount of waste will increase the amount of emissions from heavy machinery. Careful attention will be required to deal with dust, etc. associated with the landfill work.

Water Quality

The river water is polluted by the operation to wash recovered plastic bags, etc. and human sewage produced by waste pickers and others. For example, the BOD value increases from 21 mg/litter in the

The activities of waste pickers in the area should be guided to more environmentally sound activities to reduce the overall environmental load by the Project

Treated leachate is discharge from the project site and its environmental load should be taken into consideration.

vi

Item Present Conditions Improvement Effects Impacts upstream to 48 mg/litter in the downstream.

Waste At present, the Jati Waringin disposal site is operated by the Tangerang district authority but is marred by a number of problems as described in this table because of its open dumping method.

As the Project will take place at land adjacent to the existing disposal site, it does not directly aim at improving the existing disposal site. However, with the opening of a new disposal site, positive impacts, including improvement of the operation and management, are expected to be realised at the existing disposal site.

With the completion of the Project, the area will become a major destination for waste from Jakarta. While individual issues are described under the suitable headings in this table, it is essential to ensure an appropriate design, construction work and management of the new site to prevent an increase of the environmental load.

Soil Pollution

Groundwater is polluted by Cr6+, etc. released from a source located upstream of the project site (a Cr6+ level of 0.14 mg/litter which is well above the reference value of 0.05 mg/litter was detected at three boreholes, including one located in the upstream).

*It is inferred that there must be a groundwater pollution source which has nothing to do with the waste disposal site. This pollution should be carefully monitored as known pollution.

The pollution of groundwater by leachate from the final disposal site can be avoided by the introduction of an impermeable layer. The prevention of groundwater pollution also requires an appropriate design, construction work and management of the disposal site.

Noise and Vibration

While there are no private houses in the immediate vicinity, noise and vibration may occur at the disposal site due to the operation of heavy machinery. Noise and vibration will also occur at the roadside due to the passing of dump trucks.

With the introduction of low noise heavy machinery, the noise level at the new disposal site should be much lower than that of conventional disposal sites.

The increased number of dump trucks required to bring in a much greater volume of waste means a likely increase of noise and vibration. The introduction of appropriate measures (quiet operation, use of low noise machinery and others) will be important.

Ground Subsidence

No ground subsidence has been observed.

- As no component of the Project is likely to cause ground subsidence, this aspect can be disregarded.

Odour The impacts of the disposal site are observed, including

The introduction of the sanitary landfill

It is important to regularly cover the

vii

Item Present Conditions Improvement Effects Impacts an ammonia concentration level of 2.6 mg/litter on the leeward side compared to a reference value of 2.0 mg/litter.

method should curtail the bad odour.

dumped waste with soil to prevent the occurrence of bad odour.

Sediment

Although the bottom material at the riverbed has not been analysed, there can be an accumulation of pollutants in the material in view of the state of river water pollution.

Improvement of the treated water to be discharged to the river should reduce the burden on the river, etc.

As an increased amount of waste transported to the disposal site means a likely increase of the leachate load, it is essential to conduct the proper management of leachate.

Natural Environment

There is a mangrove forest some 7 km from the site. Even though this is not an official reserve, mangrove trees are subject to protection under a government policy.

There are no likely impacts on the natural environment in need of protection but the project design should take harmony with the surrounding natural environment into consideration.

No adverse impacts on the natural environment in need of protection will occur.

Social Aspect Relocation of Residents

There are some 10 temporary buildings used for storage of valuables or for resting.

-

These temporary buildings will require relocation.

Local Livelihood

843 waste pickers earn an average of 22,450 Rp per day from the recovery of valuables.

Employment will be created for the recovery of valuables and the operation and management of the disposal site and the income of local residents will increase.

There will be some shifts of the local production and industrial activities due to the reduction of farmland.

Cultural Assets

There are no cultural assets designated by the government

- -

Landscape

There are rice fields in the project site - -

Indigenous People and Ethnic Minorities

There are no communities of indigenous people or ethnic minorities locally.

- -

Work Environment

The work environment is not quite safe because of the piled up waste and autogenous ignition of the waste.

The construction of a safe disposal site will improve the work environment.

-

Transport

The access road is used by some 115 dump trucks

The overall traffic volume will increase

viii

Item Present Conditions Improvement Effects Impacts transporting waste and 145 other vehicles a day.

- due to a large number of dump trucks and other vehicles connected to the operation at the new disposal site.


In implementation of the project, environmental impact assessment (or “AMDAL: Analisis Menganai

Dampak Lingkungan” in Indonesian) will be conducted in accordance with Indonesian laws and

regulations indicated in Table 5. Because this project will involve construction of a final disposal site

which will cover area larger than 10ha, conducting of AMDAL will be essential, based on Decree of the

Minister of State for Environment No. 11/2006 about Types of Business or Activity Compulsory

Equipped with Environmental Impact Analysis

Table-5 Laws and regulations on EIA in Indonesia Law

・ Government Regulation No.27/1999: Process of the conduct of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA/AMDAL)

・ Law No.32/2009 concerning Environmental Protection and Management Decree of the Minister of State for Environment

・ Decree of the Minister of State for Environment No. 11/2006 about Types of Business or Activity Compulsory Equipped with Environmental Impact

Analysis

・ Decree of the Minister of State for Environment No.2/2000 on Guidance on the Evaluation of the EIA (AMDAL) Document

・ Decree of the Minister of State for Environment No.8/2000 on Guidance on Public Participation and Information Disclosure of the EIA Process.

・ Decree of the Minister of State for Environment No.9/2000 on Guidelines for Preparation of Environmental Impacts

・ Decree of the Minister of State for Environment No.40/2000 on Guidance on the Working Procedure of the EIA Commission.

・ Decree of the Minister of State for Environment No.41/2000 on Guidance on the Establishment of Commission for the EIA Evaluation in Regency/City.

(Source: Ministry of the Environment, Indonesia)

(4) Implementation Schedule If this project is to be implemented as solicited PPP project and if the contract with Jakarta is to be signed

in May 2014, bidding will start from January to February 2014 and detailed designing will start from

February 2014 if it is to start right after winning the bid. Construction of facilities will start from May

2014.

ix

(5) Feasibility of Implementation The results of the financial analysis showed that this project will be successful as a private business

operation. In addition, it was confirmed that transportation will be reduced compared to the current

transportation system. The results of studies on environmental and social aspects also showed that the

expected positive effects exceed the expected negative impacts. Therefore, it can be concluded that the

implementation of this project is feasible. The private companies which are to be the investors for this

project is currently preparing for this project through actions such as preparing to purchase the land.

(6) Advantage of Japanese Corporations from Technological and

Other Perspectives

a. Technological superiority

The technological standard of Japan regarding landfills and intermediate treatment facilities is of a very

high level. Japan`s capability of system design and workmanship of landfill construction and general

engineering capabilities, design and workmanship technology of intermediate treatment facilities is very

superior. Japan`s general construction companies and environmental engineering firms have the know-how

in these areas. This fact is well known among developed countries and also the developing ones. From the

technological perspective, Japan outstands other countries in operating facilities in high quality and a

stable manner.

b. Economic superiority

Economic superiority is achieved with the ability to supply treatment facility that is cost competitive. As

this project will be carried out with a private operating body, it will be necessary to reduce the initial

investment to the lowest amount possible. Hence, even if the supply of equipments is done from Japanese

companies, it will be important to cut down cost from the viewpoint of business feasibility.

.

The second economic superiority lies in the procurement of fund. By using the fund schemes of Japan to

the maximum, it will be possible to get a long term-low interest investment which makes it economically

superior.

In a way, this project has nonprice competition characteristics. It seems nearly impossible that Jakarta

provincial government will be able to secure a landfill within the province. It also seems nearly impossible

to secure a landfill through competitive tendering. In such a scenario, it is possible to secure a landfill

project through the proposal-based PPP project. Setting of an appropriate rate for waste intake is a

prerequisite which will also impact the stability and economic characteristics of the project.

x

(7) Detailed Schedule to Realize the Projects and Possible Risks a) Detailed Schedule to Realize the Projects

Detailed Schedule to Realize the Projects is as follows.

Table-6 Work Schedule

(Source: Prepared by the Authors of this report)

b) Risks that May Hinder the Realization of the Project

Risks associated with the project implementation are shown below.

Table-7 Risk Associated with Infrastructure Projects

Type of Risks Details of the Risk and Measures to Minimize the Risk

Risk related to

construction

Risk that the project does not achieve the expected capacity or function

Conduct an extensive feasibility study to evaluate the associated risks

Risk associated

with procurement

of raw materials

Risk that raw materials and equipments that satisfies the required standards

cannot be procured

Procure raw materials and equipments from Japanese companies

present in Indonesia

Risk related to

providing of

Risk that there would be unexpected stagnation of transaction volume;

Risk that products would not circulate in the market.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2

Pre Feasibility Study

Discussions with DKI Jakartaon Project ImplementationEstablishment of the ProjectDevelopment Company forLand AcquisitionStarting Land Acquisition inTangerangRevision of MOU on WasteReception Between Kab.Tangerang and DKI JakartaRecommendation to JICA onProject Preparation Study forPPP ProjectImplementation of thePreparation Study for PPPProjectFinal Recommendation to DKIJakartaOfficial Authorization/Approvalof the Project by DKI JakartaEIA and Application forDevelopment Permits of theProjectWaste ManagementConcession Agreement withDKI Jakarta

Establishment of SPC

Approval of JICA Loan andInvestment

Facility Construction

Completion of Construction

20162012 2013 2014 2015

xi


service and

bargaining

Conduct adequate waste management planning

Environmental

risk

Risk that the project results adverse environmental and social impacts in the

host country

Study carefully the required countermeasures in the feasibility study


(8) Map of the Project Site in Indonesia Project site is at Jati Waringin, Tangerang Regency, as shown in Figure-1.

Figure-1 Project site

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

(19)

(20)

(21)

(22)

(23) (Source: Prepared by the Authors of this report based on Google Map)

Jati Waringin

1

Chapter 1

Overview of the Host Country and Sector

3

1.1 Economic and Financial Status of Indonesia In the aftermath of the Asian Currency Crisis of 1997, Indonesia was for a short period of time was in a

debt crisis. However, factors like subsequent policies towards financial stabilization, economic stimulus

measures and favorable domestic consumption has managed to pull Indonesia back to a state of stable

economic growth. The main industrial sectors of Indonesia are mining (Petroleum, LNG, Coal, Aluminum,

tin), Agriculture (Rice, Rubber, Palm oil) and other Industries (Wood products, Cement, Fertilizer).

1.1.1 GDP

According to World Bank Statistics, the GDP of Indonesia is 706.5 billion US dollars (USD) in 2010 which

ranks 18th in the world. The GDP growth rate for 2010 is 6% and the per capita GDP is 2,945 dollars.

Indonesia has experienced a period of rapid economic growth and the trend of per capita GDP after 1998 is

similar to the period of high economic growth experienced by Japan in the 1960s.

Figure 1.1.1 Trend of GDP of Indonesia

（Source: World Bank, World Development Indicators 2011）

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1967

1969

1971

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

(Millions) GDP of Indonesia (current USD)

4

Figure 1.1.2 Comparison of trend of per capita GDP of Japan and Indonesia (Current USD)

NOTE: The figures for Japan after 1992 has been excluded （Source: Prepared by the authors this report using data from World Bank, World Development Indicators

2011）

1.1.2 Population

Population of Indonesia shows a trend of growth with the figure for 2010 being 232 million. The

population of Indonesia is the 4th largest in the world behind China, India and the U.S (Japan holds the

10th position).

Figure 1.1.3 Trend of population growth in Indonesia

(Source : World Bank, World Development Indicators 2011）

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

インドネシア

日本

0

50,000,000

100,000,000

150,000,000

200,000,000

250,000,000

300,000,000

1960

1962

1964

1966

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

Total Population of Indonesia

Indonesia

Japan

5

Figure 1.1.4 Population of various countries (top 10)

(Source : World Bank、World Development Indicators 2011)

1.1.3 Finance

Due to the impact from the Asian currency crisis that started in Thailand in 1997, a sharp devaluation of

Indonesia Rupiah (Rp) was seen that ended up increasing the country’s debt which had a very adverse

impact in the country`s economy. After that, with support from IMF, the country carried out a major

economic structural reform, introduced economic stimulus measures and with support from increased

domestic consumption, the financial status of Indonesia showed improvement. At present, the GDP ratio of

general government gross debt shows a trend towards declining.

Figure 1.1.5 General government net lending/borrowing of Indonesia

NOTE: Figures for 2011 onwards are estimates

(Source : IMF、World Economic Outlook Database)

1,338,300

1,170,938

309,712232,517 194,946

173,383164,425

158,259141,750

127,380

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

0102030405060708090

100

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

General government gross debt (% of GDP)％

6

Table 1.1.1 Major financial indicators of Indonesia (2010) Item Unit

General government revenue 1,000,291.44 Rp (Billions)

15.85 Percent of GDP

General government total expenditure 1,091,838.94 Rp (Billions)

17.3 Percent of GDP

General government net

lending/borrowing -91,547.50 Rp (Billions)

-1.451 Percent of GDP

General government gross debt 1,685,990.70 Rp (Billions)

26.714 Percent of GDP

Current account balance 6.404 USD (Billions)

（Source: IMF, World Economic Outlook Database）

1.2 Outline of the Target Sector 1.2.1 State of waste management in Indonesia

Due to the increase in population and purchasing power, the amount of waste generation is increasing in

Indonesia. According to a report published by the Ministry of Environment of Indonesia, increase in

generation of municipal waste during 2005 - 2008 was 3.76%. According to information from the same

source for 2008, 65% of the total Municipal solid waste generated in Indonesia is organic waste (source:

Ministry of Environment of Indonesia, State of Environment Report 2009).

7

Figure 1.2.1Composition of municipal solid waste in Indonesia

(Source: Ministry of Environment of Indonesia, State of Environment Report 2009)

NOTE: Prepared using data obtained from the Ministry of Environment of Indonesia

The majority of waste generated in Indonesia is being landfilled. In 2008, 69% of the total waste generated

was landfilled, 7% was treated or recycled, 5% was burnt, 10% was buried and the remaining 6% was

dumped into parks, rivers, ports/harbours, market areas etc. A comparison with 2001 data shows that ratio

of waste being incinerated in decreasing while the ratio of waste being landfilled is on the rise.

Figure 1.2.2 Method of treatment and disposal of municipal waste in Indonesia

(Source: Ministry of Environment of Indonesia, State of Environment Report 2010）

1.2.2 Waste Management Policy in Indonesia

(1) National Policy of Waste (January 2006)

Indonesian waste policy is outlined in the National Policy and Strategy for Waste Management System

8

Development (NPC-WMSD), which is based on the following three core principles:

(i) Reduction of waste quantities from generation sources

(ii) Utilization of private sector corporations as management partners

(iii) Expansion of service scope and improvement in quality of management system

(2) Policy and Strategy about National System Development of Management of Waste (KSNP-SPP)

21/PRT/M/2006

Ministry of Public Works Order 21/PRT/M/2006 states provisions concerning waste-related infrastructure

and facilities development. This has the following composition.

Table 1.2.1 Composition of the Policy and Strategy about National System Development of

Management of Waste (KSNP-SPP) Chapter Contents Chapter 1 Introduction Chapter 2 Vision and mission of waste treatment Chapter 3 Issues and solutions in waste treatment Chapter 4 Waste treatment policy and deployment of a strategic

system Chapter 5 Conclusion

(Source: Policy and Strategy about National System Development of

Management of Waste (KSNP-SPP))

(3) National Medium-Term Development Plan (2010~2014)

One of the 11 National Priorities stated in the National Medium-Term Development Plan (2010~2014)

concerns environment and disaster management. Under this heading, the following four items are raised:

(1) climate change, (2) prevention of environmental destruction, (3) early warning system, and (4) disaster

mitigation. Responding to the contents of this National Medium-Term Development Plan, the Ministry of

Environment has incorporated the following policies into its strategic plans:

i. Promotion of measures for prevention of pollution and destruction of water, ground, air and

biodiversity

ii. Promotion of environmental controls based on environmental capacity

iii. Improvement of consistent environmental law enforcement capability

iv. Promotion of community empowerment and participation

v. Strengthening of human resources and environmental management capacity of related

agencies

vi. Improvement in quality and access of environmental data

vii. Development of alternative environmental fund sources

As priority activities for implementing these policies, the following are prescribed in relation to waste.

a. Management of hazardous substances and hazardous wastes in the mining, energy, petroleum

9

and gas sectors

b. Management of hazardous substances and hazardous wastes in manufacturing, agro industries

and the service sector

c. Administrative work for management of hazardous substances and hazardous wastes

1.2.3 Legislation related to Waste Management in Indonesia

Waste in Indonesia is stipulated as the “residues that are generated by businesses and activities” according

to environmental management legislation, etc. Wastes in Indonesia are broadly divided into two categories,

namely domestic wastes (Limbah Domestik) and hazardous and toxic wastes (Limbah Bahan Berbahaya

dan Beracun) otherwise called B3 wastes for short in Indonesian.

Following ratification of the Basel Convention, waste-related legislation in Indonesia primarily focused on

hazardous wastes, whereas there was no legislation linked to the treatment and disposal of non-hazardous

wastes such as household waste and so on (according to “Business Report for Provision of Industrial Waste

and Recycling Policy Information in Asia,” the Institute of Developing Economies, Japan External Trade

Organization, consigned by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, 2007). However, due to the

critical worsening of waste problems, the government enacted the Waste Management Law (Act Number

18 Year 2008 regarding Waste Management) as the basic legislation on waste in 2008. The salient features

of this are as indicated below. However, the provisions concerning rights and obligations of each entity are

not specific.

It prescribes about the roles and authority of local governments and rights and obligations of each

entity concerning municipal waste, promotion of waste (household waste) quantity reduction through

reuse, the roles of communities, and so on.

In addition to the management of wastes that have already been generated, it prescribes the roles of

related parties concerning limiting the generation of waste and recycling.

Concerning existing open dumping disposal sites, it is compulsory for local governments to compile

plans for the closure of such sites within 1 year from enactment of this law, and to close such sites

within 5 years from enactment.

Therefore, it would be impossible to conduct open-dumping after the year 2013.

Furthermore, the Ministry of Environment in Indonesia commenced 3R programs in 2005 prior to the

establishment of legislation regarding the reduction of waste quantities. So far, the compost subsidy

program constituting part of the West Java Environmental Management Project (WJEMP) and the waste

separation and composting program in Bandung, which had declared a state of emergency in response to its

streets overflowing with waste, have been implemented.

1.2.4 Environmental Legislation in Indonesia

(1) Laws and Ordinances

10

The basic legislation concerning the environment is the Environmental Management Law that was revised

in 2009 (Act No. 32, 2009). This legislation includes provisions concerning the strengthening of

environmental controls in business activities, strengthening of penalties for environmental pollution,

resolution of environmental disputes, rights of citizens concerning environmental information and so on.

Environmental standards and discharge standards concerning environmental impact assessment (AMDAL),

air and water pollution and odor, etc. are prescribed under the government ordinances and ministerial

decrees indicated below.

Table 1.2.2 Major Environmental Laws and Ordinances in Indonesia Law Environmental Management Law (Act No. 32, 2009) Government ordinance

Government Ordinance on Prevention of Air Pollution (Government Ordinance No. 41, 1999)

Government Ordinance on Water Pollution Prevention and Water Quality Management (No. 82, 2001)

Ministerial decree (standard-related)

Decree of the State Minister in Charge of Environment concerning Discharge Standards in Industrial Activities (No. 51, 1995)

Decree of the State Minister in Charge of Environment concerning Wastewater Standards from Fixed Generation Sources (No. 13, 1995)

Decree of the State Minister in Charge of Environment concerning Noise Standard (No. 48, 1996)

Decree of the State Minister in Charge of Environment concerning Vibration Standards (No. 49, 1996)

Decree of the State Minister in Charge of Environment concerning Odor Standards (No. 50, 1996)


(2) Regulatory Standards, etc.

A) Environmental standards

a) Air environmental standards

National unified air environmental standards were prescribed under Decree No. 2 of the State Minister in

Charge of Environment in 1988. The standards are reviewed once every five years. Air environmental

standards have been revised as shown below based on the government ordinance on prevention of air

pollution (government ordinance No. 41, 1999).

Table 1.2.3 Air Environmental Standard Values in Indonesia -

No Item Time Environmental Standard Analysis Method Test Method

1 Sulfur dioxide (SO2)

1 hour 24 hours 1 year

900 μg/Nm3 365 μg/Nm3 60 μg/Nm3

Parafuchsin colorimetric analysis

Absorptiometer

2 Carbon monoxide (CO)

1 hour 24 hours

30,000 μg/Nm3 10,000 μg/Nm3

NDIR (nondispersive infrared method)

NDIR (nondispersive infrared sensor)

11

No Item Time Environmental Standard Analysis Method Test Method

3 Nitogen dioxide (NO2)

1 hour 24 hours 1 year

400 μg/Nm3 150 μg/Nm3 100 μg/Nm3

Salzmann suction

Absorptiometer

4 Ozone (O3) 1 hour 1 year

235 μg/Nm3 50 μg/Nm3

Chemiluminescence method

Absorptiometer

5 Hydrocarbons (HC)

3 hours 160 μg/Nm3 FID (flam ionization detection) method

Gas chromatography

6 Particulate (PM10)(Particle size <10μm)

24 hours 150 μg/Nm3 Gravimetric procedure

High volume sampler

Particulate (PM2.5) (Particle size <2.5μm)

24 hours 1 year


Gravimetric procedure

High volume sampler

7 TSP 24 hours 1 year



High volume sampler

8 Lead (Pb) 24 hours 1 year

2 μg/Nm3 1 μg/Nm3

Gravimetric procedure Extraction procedure

High volume sampler Atomic absorption spectrophotometer

9 Dustfall 30 days 10 t/km2/Bulan


Cannister

10 Total fluorine (as F)

24 hours 3 μg/Nm3 Specific ion Electrode

Impinger atau continuous analyzer

11 Fluor Indeks

30 days

40μg/100cm2

Colorimetric Limed Filter Paper filter

12 Khlorine&Khlorine Dioksida

24 hours

150 μg/Nm3 Specific ion Electrode

Impinger atau continuous analyzer

13 Sulphat Indeks

30 days

1mgSO3/100cm3 dari kertas limed Perksida

Colourimetric Lead Peroxida Candle

(Source: Government Ordinance on Prevention of Air Pollution (Government Ordinance 41 of 1999)

Peraturan Pemerintah Republik Indonesia Nomor 41 Tahun 1999)

b) Water quality environmental standards

Water quality environmental standards are prescribed in the Government Ordinance on Water Pollution

Prevention and Water Quality Management (Ordinance No. 82, 2001) concerning freshwater, and in the

Government Ordinance concerning Quality Standards of Seawater (Ordinance No. 51 and 179, 2004)

concerning seawater.

12

Water quality environmental standards for freshwater are prescribed for the following four categories

according to purpose of use of water body, and a total of 68 standard values are stipulated. Some of these

are indicated below.

I: Water that can be directly used for drinking without undergoing any treatment

II: Water that can be used as raw water intended for drinking

III: Water that can be used in fisheries and livestock farming

IV: Water that can be used in agriculture, small-scale business, industry and hydropower

Table 1.2.4 Water Quality Environmental Standards in Indonesia

Parameter Unit Class

I II III IV Physics

Temperature Celsius ±3 ±3 ±3 ±5Solved residue mg/liter 1,000 1,000 1,000 2,000Suspended residue mg/liter 50 50 400 400Inorganic chemistry

pH 6-9 6-9 6-9 5-9BOD mg/liter 2 3 6 12COD mg/liter 10 25 50 100DO mg/liter 6 4 3 0Total phosphate as P mg/liter 0.2 0.2 1 5NO3-N mg/liter 10 10 20 20NO3-N mg/liter 0.5 －－－

Arsenic mg/liter 0.05 1 1 1Cobalt mg/liter 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2Barium mg/liter 1 －－－

Boron mg/liter 1 1 1 1Selenium mg/liter 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.05Cadmium mg/liter 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01Chrome (VI) mg/liter 0.05 0.05 0.05 1Copper mg/liter 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.2Iron mg/liter 0.3 －－－

Lead mg/liter 0.03 0.03 0.03 －

Manganese mg/liter 0.1 －－－

Mercury mg/liter 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.005Zinc mg/liter 0.05 0.05 0.05 2Chloride mg/liter 600 －－－

Cyanide mg/liter 0.02 0.02 0.02 －

Fluoride mg/liter 0.5 1.5 1.5 －

Nitrite as N mg/liter 0.06 0.06 0.06 －

Sulfate 400 400 －－

Free Chlorice mg/liter 0.03 0.03 0.03 －

Sulfur as H2S mg/liter 0.002 0.002 0.002 －

Microbiology Fecal coliform MPN/100ml 100 1,000 2,000 2,000Total coliform MPN/100ml 1,000 5,000 10,000 10,000

13

Parameter Unit Class

I II III IV Radio activity

Gross A Bq/liter 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1Gross B Bq/liter 1 1 1 1

Organic Chemistry Oil & fat mg/liter 1 1 1 －

Detergent as Methylene Blue Active Substance (MBAS)

mg/liter 0.2 0.2 0.2 －

Phenol compound as phenol

μg /liter 1 1 1 －

BHC μg /liter 210 210 210 －

Aldrin/dieldrin μg /liter 17 －－－

Chlordane μg /liter 3 －－－

DDT μg /liter 2 2 2 2Heptachlor and heptachlor epoxide

μg /liter 18 －－－

Lindane μg /liter 35 －－－

Methoxyclor μg /liter 35 －－－

Endrin μg /liter 1 4 4 －

Toxaphan μg /liter 5 －－－

(Source: About the Management of Water Quality and Water Pollution Control No. 82 of 2001)

B) Discharge Standards, etc.

a) Exhaust gas

Decree No. 13 of the State Minister in Charge of Environment, 1995 prescribes exhaust gas standards for

four business sectors, i.e. iron and steel industry, paper and pulp manufacturing, cement plants, and

coal-fired thermal power stations.

Table 1.2.5 Exhaust Gas Standards in Indonesia

Item Upper limit (mg/m3)

Particulate 150

Sulfur dioxide 750

Nitrogen oxide 850

Opacity 20% Note: Exhaust gas amounts are for dry exhaust gas at 25 , 1atm.

(Source: Decree of the State Minister for Environment concerning Emission Standards for Stationary Sources No.13 of 1995)

b) Wastewater

General plant wastewater standards on the national level are as indicated in Table 1.2.6. In addition to plant

wastewater, wastewater standards on the national level are prescribed as shown below.

Wastewater standards for high class hotels of 3-stars or higher (Decree of the State Minister for

14

Environment, No. 52 of 1995)

Wastewater standards for hospital wastewater (Decree of the State Minister for Environment, No.

58 of 1995)

Table 1.2.6 Wastewater Standard Values in Indonesia

Item

Standard Value (Unit: mg/litter) Group 1

Plants that have high-level wastewater treatment

Group 2 Plants that have basic wastewater

treatment 1 Temperature 38 40 2 PH 6-9 6-9 3 SS 200 400 4 DSS 2000 4,000 5 BOD 50 150 6 COD 100 300 7 Cu 2 3 8 Zn 5 10 9 Fe 5 10 10 T-Cr 0.5 1 11 Cr+6 0.1 0.5 12 Mn 2 5 13 Ni 0.2 0.5 14 T-CN 0.05 0.5 15 Cd 0.05 0.1 16 Pb 0.1 1 17 T-Hg 0.002 0.005 18 Sn 2 3 19 As 0.1 0.5 20 Se 0.05 0.5 21 Co 0.4 0.6 22 S 0.05 0.1 23 F 2 3 24 Cl2 1 2 25 Hex (paraffinum

liquidum content)5 10

26 Hex (animal and vegetable oil

content)

10 50

27 Phenol 0.5 1 28 NH3-N 1 3

(Source: Decree of the State Minister for Environment concerning Quality Standards of Liquid Waste for Industry Activity, No.51 of 1995)

Local administrative organizations in Indonesia generally comprise provincial governments, regencies and

cities, and below them the districts and villages. Environmental departments on the provincial government

level prescribe wastewater standards via governor transmittals. Such standards are applicable to

wastewater across all industries regardless of sector.

d) Noise

Environmental standards concerning noise in Indonesia are prescribed according to Decree of the State

Minister for Environment No. 48 of 1996.

15

Table 1.2.7 Noise Standards in Indonesia Mode of land use/ Mode of activity Noise level (DB) a. Mode of land use 1. Residential 55 2. Commercial 70 3. Offices 65 4. Green tract 50 5. Industrial 70 6. Government offices and public

facilities 60

7. Recreational facilities 70 8. Others

・Airport * ・Station * ・Port 70 ・Cultural asset 60

b. Mode of activities 1. Hospital 55 2. School 55 3. Place of prayer 55

(Source: Decree of the State Minister for Environment No. 48 of 1996)

e) Vibration

Environmental standards concerning noise in Indonesia are prescribed according to Decree of the State


Table 1.2.8 Vibration Standards in Indonesia Frequency(Hz) Vibration Level (x10-6m)

No impact Slight impact Unpleasant Hazardous 4 ＜100 100-500 500-1000 ＞1000 5 ＜80 80-350 350-1000 ＞1000

6.3 ＜70 70-275 275-1000 ＞1000 8 ＜50 50-160 160-500 ＞500

10 ＜47 37-120 120-300 ＞300 12.5 ＜32 32-90 90-220 ＞200 16 ＜25 25-60 60-120 ＞120 20 ＜20 20-40 40-85 ＞85 25 ＜17 17-30 30-50 ＞50

31.5 ＜12 12-20 20-30 ＞30 40 ＜9 9-13 15-20 ＞20 50 ＜8 8-12 12-15 ＞15 63 ＜6 6-9 9-12 ＞12


f) Odor

Environmental standards concerning odor in Indonesia are prescribed according to Decree of the State


16

Table 1.2.9 Odor Standards in Indonesia Item Unit Threshold

value Measurement method Spectroscope

Ammonia NH4 ppm 2.0 Indophenol method Absorption photometry

Methyl mercaptan CH3SH ppm 0.002 Gas adsorption Gas chromatography

Hydrogen sulfide H2S ppm 0.02 a．Mercuric sulfocyanide method b．Gas adsorption

Absorptiometer Gas chromatography

Methyl sulfide (CH3)2 S ppm 0.01 Gas adsorption Gas chromatography

Styrene (C6H5CHCH2) ppm 0.1 Gas adsorption Gas chromatography


g) Compost

Compost standards are prescribed as follows under SNI 19-7030-2004 General Principles Specification for

Compost of Domestic Organic Rubbish. It is necessary to take these standards into account when turning

wastes into compost.

Table 1.2.10 Compost Standards in Indonesia No Parameter Unit Minimum Maximum 1 Water content % 502 Temperature Celsius Ground water temp.3 Color Blackness4 Odor Oil odor5 Particle Size Mm 0.55 256 Water binding ability % 58 7 pH 6.80 7.498 Strange particle % * 1.5Macro Element 9 Organic material % 27 5810 Nitrogen 0.40 11 Carbon 9.8 3212 Phosphor (P2O5) % 0.10 13 C/N-ratio 10 2014 Potassium (K2O) 0.20 * Micro Element 15 Arsenic mg/kg * 1316 Cadmium (Cd) mg/kg * 317 Cobalt (Co) mg/kg * 3418 Chromium (Cr) mg/kg * 21019 Copper (Cu) mg/kg * 10020 Mercury (Hg) mg/kg * 0.821 Nickel (Ni) mg/kg * 6222 Lead (Pd) mg/kg * 150

17

No Parameter Unit Minimum Maximum 23 Selenium (Se) mg/kg * 224 Zinc (Zn) mg/kg * 500Other Element 25 Calcium % * 25.526 2 Magnesium (Mg) % * 0.627 Iron (Fe) % * 228 Aluminum (Al) % * 2.229 Manganese (Mn) % * 0.1Bacterial 30 Fecal Coli MPN/g 1,00031 Salmonella sp. MPN/g 3

*＝Based on the Articles of the Ministry of Communications

(Source: SNI 19-7030-2004 General Principles Specification for Compost of Domestic Organic

Rubbish)

1.2.5 Administrative Agencies concerned with Environmental Management and Waste Management in

Indonesia

A) Administrative Agencies concerned with Environmental Management

A total of 16 ministries including ministries such as the Ministry of Industry and the Ministry of Health

have jurisdiction over environmental measures in Indonesia. However, the central agency in charge of

environmental administration is the Ministry of Environment (Kementrian Lingkungan Hidup: KLH).

Before, the Ministry of the Enviornment and the Environment Management Agency (Badan Pengendalian

Dampak Lingkungan: BAPEDAL) coexisted, but BAPRDAL was consolidated with the Ministry of the

Environment based on Presidential Decree of 2002. The mission of Ministry of Environment is “to

formulate and coordinate policies regarding environmental management and prevention of environmental

impacts”. Its functions and jurisdictions include the followings:

Formulation of policies regarding environmental management and environmental pollution prevention

Planning, monitoring, analysis and evaluation regarding environmental management and

environmental pollution prevention

Formulation of guidelines which will serve as minimal standards for local governments

Formulation of guidelines necessary for protection and management of natural environment

B) Administrative agencies concerned with wastes and recycling

The primary government agency concerned with wastes and recycling is the Ministry of Environment

(KLH: Kementrian Lingkungan Hidup). Within the Ministry of Environment, the Environmental Pollution

Assessment Department is in charge of household wastes, and the B3 Management and Regulation

Department is in charge of hazardous industrial waste. Concerning household waste, authority is being

transferred to local governments under the policy of decentralization, while concerning B3 wastes,

authorization powers are concentrated in the Ministry of Environment, and the local governments

(provinces and regencies) only have supervisory authority. In addition to the Ministry of Environment, the

18

following ministries and agencies are concerned with the environment (Source: “Business Report for

Provision of Industrial Waste and Recycling Policy Information in Asia,” the Institute of Developing

Economies, Japan External Trade Organization, consigned by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and

Industry,2007).

Ministry of Public Works (KPU)

This formulates technical and structural requirements for local governments concerning waste

management facilities and technical guidance pertaining to sanitary management.

Agency for the Assessment and Application of Technology (BPPT)

This conducts research and study of recycling of waste in environmental technology research

laboratories, etc.

1.2.6 Challenges regarding waste management in Indonesia

Currently, waste management in Indonesia heavily depends on landfills. However, there are concerns

regarding environmental, sanitary, and health risks to local communities. According to a study conducted

at Bantar Gebang, where wastes from Jakarta and surrounding areas are landfilled, the following results

were found although specific study methods and clear correlation with the landfill is unknown (Ministry of

the Environment, Indonesia, State of Environment Report 2009).

1.3 Situation of the Target Area Jakarta is the capital city of Indonesia and one of the biggest cities in South East Asia. It lies in the

northwestern part of Java Island and has an area of 661km2. The population of Indonesia and its economic

activities are centred on Jakarta and the surrounding areas of Java. The population of Java is 136.56 million

which is larger than the total population of Japan and corresponds to about 60% of the total population of

Indonesia. (2010 Government Statistics). The population of Jakarta exceeds the population of the 23 wards

of Tokyo (8.95 millions, Tokyo prefecture data) and is reported to be 9.6 millions (2010 Government

Statistics). The Gross Regional Product of Java is reported to be 1,262 trillion Rp and corresponds to 60%

of gross production of Indonesia (2010 Government Statistics).

19

Figure 1.3.1 Trend of population of Jakarta

(Source: Statistical data for 2000 -2006 obtained from SAPROF for Jakarta Solid Waste Management

Project in Indonesia Final Report 2008, Statistical data for 2007-2009 obtained from Indonesian

government sources, 2010 statistical data prepared by the authors of this report from information obtained

from outline of Jakarta cleaning operations)

Figure1.3.2 Population density of Indonesia

(Source: Statistical Yearbook of Indonesia 2010)

8,360 8,430

8,500 8,570

8,640 8,700 8,760

9,060 9,140

9,220

9,590

7,600

7,800

8,000

8,200

8,400

8,600

8,800

9,000

9,200

9,400

9,600

9,800

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Population in Jakarta (in thousands)

20

Figure 1.3.3 Ratio of production value of various regions of Indonesia

(Source: Statistical Yearbook of Indonesia 2010)

Population centralization in regions around Jakarta and the economic development of the region is

contributing to the increase of waste generation in this region and adequate treatment and disposal of

municipal waste is becoming a challenging issue.

Sumatra23%

Java58%

Lesser Sunda Islands

3% Borneo9%

Sulawesi5%

Island New Guinea Maluku Islands

2%

21

Chapter 2

Study Methodology

23

2.1 Contents of the Study 2.1.1 Background and Purpose of the Survey

Urbanization in Jakarta has been accelerating: Jakarta has already become a metropolitan city with the

population of about 9.6 millions as of 2010, and about 6,200 t/d of MSW is generated in Jakarta. By the

year 2030, the amount of waste generated is estimated to reach 9,200 t/d. Currently, most of the waste

is being disposed at Bantar Gebang Landfill in Bekasi City, West Java, located to the East of Jakarta. The

landfill is the only existing final disposal site for Jakarta. However, as the amount of waste from Jakarta is

exceeding the site’s capacity, efforts are being made to prolong the life of the site. Meanwhile, taking into

consideration transportation efficiency, it is believed to be more effective to establish a final disposal site at

a location to the West of Jakarta. For these reasons, Jakarta purchased 96 ha of land located at Ciangir

in Tangerang Regency, Banten, located to the West of Jakarta, and planned to construct and operate a waste

treatment facility as a build, operate and transfer (BOT) project, and signed Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU) regarding the project with Tangerang Regency in 2009. However, because the

Tangerang Regency changed its land use plan and designating the site as a residential area, it became

impossible to implement the project.

In response to this situation, Tangerang Regency expressed that land in Jatiwaringin area, which has been

designated in land use plan as the area for waste treatment facilities, could be provided as the alternative

site. At the same time, Tangerang Regency has expressed that the provision of land would be under

condition that waste intermediate treatment facilities would be included in the final disposal site.

The objectives of this study are (1) to examine the most suitable treatment system for the final disposal site

for wastes from Jakarta to be constructed under BOT scheme in the Jatiwaringin area and (2) to evaluate

the feasibility of the project by estimating cost of construction, operation and maintenance.

2.1.2 Outline of the Survey

In order to implement this project, it is necessary to propose a waste treatment system that would be

acceptable by the Tangerang Regency which would cost less than 21 USD/t as requested by Jakarta. In

addition, the proposed system needs to be feasible taking into account the consensus building process with

the local residents and environmental and social impacts.

In order to identify the conditions that influence the project cost, conceptual designing with the objective to

reduce cost was conducted based on results on boring and topographical surveys, and costs were estimated

for construction, civil work, operation and maintenance (O&M) of the facilities was conducted in order to

establish conditions regarding elements influencing the cost, and c.

Additionally, for environmental and social considerations regarding this project, environmental sampling

and analysis in addition to interviews with local residents were implemented, and it evaluated expecting

24

improvement effects and influences over environment and society.

The survey items are as below.

a) Scope of this project

b) Confirmation of preconditions (planned treatment amount, approval process for environmental

impact, limited conditions under environmental concerns, roads accessing the implementing

site, waste composition, conditions for outsourcing of the survey)

c) Outline of Jakarta and Cleansing Department of Municipality

d) Current condition of waste treatment and waste composition, etc.

e) Current survey of the project’s implementation site (measurement and boring surveys)

f) Establishment of the treatment systems' alternative plan(s) & Examination of its validity

g) Design Concept of the facilities (outline of standards)

h) Estimation of costs for construction and O&M（the project cost estimation）

i) Financial Analysis and Cash Flow Analysis

j) Examination of environmental and social considerations

k) Project evaluation

2.2 Methodology and Organization 2.2.1 Methodology of the Survey

In this survey, as showing Figure 2.2.1, current waste treatment condition and plan in Jakarta were

understood and analyzed. After clarifying this project position, the project scope and limited conditions

were clarified. In addition, implementations of boring and measurement surveys as well as examination

of treatment system plan were conducted. Based on these results, the conceptual design of facilities and

specification of equipments were examined. Furthermore, the cost estimation and financial analysis of the

project were conducted. The environmental and social considerations associated with the project were also

examined. Finally, the project was evaluated taking into account the economic cost and the environmental

and social considerations.

25

Figure 2.2.1 Flow of the Study

(Resources: Prepared by the survey team)

2.2.2 Structure of the Survey

As showing Figure 2.2.2, this survey team is composed of corporations, including ARAX to be a

commissioning entity in future, which are capable to prepare and operate an urban waste treatment system

in order to propose a realistic treatment system under consideration of the local condition.

Furthermore, for an on-site study, Mr. Yasushi Sakai, a Manager of a liaison office in Jakarta from EX

Research Institute Ltd., will coordinate between the local and Japan during the survey team’s absence since

the period is limited. Also, Ryowa International, represented by Mr. Matsuzaki, an Advisor of ARAX,

will support to promote communication with stakeholders from the local government. JEF Engineering

will conduct the facility design and estimate costs for the construction and O&M, whereas Jakarta office of

Shimizu Corporation, will support to estimate the construction cost.

For outsourcing, according to cost estimation of the survey, the following companies are selected:

PT.INFRATAMA YAKTI, a research company, which conducted the Special Assistance for Project

Formation (SAPROF) study in 2008, and PT.TIGENCO GRAHA PERSADA, a boring company, which

Establishment of Treatment Systems'Alternative Plan(s) & Examiation of its Validity

Clarification of the Project Scope

Boring & Measuring Surveys

Organizing Survey Results

Examination for Design Concept of Facilities& Application of Equipment Standards

Estimation of the ProjectCost

CurrentTreatment Condition &Planning

(Current Status Analysis)

Clarification of this Project Position

Waste Composition

Future & Demand Forecasts

Examination for Side ofEnvironmental & Social

ConsiderationsFinancial Analysis ・CF Analysis

EnvironmentalSurveys

The Project Evaluation

Climate Data

26

has been received abundant orders from major Japanese construction companies.

Figure 2.2.2 Organization of the study team


Composed members and responsible fields for this survey are shown as below (see Table 2.2.1). Mr.

Ohno from EX Research Institute Ltd. will be Director General, and under him, Mr. Kazuhiro Nakaishi

will be in charge of planning the treatment facility as Deputy Director General. Also, Mr. Takashi

Sakamoto from ARAX will be a coordinator for the project.

EX Research Institute Ltd.Supervise, examination of treatment sytem, analysis of constraints of project implementation, analysis of environmental and social aspects,

ARAX CorporationIdentification of scope of project, project scheme and financing scheme

Arai Total Institution Co.,Ltd.Cost estimate of operation and

PT. INFRATAMA YAKTICollection of project cost, land survey, collection of information on social and environmental analysisDelegate

JFE Engineering CorporationConceptual design and cost estimate of plant, cost estimate of operation

PT.JFE-ENGINEERING INDONESIAInformation of local information

Local corporation

Shimizu Corporation Jakarta OfficeEstimate of local costs

Subcontract

Cooperation

PT. TIGENCO GRAHA PERSADABoring survey

Local team

Supervision

EX Research Institute Ltd. (Sakai)Collection of laws and regulations and analysis of capacity of implementing organization

Liaison office (based in Jakarta)

Ryowa InternationalCollection of laws and regulations and analysis of capacity of implementing organization

Subsidiary

Company directed by Mr Matsuzaki, advisor of ARAX Corporation

Subcontract

Cooperation

Delegate

27

Table 2.2.1 Members of the study team Name Post, Organization Issue in charge

Masato OHNO President and Head of International Consulting Division, EX Research Institute Ltd.

Project supervisor

Kazuhiro NAKAISHI

Senior Researcher, Environmental Engineering Division, EX Research Institute Ltd.

Project manager Planning of treatment

facility

Osamu NAHATASenior Researcher, Environmental Engineering Division, EX Research Institute Ltd.

Planning of landfill

Akira HASEYAMA

Senior Researcher, Environmental Engineering Division, EX Research Institute Ltd.

Identification of current status of waste management and analysis of environmental impact

Satoshi SUGIMOTO

Senior Researcher, International Consulting Division, EX Research Institute Ltd.

Economic and fiscal analysis

Sayako KIMURAResearcher, International Consulting Division, EX Research Institute Ltd.

Social and environmental considerations

Taiji TSURUTANI

Technical advisor, International Consulting Division, EX Research Institute Ltd.

Technical adviser

Yasushi SAKAI Representative of Indonesian liaison office, EX Research Institute Ltd.

Local coordination

Takashi SAKAMOTO

Chief, Public relations department, ARAX Corporation

Project coordination

Yasuo YAMAMOTO

Administrative manager, ARAX Corporation

Research in financial matters

Hironari YOSHIKURA

Technical division, Arai Total Institution Co.,Ltd.

Waste disposal technologies

Tsutomu NISHIWAKI

Adviser, ARAX Corporation

Overseas research

Horyu MATSUZAKI

Adviser, ARAX Corporation Director, PT. Ryowa International

Adviser of local operations

Tomoki UEMATSU

Manager, Sales & Marketing Dept., Overseas Business Sector, JFE Engineering Corporation

Cost estimate for plant engineering

Takao YAMAZAKI

Senior Manager, International Division, Jakarta Office, Shimizu Corporation

Local cost estimate


2.3 Schedule of the SurveSchedule of the survey is shown in Fi

from September 2011.

Aug Sep

Field Surveys in Indonesia

Preparation

Collection of information

Reporting of study results in Indonesia

Survey in Japan

Preparation Analysis of gained

information

Conceptual design, cost estimation,

financial analysis

Drafting of report

(Source:

Field surveys were performed 4 time

Tabl

Period

1st

visit

2011/9/7 Visit to J

facilities

2011/9/8

-2011/9/9

Discussio

informatio

2011/9/12 Discussio

visit to Ba

2011/9/13 Consultati

Cleansing

(Sep 7-13)

28

ey igure 2.3.1. Four times of the on-site studies are sch

Figure 2.3.1 Work Schedule Oct Nov Dec Jan 2012

Prepared by the authors of this report)

es. Outline of the field survey is shown below.

le 2.3.1 Outline of Field Surveys

Contents Peoples

JETRO, visit to waste related Mr. Kensuke

President Direct

Jakarta center

ns with Tangerang Regency,

on collection at Statistics Office

Mr. Agus, Director

Dept

Mr. Akip, Direc

Planning

ns with Tangerang Regency,

antar Geban final disposal site

Mr. Agus, Director

Dept

Mr. Akip, Direc

Planning

ion with vice Governor and the

g Department of Jakarta DKI

Mr. Sarwo

Vice-Governor an

(Oct 10-23) (Nov 27-Dec 13) (

heduled starting

Feb

met

Saito, Vice

tor, JETRO

r of Cleansing

ctor of Land

r of Cleansing

ctor of Land

Handhayani,

nd Head of

(Feb 7-11)

29

Period Contents Peoples met

Jakarta Regional Development

Planning Board

Mr. Iwan Henry Wardhana,

Director of Jakarta Cleansing

Department

2nd

visit

2011/10/10 Meeting within the study group ―

2011/10/11 Consultation with the Jakarta DKI

Cleansing Department



Department

Visit to the Sunter Temporary Facility Manager of the facility (name

unidentified)

2011/10/12 Visit to the Bantar Gebang Final Disposal

Site

Pt. Godang Tuajaya Jo Pt.

Navigat Organic Energy Ind

Mr. Sinaga, Manager in charge

of administrative matters

Mr. Toruan, in charge of

facilities

2011/10/13 Visit to Tangerang Regency and the

project site

Mr. Agus, Director of Cleansing

Dept

Mr. Akip, Director of Land

Planning

Mr. Yoyon, Deputy Director,

Cleansing Dept,

Mr. Youliy, in charge of final

disposal site

2011/10/14 Organization and analysis of information

collected

―

2011/10/17-

- 2011/10/18

Discussion with subcontractors and

preparation of contract

―

2011/10/19 Meeting within the study group ―

2011/10/20 Consultation with Tangerang Regency

Visit to the Duri Kosambi Wastewater

Treatment Facility


Planning

2011/10/21 Interview with the General Manager of

Cakung Cilncing

PT.WIRA GULFINDO

SARANA

Mr. Budhisentoso Kertadjaja

30


General Manager

3rd visit 2011/11/27

-2011/11/28

Meeting within the study group and

organization of information collected

―

2011/11/29 Consultation with Tangerang Mr. Agus, Director of Cleansing

Dept


Planning

2011/11/30 Consultation with Ministry of Public

Works

Mr. Sjukrul Amien, Director of

Environmental hygiene, Mr.

Rudy Arifin, Deputy Director

Report to JETRO Mr. Kensuke Saito, Vice

President Director, JETRO

Jakarta center

Consultation with Jakarta DKI Cleansing

Department

Mr. Eko, and Mr. Iwan,

Cleansing Dept of Jakarta DKI

2011/12/1 Consultation with Governor of Tangerang

Regency

Tangerang Regency Governor

Consultation with Ministry of Public

Works

Mr. Mohammet

2011/12/2 Report to the Japanese Embassy Mr. Yasukawa, First Secretary

Mr. Yoshizawa, Councilor

Mr. Keino, Second Secretary.

Consultation with the Jakarta DKI

Cleansing Department



Department

Report to the JICA Jakarta office Ms. Kitamura, Adviser

2011/12/5

-2011/12/6

Meeting within the study group ―

2011/12/7 Consultation with Jakarta Cleansing

Department



Department

2011/12/8 Visit to plastic recycling facility in Jakarta Ms. Mei, owner of recycling

facility

Visit to the project site ―


collected

―

2011/12/12 Visit to Tangerang Regency Mr. Yoyon, Director General of

31


Land Planning


collected

―

4th visit 2012/02/07-

- 2012/02/11

Report of the final report to relevant

parties in Indonesia and exchange of

information

(Prepared by the authors of this report)

33

Chapter 3

Justification, Objectives and Technical Feasibility of the

Project

35

3.1 Background and Necessity of the Project The Project is identified as a priority undertaking for infrastructure development to be achieved by DKI

Jakarta by 2020 within the Jakarta Metropolitan Priority Area for Investment and Industry (MPA) Master

Plan Study. Accordingly, this is designated as a high priority project for actualization.

Moreover, out of the three core principles of in the National Policy and Strategy for Waste Management

System Development (NPC-WMSD) that was described in Chapter 1 (1.2.2), the Project is deemed to be

applicable under “Utilization of private sector corporations as management partners” and ”Expansion of

service scope and improvement in quality of management system”.

3.1.1 Scope of the Project and Principal Demand for the Products and Services Provided by the Project

(1) Project Scope

The project will appropriately treat and dispose MSW from Jakarta including the recycling of recyclable

wastes keeping in mind the business structure shown in Figure 3.1.1. The Japanese investors will

establish a local company with local investors, and the company would purchase the land and agree on a

MOU with Jakarta regarding land lease. This is under the assumption that MOU between Jakarta and

Tangerang Regency regarding construction of s disposal site in Ciangir would be amended. Based on

this assumption, MSW under BOT scheme which would be ordered by Jakarta would be operated

through establishing SPC with local companies and the local joint company. The project scope covers

the design, construction and operation of treatment and disposal facilities, collection and recycling of

recyclable materials and monitoring. Table 3.1.1 shows the scale of component facilities, which

comprise a managed final disposal site (including leachate treatment facilities), MBT facilities, RDF

manufacturing facilities and composting facilities. Figure 3.1.2 shows the treatment flow in the project.

36

Figure 3.1.1 Business Scheme of the Project


Table 3.1.1 Project scale and component facilities Item Contents, Capacity and Component Equipment, etc.

Target wastes MSW (Municipal solid wastes) discharged in Jakarta Scale 1,500 t/d Facilities composi-tion

Managed final disposal site

Semi-aerobic landfill structure with landfill area of 16 hectares and landfill capacity of 2.5 million m3 (stable gradient earth-fill dam utilizing excavated earth, sandwich building method, seepage control structure, gas extraction pipes, leachate collection and drainage system, leachate treatment system)

MBT (mechanical bio-treatment) facilities

Daily treatment capacity 1,410 t (1,185ｔ + 225 t), treatment method: resources screening facilities, crushing facilities, belt conveyor, fermentation tank, buildings, post-treatment screening facilities, storage facilities, packaging facilities

RDF manufacturing facilities

Treatment capacity: 480 t/d (quantity of product: 430 t/d）

Compost facilities

Treatment capacity: 410 t/d (334 t/d + 76 t/d) (quantity of product: 165 t/d）

Project period 20 years Project ordering mode BOT project (ordering entity: Jakarta)


Figure 3.1

(Source

Figure 3.1.2 Map of th

(Source: Prepared by the author

Ciangir

37

.1 Detailed treatment flow of the project

e: Prepared by the authors of this report)

he project site (Jati Waringing, Tangerang Regenc

rs of this report based on land use map for Tangerang

Jatiwaringin

Jakarta DKI(West Jakarta C

y)

g Regency)

ity)

38

Figure 3.1.4 Detailed map of the project site (Jati Waringing, Tangerang Regency)

(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report based aerial photo)

(2) Services Provided in the Project

The services to be provided in the project entail the low cost recycling and appropriate treatment and

disposal of municipal wastes with a view to securing environmental conservation. In particular,

concerning recycling of recyclable wastes, it is intended to recover valuable resources such as plastics

and metals, etc. through utilizing the existing recovery and distribution system (see section 4.1.1 for

details) that includes the activities of waste pickers on the project site targeting municipal wastes

comprising mainly household wastes but not market wastes (hereafter referred to as “household wastes,

etc.”). After that, wastes will be separated into organic wastes, combustible wastes and other wastes in

MBT facilities (also combining appropriate treatment), with the organic wastes being used for

composting and the inorganic wastes being converted to RDF. The manufactured compost will be

retailed as fertilizer or soil improvement agent, as well as being used as a covering material on the final

disposal site. RDF will be supplied to cement plants. In addition, market wastes will undergo

fermentation and screening in MBT facilities, with the organic wastes again being used for composting

and the inorganic wastes being converted to RDF. Finally, other residues will undergo appropriate

disposal in a managed disposal site equipped with semi-aerobic landfill structure.

(3) Primary consumers

The main consumers of the project services can broadly be classified as follows:

a) Demand for the project services, i.e. the proper treatment and disposal of MSW (consisting of

household wastes and market wastes)

b) Demand for the compost that is manufactured in the project

Area considered forthe project site (100hawithin this area)

Land owned by Tangerang City for new disposal site

Existing disposal site of Tangerang Regency (includes planned area for expansion)

39

c) Demand for RDF that is manufactured in the project

First, concerning the consumers of a), the primary entity is the local governments starting with Jakarta

municipal government that manages the target municipal wastes. Since demand in Jakarta is described in

further detail including demand forecast in section 3.1.2, this section focuses on demand by other local

governments. Local governments with demand are Tangerang Regency, where the project site is located,

and the surrounding local governments. In Tangerang Regency, approximately 800 cubic meters of

waste was carried into Jati Waringin final disposal site on average every day in 2010. With respect to

this, the present final disposal site has remaining landfill area of 7.8 hectares, and assuming that the

whole area is landfilled to a height of 30 meters, capacity will reach 1.8 million cubic meters (assuming

an earth-fill dam with slope gradient of 1: 2.5). In this case, assuming that cover materials corresponding

to 35% of the landfill waste will be needed for sanitary landfill, the landfill service life will be 4.5 years

(= 1.8 million m3 ÷ (800 m3/d x 365 d/y x 1.35). Therefore, the present final disposal site will become

full by 2015, at which time a new final disposal site will become necessary. It is thus forecast that

demand for the project services will arise in Tangerang Regency at this time. Incidentally, it is assumed

that reduction of waste quantity due to collection of valuable resources by waste pickers and

improvement of unit volumetric weight due to landfilling will be offset by future increases arising from

larger quantities of waste and a higher collection rate (currently around 40%).

Concerning consumers for compost that is manufactured in the project, since compost derived from

waste is sold to farmers, etc., in the advance cases of Cakung Cilincing and Bantar Gebang, it is

anticipated that demand exists among ordinary citizens including farmers as well as managers of public

facilities that plant and maintain vegetation. Furthermore, there is expected to be demand for cover

materials. Concerning cover materials, demand in the project is expected to be 43 t per day, while the

demand on neighboring Tangerang final disposal site will be 140 t/d (＝800m3/d x 0.35 ÷ 0.5t/m3). In

Tangerang Regency, economic merits can be obtained in averting the need to purchase cover materials.

Moreover, concerning demand for RDF manufactured in the project, cement plants currently accept this

as raw fuel. According to a cement plant in Bogor Province to the south of Jakarta, the annual amount of

coal consumption is 1 million tons. Under these circumstances, waste oil and industrial wastes are

purchased at 20USD/t and used as fuel, while RDF is purchased from communities at 150 Rp/kg as part

of CSR, and the ratio of fuel consumption other than coal is no more than 5%. At this plant, it is hoped

to increase this ratio to 20%. For this purpose, the plant is examining a plan to construct facilities for

manufacturing RDF from the waste materials of Bogor. For the immediate future, it aims to purchase

RDF at 150 Rp/kg to cover up to 20% of its fuel requirement (Approximately 547 t/d = (1 million ton x

0.2)/365). Meanwhile, acceptance as fuel is conditional on the product having a minimum heating value

of 14.6 MJ/kg.

There are four cement plants in Jakarta and these are expected to account for substantial demand.

40

3.1.2 Analysis of Current Conditions, Future Projection (including Demand Forecast) and Problems

Foreseen in Case of No Project Implementation

(1) Current waste treatment

A）Generated amount of waste

The cleansing administration in Jakarta is supervised by the DKI Jakarta Cleansing Bureau (Dinas

Kebersihan Provinsi Daerah Khusus Ibukota Jakarta).

Table 3.1.2 and Table 3.1.3 and Figure 3.1.5 and Figure 3.1.6 indicate the current situation regarding

waste generation based on the “Cleansing Summary 2010” that is issued every year by the Cleansing

Bureau.

The population of Jakarta in 2010 stood at approximately 9,567,000 people, the total generated amount

of waste was 6,139 t/d, and the per capita discharge amount was 640 kg per person per day.

Table 3.1.2 Waste Situation in the Jakarta

(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report based on Outline of Cleansing Activities 2010)

Table 3.1.3 Waste Generation Ratio in Jakarta

(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report based on Outline of Cleansing Activities 2010.

The household waste generation ratio is calculated with respect to the total value in each city).

Looking at past trends based on study findings from previous years, population has moved at a level in

excess of estimate values (8,981,000 in 2010). According to the figures for 2010, it appears as though

the amount of waste is less than forecast values (6,139t/d for that year), however, this may only be a

№ District Population Waste generatedWaste generation

ratioHousehold wastegeneration ratio

(t/d) (g/person/d) (g/person/d)1 Central Jakarta 898,883 1,173.33 1305.322 North Jakarta 1,645,312 1,113.78 676.943 West Jakarta 2,278,825 1,442.22 632.884 South Jakarta 2,057,080 1,003.11 487.645 East Jakarta 2,687,027 1,406.89 523.59

Total 9,567,127 6,139.33 3,560.81 641.71 372.19

Householdwaste

№ District Population Waste generatedWaste generation

ratioHousehold wastegeneration ratio

(t/d) (g/person/d) (g/person/d)1 Central Jakarta 898,883 1,173.33 1305.322 North Jakarta 1,645,312 1,113.78 676.943 West Jakarta 2,278,825 1,442.22 632.884 South Jakarta 2,057,080 1,003.11 487.645 East Jakarta 2,687,027 1,406.89 523.59

Total 9,567,127 6,139.33 3,560.81 641.71 372.19

Householdwaste

41

temporary phenomenon and it will be necessary to watch future movements.

Figure 3.1.5 Population and Generated Waste Amount Projection

(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report based on the findings of the 2008 SAPROF Study)

83868756

8981 9169 9263 92589588

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

2000 2006 2010 2015 2020 2025

Population (thousands) Actual population in 2010

Projection (SAPROF 2008)

6400 65386894

74027845

8210

6139

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

2000 2006 2010 2015 2020 2025年

Waste generated (t/day)

Actual amount in 2010


42

The actual per capita discharged amount of waste (waste generation ratio) in 2010 calculated from these

population and waste generation figures is 640 g/person per day. Moreover, this value includes commercial

wastes such as market waste, office waste and business waste. When viewed in terms of household wastes

only (3,560.8 t, according to Cleansing Summary 2010), the amount discharged per person works out to be

371 g/person per day.

Figure 3.1.6 Waste Generation Ratio of Waste Generation Projection

(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report based on the 2008 SAPROF study findings)

B）Waste quality

Table 3.1.4, Figure 3.1.7 and Figure 3.1.8 show the quality of waste in 2010. According to this, organic

wastes account for more than half the total.

Moreover, 58% of the overall waste is household waste, while market waste accounts for 10%,

commercial waste and industrial waste for 15% each, and cleansing waste from roads, parks and rivers,

etc. for 2%.

Table 3.1.4 Breakdown by Waste Quality and Generation Source in Jakarta (2010)


763 747 768 807

847 887

640

500

600

700

800

900

1000

2000 2006 2010 2015 2020 2025年

Waste generated (g/d) per capita

Actual amount in 2010


№ Type of waste Volume　m3 Percentage　%1 Organic 15,451.58 55.372 Inorgnic 12,454.47 44.63

Total 27,906.05

№ Type of waste Volume　m3 Percentage　%1 House hold waste 16,185.51 582 Marcket waste 2,790.61 103 Commercial waste 4,185.91 154 Industrial waste 4,185.91 155 Waste from cleaning roads, parks, etc 558.12 2

計 27,906.06 100

43

Figure 3.1.7 Breakdown of Waste by Generation Source in Jakarta (2010)


Looking at the composition of waste, organic waste (kitchen waste) accounts for 55.37%, and other

wastes for 44.63%. Since organic wastes are deemed to correspond to kitchen wastes according to the

Japanese composition inspection method, wastes in this report will be expressed as organic wastes and

non-organic wastes in this report.

Figure 3.1.8 Quality Breakdown of Waste in Jakarta (2010)

Ratio of inorganic wastes 1 Paper.. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .... 20.57% 2 Plastics ... ... ... ... ..... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . .13.25% 3 Wood. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . ... ... ... 0.07% 4 Cloth and fibers... ... ... ... ... ... . ... ... ... . 0.61% 5 Rubber and artificial leather, etc.. ... ... . .0.19% 6 Metals ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 1.06% 7 Glass ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . ... ... ... ... ... 1.91% 8 Bulky waste.. ... .. .... . . ... ......... ... ... ... 0.81% 9 B3 wastes (hazardous and toxic wastes)... 1.52% 10 Rocks, sand, etc.. ... ... ... ... . ... . ... . ... 4.65%


58

10

1515 2

Share (%)

Household wasteMarket

waste

Commercial waste

Industrial waste Waste from cleaning

roads, parks, rivers

55.37%

44.63%

20.57

13.25

0.07

0.610.19

1.061.91

0.81

1:52

4.65単位:%

Organic (kitchenwaste) Inorganic

Paper Plastic Wood Cloth, fiber Rubber/artificial leather Metal Glass Bulky waste Hazardous waste Rock, sand, ETC

紙

ゴ

金

ガ

粗

44

C）Waste treatment flow

Table 3.1.5, Figure 3.1.9 and Figure 3.1.10 show the current conditions and plans of waste treatment

facilities in Jakarta. There are two key intermediate treatment facilities currently in operation, namely

the Cakung Cilincing intermediate treatment facility (mainly producing compost) and the Sunter

transfer treatment facility (compression treatment).

There is a final disposal site in Bantar Gebang (Bekasi), and this receives wastes that do not undergo

intermediate treatment and the residue from treatment at the intermediate facilities, etc.

Table 3.1.5 Waste Treatment Related Facilities in Jakarta

Cakung Cilincing Sunter Marunda Bantar Gebang (Future plan) Tangerang Regency

Location Jakarta Jakarta Jakarta Bekasi, West Java

Tangerang Regency

Area 7.5ha 3.5ha 12ha 110.3ha Approximately 100ha

Land ownership Privately owned Government owned Privately

owned Government owned ---

Current conditions

Intermediate treatment facilities

Accept 400~500 t/d

Sorting and composting

Tipping fee: 149,000 Rp/t

Transfer station with compacting equipment

Maximum capacity: 6,000m3/d,

1,500 t/d Volume compacting

effect: ½

Currently no activities are conducted onsite (the landowner is searching for investors)

Compost Final

disposal Methane gas

collection and power generation

None

Future plans and prospects

Upgrade by 2013 as follows: Accept

1,000~1,300 t/d Technology:

MBT (anaerobic digestion technology from Denmark)

The tipping fee is expected to rise to 189,000 Rp/t.

Currently undergoing actual design geared to expansion

Alter as follows: Accept 1,000 t/d Technology: Build

Waste-to-Energy (incineration) facilities

Project method: BOT The tipping fee is

expected to be 400,000 Rp/t.

As of January 2012, preparations are being made for national competitive bidding.

Capacity: 2,000 t/d

Technology: Waste-to-Energy (incineration)

Additional installation of MBT and methane fermentation facilities to the above facilities

Accept 3,000 t/d

Accept 1,500 t/d


45

Figure 3.1.9 Flow of Waste Treatment in Jakarta (Expression on a Top View Map)


46

Figure 3.1.10 Flow of Waste Treatment in Jakarta Household 58% 3,561

Sunter SPA605 t/d

Bantar Gebang TPA5,062 t/d

Market 10% 614 t/d

Office 15% 921 t/d

Plant 15% 921 t/d

Road, park and river, etc. cleansing 2% 123 t/d

(Private sector treatment company)

PPLI PT.WGI

RT Dong Woo

The amount of waste carried into Bantar Gebang final disposal site in 2010 was 5,062 t/d on average. In

terms of fluctuation, the largest is 1.10 and the smallest is 0.87 (see Figure 3.1.11).

(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report based on Outline of Cleansing Activities 2010. Ratios and totals in the table are mean values from 2010).

Figure 3.1.11 Coefficient of Fluctuation in the Amount of Waste going into

Bantar Gebang Final Disposal Site


1.10

0.97

1.05

0.96

1.02

0.97 0.99

1.03

0.87

1.05

1.01 1.00

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00

1.05

1.10

1.15

1.20

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Fluctuation coefficient of waste brought to Bantar Gebang Final Disposal Site

Recycling

Temporary

storage yard

47

D）Organization chart of the Cleansing Bureau

The Cleansing Bureau employs 1,805 employees.

Table 3.1.6 Personnel Involved in Waste Treatment in Jakarta

Job Heavy

machine operator

Machine maintenance Security Driver Truck crew Other Total

Number of personnel 14 45 60 461 252 973 1,805


The conclusion to the Cleansing Summary 2010 raises some issues concerning waste treatment in

Jakarta. The authorities realize that too much waste is being carried into Banter Gebang final disposal

site and that the environmental load is too great, and they are investigating alternative treatment methods

geared to mitigating the final disposal load. One of these is the expansion of intermediate treatment

technology, and this explains the expectations being placed on construction of a compost recycling

center.

(2) Future Forecast (including demand forecast)

According to the hearing conducted with Jakarta Cleansing Bureau, the design amount of waste

generated in 2030 in Jakarta is set at 9,200 t per year. The future forecast and demand forecast were

carried out with a view to assessing the validity of this value, and the assessment was performed

according to the following procedure.

The generated amount of waste is intrinsically linked to the economic condition and level of

development of a country. In other words, it correlates with the waste generation ratio and the GDP

economic indicator. This has been presented in research findings by Ikeguchi et al1. Based on the above

conditions, the following table shows a comparison of GDP between Japan and Indonesia and waste

generation ratio between Tokyo and Jakarta.

Table 3.1.7 GDP and Waste Generation Ratio in Japan in the Past Item Japan (Tokyo) Indonesia (Jakarta)

GDP USD/person 3,000 (1970s) 3,000 (2010) Waste generation ratio

(g/person/day) 700 (Tokyo, 1970s) 640 (2010 Jakarta)

Waste generation ratio (g/person/day) 1,000(Tokyo, 1990s)

910 (Refer to formula 3-1)

(2030 Jakarta)

(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report based on World Bank, World Development

1 Current conditions, issues and solutions of waste treatment in developing countries (EN2 Plus Ltd., Ikeguchi Takashi)

48

Indicators 2011 and data for Tokyo Metropolitan Government)

As was shown in the aforementioned figure (page 2), Indonesia’s current GDP level of approximately

3,000USD is equivalent to Japan’s level in the 1970s, and it has been assumed that this will display

similar behavior to Japan’s GDP between 1970s-1990s from now on. Therefore, assuming that Indonesia

will achieve the same kind of economic development between now and 2030 that Japan experienced

between the 1970s and 1990s, the waste generation ratio in Jakarta in 2030 has been forecast as follows

based on the waste generation ratio in Jakarta in 2010 (640 g /person per day).

Waste generation ratio in Jakarta in 2030

= 640 × 1,000 ÷ 700

= 910 g /person per day

Figure 3.1.12 Projected Waste Generation Ratio based on the

Rate of Change in Japan over the Past 20 Years

(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report based)

Next, in order to seek the generated amount of waste based on the waste generation ratio and population,

the population of Jakarta in 2030 will be forecast. Figure 3.1.13 shows the results of projections made

based on linear regression formula using past actual figures (Figure 1.1.3).

7001000

0

250

500

750

1000

1970 1990

Waste generated (g/day) per capita

Tokyo

20 years

142% increase700

0

250

500

750

1000

1970 1990

Jakarta

20 years

Assumed to experiencesimilar growth with Japan

Actual amountProjection

Waste generated (g/day) per capita

142% increase

= Waste generation ratio in Jakarta in 2010 ×

Waste generation ratio in Japan in 1990s Formula

3-1 Waste generation ratio in Japan in 1970s

49

Figure 3.1.13 Population Forecast in Jakarta Until 2030

(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report based with actual figures taken from Figure 1.1.3)

According to the projection, the population in 2030 will be 11,620,000. Therefore, the generated amount

of waste can be obtained through multiplying the waste generation ratio by the forecast population.

910 g /person per day × 11,620,000 people = 10,570 t/d

This is about 1.15 times larger than the forecast of 9,200 t/d by the Cleansing Bureau, however, variance

of around 15% is deemed to be within the expected range when the uncertainty of future forecasting is

taken into account, and the projection of 9,200 t/d is deemed to be valid.

(3) Problems Foreseen in Case of No Project Implementation

The problems that will arise in the event where the project is not implemented will be examined

separately for Jakarta, which is the source of generation of the target municipal waste, and Tangerang

Regency, which is where the project site is located. If the project is not implemented, the following

current conditions will not be improved and the existing problems will persist or deteriorate.

A) Problems in Jakarta

Since waste will be concentrated into the city’s only final disposal site at Bantar Gebang , excessive load

will be imparted; moreover, concentration of garbage collection trucks to a single destination will cause

traffic congestion and further diminish transportation efficiency, which in turn will lead to higher

transportation costs. Moreover, this traffic congestion will contribute to air pollution caused by exhaust

gases from vehicles.

At Bantar Gebang disposal site, although conditions will improve compared to the previous open

dumping situation, the daily intake of large quantities of waste will make it impossible to carry out earth

covering on the same day. If incoming quantities increase even more, there is concern that the existing

8360

8430

8500

8570

8640

8700

8760

9060

9140

9220 95

90

9490

96

00

9710

98

20

9940

10

050

1016

0 10

270

1038

0 10

500

1061

0 10

720

1083

0 10

950

1106

0 11

170

1128

0 11

390

1151

0 11

620 y = 112.09x + 8142.9

R² = 0.9265

0

3000

6000

9000

12000

15000

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

Regression formula

Population (thousands)

Actual value Projected value

50

landfilling work capacity will be exceeded, causing the site to revert to the state it was in prior to

rehabilitation. If waste continues to be carried in at this pace, the residual quantity will soon be run

down.

The issues facing waste treatment in Jakarta are described in the conclusion of Cleansing Summary 2010.

Realizing that too much waste is being carried to the existing final disposal site at Bantar Gebang and

that an environmental burden is being imparted, the authorities in Jakarta are searching for alternative

ways to mitigate the final disposal load.

B) Problems in Tangerang Regency

The final disposal site in Tangerang Regency conducts open dumping with hardly any earth covering,

and fermenting waste is left to combust spontaneously. Revision of pertinent legislation has made it

necessary to switch from open dumping to sanitary landfill by 2013, however, due to the difficulty of

acquiring covering materials and lack of experience in management technology, it will be very difficult

to effect improvement. Conversely, in Jati Waringin in Tangerang Regency, since there are no facilities

for receiving municipal wastes from Jakarta, no contribution can be expected with respect to the

rehabilitation of existing facilities through, for example, the economic effect and supply of covering

materials to existing final disposal sites described in the coming sections.

Incidentally, Chapter 4 discusses problems in terms of environmental and social consideration in greater

detail.

3.1.3 Effects and Impacts in Case of Project Implementation

The effects and impacts in the case where the project is implemented will be examined separately for

Jakarta, which is the source of generation of the target municipal waste, and Tangerang Regency, which is

where the project site is located.

(1) Effects and impacts in Jakarta

Project implementation will impart the following effect and impact factors in Jakarta.

a) The amount of waste landfilled in Bantar Gebang disposal site located in Bekasi to the east of

Jakarta will be decreased.

The effects and impacts of these factors will be as follows.

Not only will the amount of waste being landfilled at Bantar Gebang disposal site be decreased, but

since facilities will be constructed in the west of Jakarta as opposed to Bantar Gebang in the east, the

transportation efficiency of waste will be improved, waste transportation costs will be reduced, and

traffic congestion will be improved around Bantar Gebang. Moreover, this improvement in traffic

51

congestion will lead to improvement in air pollution arising from the exhaust gases of vehicles.

Furthermore, on Bantar Gebang disposal site, even though it is planned to switch from open dumping to

the more sanitary landfill approach, the site is unable to conduct earth covering on the same day due to

the large amounts of waste being carried in. However, since the amount of incoming waste will be

reduced as a result of the project, it will become possible to conduct same day earth cover, not to

mention the fact that a major effect can be expected in terms of extending the landfilling service life.

On the other hand, concern is raised over the negative impact of the project in that the reduction of

incoming municipal waste to Bantar Gebang disposal site will adversely affect the income of waste

pickers who make a living by collecting valuable wastes from the site and selling them. However, since

the waste pickers form an extensive organization, it is expected that the impact can be kept to a

minimum if the waste pickers move in line with the flow of waste.

(2) Effects and impacts in Tangerang Regency

Project implementation will impart the following effect and impact factors in Tangerang Regency.

a) Municipal wastes from not only Tangerang Regency but also Jakarta (1,500 t/d) will be carried into

Jati Waringin.

b) In Jati Waringin area, intermediate treatment facilities and a final disposal site for wastes from

Jakarta would be constructed next to a final disposal site next to the final disposal site owned by

Tangerang Regency. The new treatment and disposal site would be operated in an environmentally

sound manner.

The effects and impacts of these factors will be as follows.

Since Jati Waringinin Tangerang Regency will receive around 1,500 t/d of municipal waste from Jakarta,

the absolute quantity of valuable resources will increase and waste pickers will be able to earn greater

income. Here, it is necessary to consider that the waste pickers will lose their earnings from farming,

which accounts for 50% of their total income, due to the conversion of cultivated land to final disposal

site. Furthermore, since the facilities to be constructed will also serve to preserve the environment, they

will also contribute to limiting environmental impacts exerted by the existing final disposal site in

Tangerang Regency as far as their spare capacity goes. For example, through supplying manufactured

compost as cover material to the final disposal site in neighboring Tangerang Regency, this will help

facilitate the conversion of present open dumping to sanitary landfilling. In addition, it will become

possible to treated wastewater from plastic bag washing in the leachate treatment facilities and reuse the

treated water for washing plastics. Moreover, if compost products and RDF come to be locally utilized

with economic added value (improvement of cost effect of alternative materials), this will help generate

a social effect. Naturally, the creation of a new business in Tangerang Regency will impart economic

benefits. In the future, it is possible that the facility here will become a receptacle for the treatment and

52

disposal of municipal wastes in Tangerang Regency.

Meanwhile, in Jati Waringin in Tangerang Regency, concern is raised over the increase in municipal

waste transport vehicle traffic, resulting traffic congestion and environmental impact of exhaust gases,

etc. For this reason, it will be necessary to consider increase in transport efficiency, etc.

3.1.4 Comparison with Possible Options Other than the Proposed Project

Other possible options apart from the proposed system are as indicated in the next table. One option is to

not manufacture and sell combustibles (including plastics) after manual sorting as RDF and to landfill

them instead (herein after referred to as CASE 2. CASE 1 and CASE 2 are compared in order to evaluate

the impact of investments related to construction of RDF manufacturing facilities (Table 3.1.8).

below assuming inexpensive appropriate treatment and disposal in consideration of environmental

conservation. Comparison is carried out with the project.

In carrying out examination, general assessment will be carried out starting with the conceptual design

from section 3.3 onwards and entailing the environmental and social consideration examination in Chapter

4 and financial analysis in Chapter 5.

Table 3.1.8 Comparison between the Project and Other Options Transfer and secondary

transport Intermediate treatment Final disposal

Case 1 The Project Not included (primary

transportation by Jakarta)

MBT facilities, composting facilities, RDF manufacturing facilities

Semi-aerobic structure managed final disposal site Case 2 MBT facilities, composting

facilities (Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)

53

3.2 Examinations Necessary for Determining the Project Contents,

etc. 3.2.1 Demand Forecast

Concerning demand forecast, as was mentioned in section 3.1.2(2), through assessing the validity of the

Jakarta Cleansing Bureau’s projected amount of waste generation of 9,200 t/d in 2030, the demand in 2030

as forecast. Meanwhile, according to Table 3.1.5, the scale of facilities according to the latest plan is a total

5,000 t/d, comprising 1,000 t/d at Cakung Cilincing, 1,000 t/d at Sunter and 3,000 t/d at Bantar Gebang,

while an additional 2,000 t/d at Marunda and 1,500 t/d Tangerang Regency can be secured to make a total

of 8,500 t/d. However, since there is still no prospect of acquiring the necessary site land at Marunda, the

plans here have little likelihood of coming to fruition. Therefore, in order to at least secure treatment

capacity of 6,200 t/d in the immediate future, it is important to implement the development plans at

Cakung Cilincing, Sunter and Bantar Gebang as well as the project plan in Tangerang Regency. Doing so

will make it possible to secure facilities with capacity of 6,500 t/d for the time being.

In short, it is clear that there are demands in Jakarta for the project .

3.2.2 Grasping and Analysis of the Necessary Issues for Examining and Deciding the Project Contents

The necessary issues for examining and deciding the project contents are as follows:

a) Tipping fees sought from Jakarta (Rp/t)

b) Demand for compost

c) Demand for RDF

d) Sales of electricity generated from RDF

e) Transportation efficiency improvement effect

f) Acquisition of land

These issues are grasped and analyzed in the manner described below.

(1) Tipping fees sought from Jakarta (Rp/t)

It is necessary to grasp the cost that can be borne by Jakarta for the project. According to the Jakarta

Cleansing Bureau, the tipping fee for Cakung Cilincing, where sorting and composting is carried out, is

149,000 Rp/t, and this is set to rise to 189,000 Rp/t following introduction of MBT, etc. Incidentally,

when incineration facilities are constructed in Sunter , the tipping fee will be 400,000 Rp/t (upper limit).

In the project system, since MBT is included, tipping fee of 189,000 Rp/t can be expected.

(2) Demand for compost

It is necessary to grasp the level of demand for compost manufactured in the project. The advance

54

facilities at Cakung Cilincing and Bantar Gebang sell the compost derived from waste to farmers, etc.

There is expected to be latent demand for compost providing that the necessary quality can be secured.

Demand is also expected for maintenance of vegetation in public facilities and maintenance of lawns

and vegetation on golf courses and so on. Moreover, in line with the prohibition of open dumping from

2013, there is expected to be demand as covering material for conducting sanitary landfill on final

disposal sites. It is estimated that the present final disposal site in Tangerang Regency adjoining the

project site will generate demand of 140 t/d (＝800 m3/d x 0.35÷0.5 t/m3).

(3) Demand for RDF

It is necessary to grasp the level of demand for RDF manufactured in the project. The present municipal

waste treatment facilities at Cakung Cilincing and Bantar Gebang have expressed an interest in RDF

manufacture, but before that there is expected to be demand for RDF as raw fuel at cement plants. There

are four cement plants in Jakarta and these are expected to be promising sources of demand. The basis

for assuming this is described in section 3.1.1. According to a cement plant in Bogor Province to the

south of Jakarta, it intends to convert 20% of its coal requirement to non-coal fuel, while RDF is

purchased from communities at 150 Rp/kg as part of CSR, and this demand is expected to continue and

grow in future. Further, it has been identified that a cement factory in Jakarta is ready to purchase RDF

at 375 Rp/kg.

Moreover, a thermal power station is located on the coast 10 km northwest of the project site, and it is

expected that this will also utilize RDF due to higher demand for alternatives to fossil fuels against the

backdrop of global warming countermeasures and increased demand for energy.

(4) Sales of electricity generated from RDF

As demand for RDF has been identified, it is indispensable that the revenue from RDF power generation

exceeds the revenue from sales of RDF.

The balance of RDF power generation operation can be calculated as follows:

a. Generated electricity (per 1t of RDF): 20MJ/kg (equivalent to low-quality coal)×1,000 kg/t×

0.25 (power generation efficiency)÷3.6MJ/kWh = 1,042 kWh/t

b. Unit price of electricity: 1,000 Rp/kWh (8.6yen/khW, when 1Rp = 0.0086yen)

c. Depreciation related to RDF power generation plant construction cost: 30 million yen/t ÷

(365 days×20 years) = 4,100yen/t

d. Operation and maintenance cost: 1,500yen/t

e. Interest rate related to construction cost: 1,600yen/t (when 30 million yen is borrowed for

interest rate of 5% for 15 years and payment is equal monthly payment of principal)

f. Disposal cost of incineration reside: 1t×0.1 (ash generation ratio)×1,200yen/t = 120yen/t

g. Balance: (a－b)×c－(d＋e＋f＋g) = deficit of 80yen/t

55

From the results above, 80 yen of deficit will occur per 1t of RDF. As demand has been identified for

RDF, for the moment, the scope of the project will include only up to manufacturing and sales of RDF.

However, in the future, RDF power generation may become economically feasible depending on the

following conditions:

i) Increase in selling price of electricity

ii) Improvement in power generation efficiency

iii) Reduction of cost for construction, operation and maintenance of RDF power generation

plant

iv) Provision of subsidies

v) Decline in interest rate

(5) Transportation efficiency improvement effect

It is necessary grasp the transportation improvement effect that will be realized as a result of project

implementation. In particular, since West Jakarta City is located furthest away from the present Bantar

Gebang final disposal site, transporting waste from here will incur a large cost and much time, even if it

passes through the facilities at Sunter (current transfer station being prepared for construction of

incineration facilities). Accordingly, since the project intends to locate treatment and disposal facilities

on the west side of Jakarta, its implementation can be expected to have the greatest improvement effect.

This effect is estimated in the following paragraphs.

A) Improvement effect due to Project implementation (no transfer station)

The transportation improvement effect in the case where the project is implemented without a transfer

station was estimated based on the unit cost (Rp/t) from transportation to disposal targeting the

municipal waste generated in West Jakarta. In specific terms, comparison was carried out between the

case where 1,500 t/d of municipal waste in West Jakarta is directly transported to the project site as

primary transport, and the case where the waste is transported to Bantar Gebang final disposal site after

passing through the planned incineration facility at Sunter (existing plan). Figure 3.2.1 shows the

comparative cases and conditions (required time and running distances).

56

Figure 3.2.1A Conditions for Comparison of Transportation Improvement Effect in Case of

Project Implementation without the Transfer Station


Table 3.2.1B Comparison of improvement in transport when this project is implemented without

transfer station

(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report based on data from Google Map)

The various conditions are summarized in Table 3.2.1.

Jakarta Barat

ITF-Sunter

TPA-Bantar GebangTPA-Jati Waringin

Transport under this project（Without transfer station）

Existing plans for transport(Planned incinerration facility)

34km

20km

31km1hour

2hours2.1hours

JakartaBarat

Jati Waringin Sunter

Duri Kosambi

Bantar Gebang

57

Table 3.2.1 Conditions for Examining the Transportation Improvement Effect in the Case where

the Project is Implemented without the Base Station Item Unit Value

Primary transport

Loaded capacity m3 7Loaded unit volumetric capacity t/m3 0.25Vehicles purchase cost Million Rp/vehicle 550Depreciation period Years 10Light diesel oil cost Rp/liter 4,300Fuel consumotion km/ liter 3Number of personnel People 6Personnel expenses Rp/man-months 1,540,000

Secondary transport

Vehicle purchase cost Million Rp/vehicle 2,200Depreciation period Year 10Light diesel oil cost Rp/liter 4,300Fuel cost km/ liter 2Number of personnel Persons 1Personnel expenses Rp/man-month 2,002,000

Incineration cost Rp/t 360,000Ratio of maintenance cost compared to purchase cost - 0.2This project tipping fee Rp/t 189,000


The examination procedure is as indicated below, while Table 3.2.2 shows the examination process and

findings.

Unit cost (Rp/t) from transportation to disposal = Transportation unit cost + Treatment and Disposal

unit cost

Where,

Disposal unit cost: Incineration tipping fee (Including disposal cost) (360,000 Rp/t)

This project tipping fee (Rp/t) = 189,000 Rp/t

Transportation unit cost (Rp/t) = (vehicle depreciation cost + maintenance cost + fuel cost + personnel

expenses) ÷1,500

Vehicle depreciation cost (Rp/d) = Required number of vehicles x vehicle purchase cost ÷

depreciation years ÷ 365 x 1.2

Required number of vehicles = (Amount of waste ÷ Load per vehicle x 1-way travel time x 2) ÷

1 day operating hours

Maintenance cost (Rp/d) = Vehicle depreciation cost x ratio of maintenance cost to purchase

Fuel cost (Rp/d) = (waste amount ÷ loaded amount per vehicle x 1-way travel distance x 2) ÷

fuel cost x fuel unit cost

Personnel expenses (Rp/d) ÷ fuel cost ÷ depreciation years ÷ 365 x 1.2

58

Table 3.2.2 Results of Estimation of Transportation Improvement Effect Due to Project

Implementation (No transfer station)


According to the above table, the transportation cost will fall to 390,000 Rp/t compared to 465,000 Rp/t

in the case of passage through the planned incineration facilities at Sunter. Therefore, project

implementation will make it possible to reduce cost by approximately 16%.

B) Improvement effect due to project implementation (with transfer station)

The transportation improvement effect in the case where the project is implemented with a transfer

station was estimated based on the unit cost (Rp/t) from transportation to disposal targeting the

municipal waste generated in West Jakarta. In specific terms, based on the assumption that a transfer

station is constructed in Duri Kosambi, comparison was carried out between the case where 1,500 t/d of

municipal waste in West Jakarta is transported to the project site via this transfer station, and the case

where the waste is transported to Bantar Gebang final disposal site after passing through the planned

incineration facility at Sunter (existing plan). Figure 3.2.2 shows the comparative cases and conditions

(required time and running distances).

Project Existing plans Project Existing plans Project Existing plans

Waste (t/day) 1,500 1,500 150Loading capacity (t/vehicle) 1.75 1.75 20

(km） 34 20 31（hours） 2.1 1 2

Total time （hours) 3,600 1,714.30 30Total distance （km) 58,286 34,286 465Total vehicles （No.） 450 215 4

Cost of vehicles （Million Rp/day) 67.808 32.397 2.411Maintenance （Million Rp/day) 13.562 6.479 0.482

Fuel （Million Rp/day) 83.543 49.143 1Personnel （Million Rp/day) 136.701 65.313 0.263

Average dailytransport cost

（Million Rp/day) 301.614 153.332 4.156 301.614 157.488

Unit cost oftransport

(1,000Rp/t) 201 105

Loading ortreatment

(1,000Rp/t)

Cost for landfill (1,000Rp/t)

Unit cost (1,000Rp/t) 390 465

Primary transport

360

Item Total

189

Primary transport Secondary transport

59

Figure 3.2.2A Conditions for Comparison of Transportation Improvement Effect in Case of

Project Implementation with the Transfer Station


Figure 3.2.2A Comparison of improvement in transport when this project is implemented with

transfer station

(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report based on data from Google Map)

The various conditions are summarized in Table 3.2.3.

Jakarta Barat

ITF -Sunter

TPA -Bantar

SPA -Duri Kosambi(Under study)

TPA -Jati Waringin

Transport under this project (with transfer station)

Existing plans for transport

20km

1hour

5km

0.25hour30km1.9hours

2hour

31km

(planned incineration facility)

Jati WaringinSunter

Duri Kosambi

Bantar Gebang

Jakarta Barat

60

Table 3.2.3 Conditions for Examining the Transportation Improvement Effect in the Case where

the Project is Implemented with the Base Station Item Unit Value

Primary transport

Loaded capacity m3 7Loaded unit volumetric capacity t/m3 0.25Vehicles purchase cost Million Rp/vehicle 550Depreciation period Years 10Light diesel oil cost Rp/liter 4,300Fuel cost km/L 3Number of personnel People 6Personnel expenses Rp/man-months 1,540,000

Secondary transport

Vehicle purchase cost Million Rp/vehicle 2,200Depreciation period Year 10Light diesel oil cost Rp/liter 4,300Fuel cost km/L 2Number of personnel Persons 1Personnel expenses Rp/man-month 2,002,000

Reloading cost Rp/t 90,000Incineration cost Rp/t 360,000Ratio of maintenance cost compared to purchase cost - 0.2

This project tipping fee Rp/t 189,000(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)

The examination procedure is basically the same as was described above, but the items entailed in

having the transfer station are taken into account in the following formula. Table 3.2.4 shows the

examination process and results.

Unit cost (Rp/t) from transportation to disposal = Transportation unit cost + Reloading cost +

Treatment and Disposal unit cost

Where,

Reloading cost: 90,000 Rp/t

61

Table 3.2.4 Results of Estimation of Transportation Improvement Effect Due to Project

Implementation (With transfer station)

(Source: Prepared by authors of this report)

According to the above table, the transportation cost will fall to 330,000 Rp/t compared to 465,000 Rp/t

in the case of passage through the planned incineration facilities at Sunter. Therefore, Project

implementation will make it possible to reduce cost by approximately 30%.

Furthermore, in A) and B) above, when comparing the cases of project implementation with and without

the transfer station, whereas the unit cost in the case without the transfer station is 390,000 Rp/t, that in

the case with the transfer station is330,000 Rp/t. Therefore, it will be important to establish the transfer

station.

(6) Acquisition of land

The business scheme of this project includes acquisition of land. When acquiring land, it is planned that

an investment company would jointly be established with a local company. However, following issues

exist.

i) Consensus of the land owners

ii) Consensus of the land owners

In order to solve issue (i), as the purpose of the land acquisition is in accordance with the land use plan,

support of the local authorities will be sought, and the environmental and social considerations would be

explained to the landowners. In order to solve issue (ii), actual limitations would be identified through

legal experts. Regarding issue (ii), it has been already confirmed that it should not hinder the

implementation of the project itself.

3.2.3 Examination of Technical Methods

Alternative (competitive) technologies and systems for the project proposed technologies and systems are

Project Existing plans Project Existing plans Project Existing plans

Waste (t/day) 1500 1500 1500 150Loading capacity (t/vehicle) 1.75 1.75 20 20

(km） 5 20 30 31（hours） 0.25 1 1.9 2

Total time （hours) 428.6 1714.3 285 30Total distance （km) 8571 34286 4500 465Total vehicles （No.） 54 215 36 4

Cost of vehicles （Million Rp/day) 8.137 32.397 21.699 2.411Maintenance （Million Rp/day) 1.627 6.479 4.34 0.482

Fuel （Million Rp/day) 12.285 49.143 9.675 1Personnel （Million Rp/day) 16.404 65.313 2.369 0.263

Average dailytransport cost （Million Rp/day) 38.453 153.332 38.083 4.156 76.536 157.488Unit cost of

transport(1,000Rp/t) 51 105

Loading ortreatment

(1,000Rp/t) 90

Cost for landfill (1,000Rp/t) 189Unit cost (1,000Rp/t) 330 465

Primary transport

360

Item TotalPrimary transport Secondary transport

62

as follows. With respect to these, the following sections describe the superiority and validity of the

technologies and systems proposed in the project, and compatibility with related infrastructure and systems,

etc.

a) Incineration (waste power generation) + managed final disposal site: Comparison of superiority,

validity and compatibility of the MBT + composting + RDF with respect to incineration technology

b) Methane fermentation + RDF + managed disposal site: Comparison of superiority,

validity and compatibility of composting with respect to methane fermentation

(1) Comparison of superiority, validity and compatibility of the MBT + composting + RDF with respect to

incineration technology

A) Outline of incineration technology

Incineration technology entails incinerating organic wastes at high temperature and thereby converting

them into a large amount of stabilized gases and a small amount of stabilized inorganic matter. Within

various intermediate treatment technologies, incineration technology has the greatest volume reducing

effect, thereby contributing to extending the life of final disposal sites. Moreover, incineration prevents

the putrefaction of organic waste and has a sterilizing effect. The heat collected from incineration can be

used for power generation or be supplied to surrounding facilities, while substitution of fossil fuels

contributes to reduction of CO2.

Introduction of incineration technology is highly valid in cases where it is impossible to locate a final

disposal site for waste from the local area. However, concerning exhaust gases that have an adverse

environmental impact such as highly toxic dioxin, etc., it is necessary to establish appropriate exhaust

gas treatment facilities, conduct the incineration management of waste and implement appropriate

operation and maintenance. In many large cities of advanced countries, such facilities are used as core

intermediate treatment facilities in waste treatment.

B) Merits

The merits of incineration technology are as follows:

a) Volume reduction effect is large.

b) Strict separation and discharge are not needed.

c) Effects are large in terms of organic waste putrefaction prevention and sterilization

C) Demerits

The demerits of incineration technology are as follows.

a) Construction costs and operation

63

b) Operation and maintenance require technology and experience

c) Fly ash which include heavy metals would be generated, which cannot be directly landfilled

D) Comparison in terms of superiority, validity and compatibility in the project

In order to utilize the volume reduction effect, which is the advantage of incineration technology, it is

necessary to locate the facility as close to the place of waste generation as possible. In other words,

through reducing volume at the generation point and transporting residues to the final disposal site, it is

possible to reduce the transportation cost. Feasibility is assessed through considering how far the effects

in terms of transportation cost reduction and disposal site life extension can cover the demerits of high

construction costs and operation and maintenance costs.

In order to overcome the demerit of high construction costs and operation and maintenance costs, it is

necessary to reduce costs based on localized procurement of equipment and to raise the ability to bear

costs. When this is examined in terms of per capita GDP, in Tokyo, combustion technology was

introduced in the 1990s when the per capita GDP rose to 20,000 USD. In the case of Jakarta, since per

capita GDP currently stands at 7,000 USD per year, it may be still too early to entirely introduce

incineration technology. When predicting the timing for future introduction of incineration technology

based on cost bearing capacity, in the case where the per capita GDP of Jakarta indicates the same

behavior that it did in Tokyo in the 1980s and 1990s (approximately 8,000 USD in the 1970s, 14,000

USD in the 1980s and 20,000 USD in the 1990s), it is predicted that 20 years from now in 2030 will be

an appropriate time. Incidentally, the upper limit for the tipping fee in the incineration facility

construction project (1,500 t/d) that Jakarta is preparing for tender is 400,000 Rp/t (currently, the cost

bearing capacity of Jakarta goes no further than bearing the cost of incinerating 1,500 t/d out of 6,200 t/d

of generated waste; moreover, it is likely to be difficult to secure site land in the waste generation area).

Considering the characteristics of available expansive sites, the MBT + Compost + RDF system

proposed in the project utilizes simple and cheap technology over a wide area to recover and sell

recyclable resources and then to properly dispose of residues at a semi-aerobic structure managed final

disposal site. For this reason, upon considering the site location characteristics and the cost bearing

capacity of Jakarta municipal authorities (the manager of the target municipal waste), a feasible

technology and system are proposed. Moreover, the semi-aerobic structure final disposal site will realize

the early stabilization of waste due to adopting semi-aerobic rather than anaerobic landfill, and it will

enable the early utilization of the site. This structure has a similar effect regarding incineration ash too,

and it enables a bigger effect to be obtained in the landfill of non-combusted wastes.

The fly ash that will be generated from incineration would contain hazardous substances such as heaby

metals. Therefore, management techniques should be applied for proper treatment (e.g. chemical

treatment) before putting it into landfill.

64

(2) Comparison of superiority, validity and compatibility of composting with respect to methane

fermentation

A) Outline of methane fermentation technology

Methane fermentation entails fermenting organic wastes with high water content in an anaerobic

environment at constant temperature, and recovering biogases comprising mainly methane and carbon

dioxide. The recovered biogases are utilized as fuel for supplying heat and generating power.

Following recovery of biogas, digestion fluid that includes unfermented degradable solids and

non-degradable solids remains as residue. These substances require separate treatment. However, if the

conditions are right, there are cases where solids-liquid separation is conducted, wastes are adjusted or

composted for utilization on farmland, etc.

B) Merits

The merits of methane fermentation are as follows.

a) Methane fermentation is technically simple.

b) If the residual digestion fluid can be effectively used, the final disposal quantity is reduced to

the materials that are inappropriate for methane fermentation and it is relatively cheaper in

terms of construction cost and operation and maintenance cost too.

C) Demerits

The demerits of methane fermentation are as follows.

a) It is necessary to separately discharge organic wastes.

b) It is necessary to conduct pretreatment geared to screening inappropriate items that infiltrate

the organic wastes.

c) In cases where it is necessary to treat digestion fluids, the construction costs and operation and

maintenance costs become expensive.

D) Comparison in terms of superiority, validity and compatibility in the project

The assessment of methane fermentation technology greatly differs according to the way that digestion

fluid is handled. If it is necessary to treat the digestion fluid, costs arise in the construction, operation

and maintenance of treatment facilities. Meanwhile, there are cases where digestion fluid is utilized as

liquid fertilizer, however, these are extremely limited and risks arise out of quality fluctuations

compared to solid fertilizers.

Concerning this point, the compost proposed in the project will be retailed to farmers and so on in

Cakung Cilincing and Bantar Gebang. Such cases already exist. Moreover, it is anticipated that demand

will arise as cover material for sanitary landfill as a countermeasure to open dumping that will be

prohibited in 2013. Moreover, since wastes will undergo primary fermentation in the MBT process, the

65

subsequent composting of organic waste will become a maturation process (secondary fermentation),

thereby enabling rational system operation with mitigation of the operation load and so on.

Below is the comparison of material flow and cost of compost and methane fermentation of organic

wastes among MSW that the project will handle. According to the comparison, it can be said that the

composting process is more suitable for the wastes rather than the methane fermentation process,

because methane fermentation facilities will cost more than double the cost for composting facilities.

Figure 3.2.3 Material Flow of Composting and Methane Fermentation Process of Organic Wastes


625 t/d

790 t/d 165 t/d

75,537 Nm3/d 170 t/d

790 t/d 277 t/d 107 t/d

2,480 m3/d1,414 m3/d

1,066 m3/d

Composting

Organic wastes Product

Decomposition/evaporation

For sales andcover soil

Methane Fermentation

Organic wastes Fermentation residue

Biogas

Supernatant

Composting

Effluent

Returningdillution water

Decomposition/evaporation

Product

For sales andcover soil

66

Table 3.2.5 Cost Comparison of Composting and Methane Fermentation Process of Organic Wastes Item Composting Process Methane Fermentation Process *3

Revenue 0*1 1,000 yen/y 402,814*2 1,000 yen/y Expenditure Construction cost 3,950,000 1,000 yen 15,800,000 1,000 yen

Life of facility 20 years 20 years Annual depreciation 197,500 1,000 yen/y 790,000 1,000 yen/y Operation, maintenance, management cost 276,500 1,000 yen/y 790,000 1,000 yen/y Total expenditure 474,000 1,000 yen/y 1,580,000 1,000 yen/y

Balance -474,000 1,000 yen/y -1,177,186 1,000 yen/y NOTE:

*1 Considered to be zero for the sake of simplicity

*2 Revenue from selling excess power (8.9 yen/kWh) when power is generated from collected biogas

(25 % efficiency)

*3 Although composting process follows the methane fermentation process in Figure 3.2.3, its cost was not

included here for the sake of simplicity


67

3.3 Outline of the Project Planning

3.3.1 Basic Policies in Determining the Project Contents

(1)Basic principal and evaluation index

The basic principal for the determination of the content of the project is the realization of an environmental

friendly treatment and disposal systems of municipal waste that can be achieved at low cost. Hence, this

project aims to achieve a low environmental load as compared to the present while at the same time

preserving the economic merit. As concrete index for evaluation, emission amount of GHG and tipping fee

required for the establishment of the project are considered.

(2) Prerequisite for the determination of project content

The following are set as prerequisites,

A) Target waste amount

As indicated in Chapter 3 (3.1), the target waste amount is 1,500 t/d. It includes 1,300 t/d of household

waste and 200 t/d of market waste

B)Waste composition

Regarding the composition of waste, data from “Outline of Jakarta Cleaning Operations 2010” and

SAPROF data have been used to set the ratio of wet-weight composition and article wise

three-component data from “Design scheme of waste treatment facilities of Japan” has been used to set

the ratio of dry-weight composition.

Table 3.3.1 Waste composition ratio of household waste (wet-weight ratio) Composition

itemWet weight

ratioMoisture content

Ash component

Combustible content

Organic(kitchen waste) 50% 70.0% 10.0% 20.0%

Plastic 15% 20.0% 17.0% 63.0%Paper 23% 40.0% 6.1% 53.9%Wood 1% 35.0% 4.0% 61.0%Clothes and textile 1% 35.0% 5.0% 60.0%

Metal 1% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Glass 2% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Others 7% 30.0% 65.0% 5.0%Sum/Total 100.% 50.0% 16.6% 33.4%

(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report using data obtained from “Outline of Jakarta Cleaning

Operations 2010”, “SAPROF” and “Design scheme of waste treatment facilities of Japan”)

68

Table 3.3.2 Planned waste composition ratio (dry weight ratio) of household waste Composition

itemPlanned

valueMoisture content Ash content Combustible

content Organic(kitchen waste) 15.0% 35.00% 5.00% 10.00%Plastic 12.0% 3.00% 2.55% 9.45%Paper 13.8% 9.20% 1.40% 12.40%Wood 0.7% 0.35% 0.04% 0.61%Clothes and textile 0.7% 0.35% 0.05% 0.60%Metal 1.0% 0.00% 1.00% 0.00%Glass 2.0% 0.00% 2.00% 0.00%Others 4.8% 2.10% 4.55% 0.35%Sum/Total 50.0% 50.00% 16.59% 33.41%Moisture content 50.0%



Table 3.3.3 Waste composition ratio (wet-weight ratio) of market waste

Composition

item

wet-weight

ratio Moisture content Ash content Combustible

content

Organic(kitchen waste) 70% 70.0% 10.0% 20.0%

Plastic 5% 20.0% 17.0% 63.0%

Paper 5% 40.0% 6.1% 53.9%

Wood 5% 35.0% 4.0% 61.0%Clothes and textile 5% 35.0% 5.0% 60.0%

Metal 5% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0%

Glass 2.5% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0%

Others 2.5% 30.0% 65.0% 5.0%

Sum/Total 100% 56.3% 17.7% 26.0%



69

Table 3.3.4 Planned waste composition ratio (dry-weight ratio) of market waste

Composition

item

Planned

value Moisture content Ash content Combustible

content

Organic(kitchen waste) 21.0% 49.00% 7.00% 14.00%

Plastic 4.0% 1.00% 0.85% 3.15%

Paper 3.0% 2.00% 0.31% 2.70%

Wood 3.3% 1.75% 0.20% 3.05%Clothes and textile 3.3% 1.75% 0.25% 3.00%

Metal 5.0% 0.00% 5.00% 0.00%

Glass 2.5% 0.00% 2.50% 0.00%

Others 1.6% 0.75% 1.63% 0.13%

Sum/Total 43.7% 56.25% 17.74% 26.03%

Moisture

content 56.3%



C) Treatment system flow and material balance

The treatment system flow of this project is shown in figure 3.3.1 and 3.3.2. In all the subject cases,

separate systems exist for the household waste and market waste for the steps of intake, shredding,

fermentation, segregation and composting. For the steps of RDF manufacture after segregation (only

case 1) and landfilling (case 1 and case 2 common), waste from both the systems are mixed.

70

Figure 3.3.1 Treatment system flow (case 1)


Figure 3.3.2 Treatment system flow (case 2)


D) Collection of valuables

In the landfill site located at Tangerang, which lies adjacent to the project site, as explained in 4.1.1,

collection of valuables like plastic bags is being carried out by waste pickers (the collection ratio of 14

t/d is roughly 10% of the total waste intake into the landfill (150 t/d). In this project, collection of

valuables will utilize these pre existing collection methods. The items to be collected, as indicated in

table 4.1.6, are plastics, iron products, aluminum products, cans, glasses, sandals and light bulbs.

Fermentation Composting(Productiion)

Recyclable Selling

Residue

Soil amelioration

household waste

MagneticSeparator

Mechanical sortingManual Sorting

Bag Breaker

Fermentationmarketwaste

MagneticSeparator

Mechanical sorting

Bag Breaker

Final Disposal

Composting(Productiion) Soil amelioration

MBT

MBT

Cement Factory

Fermentation Composting(Productiion)

Recyclable Selling

Residue

Soil amelioration

household waste

MagneticSeparator

Mechanical sortingManual Sorting

Bag Breaker

Fermentationmarketwaste

MagneticSeparator

Mechanical sorting

Bag Breaker

RDF Productiion

Final Disposal

Composting(Productiion) Soil amelioration

MBT

MBT

71

E) Product specification

In this project, municipal waste will be used for composting and manufacturing of RDF (case 1). The

product specification of compost will comply with the composting standard of Indonesia which has been

set by SNI 19-7030-2004 GPSCDOR as shown in 1.2.3. The compost manufactured from the market

waste will be manufactured using a separate line from the organic waste collected from households. It is

aimed that the compost will be sold in markets as in the case of the example of Tangerang.

F) Environmental measures

F1) Noise

In the boundary of the project premises, the sound level will satisfy the standard of 70dB, which is the

standard for commercial/industrial/recreational facilities land use category as specified in the 1996

Decree of the State Minister for Environment of Republic of Indonesia concerning Noise Level (refer

1.2.3).

F2) Vibration

In the boundary of the project premises, the vibration level will satisfy the “no impacts” standard as

specified in the Decree of the State Minister for Environment of Republic of Indonesia concerning

Vibration Level (refer 1.2.3).

F3) Odor

In the boundary of the project premises, the odor level will satisfy the standard as specified in the 1996

Decree of the State Minister for Environment of Republic of Indonesia concerning Offensive Odor.

F4) Water quality

The items to be landfilled include the residue after the segregation/collection of valuables, organic waste

and combustible case (case 1) or the residue after the segregation/collection of valuables and organics

(case 2). In this case it can be assumed that a portion of organic waste will be present in a mixed state

with the residue. Hence, the leachate quality from the landfill will be set, as a safety measure, under the

assumption that organic matter has been mixed with the residue. The quality of pre-treated leachate has

been set using data from landfills where organic waste have been directly landfilled, as shown in table

3.3.5. The water quality of treated leachate will meet the effluent standards which apply for leachate

from final disposal sites in Indonesia (set by the Guidelines on Sanitary Landfills).

72

Table 3.3.5 Standard of treated and pre-treatment leachate from landfills

Item Pre-treatment

leachate quality

Treated leachate quality

Stanadrd Planned under the

project pH 5.0～9.0 6.0～9.0 6.0～9.0

BOD 4,000mg/liter 150mg/liter 100mg/liter

COD 1,000mg/liter 300mg/liter 100mg/liter

SS 500mg/liter 400mg/liter 50mg/liter

T-N 350mg/liter 38mg/liter 35mg/liter

(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report based on Guidelines on Sanitary Landfills)

3.3.2 Conceptual Design and Specifications of Applicable Equipment

(1) Intermediate treatment facility

A) Material balance and conceptual design

Taking into account the treatment system flow as shown in figures 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 and considering the

performance and treatment mechanism, material balance, as shown in figures 3.3.3 and 3.3.4 is proposed

and considered.

73

Figure 3.3.3 Material balance flow (CASE 1)

(Source: Prepared by the authors of the report)

Figure 3.3.4 Material balance flow (CASE 2)


The conceptual design of the respective processes is shown below.

a) Manual segregation (household waste)

Manual segregation targeting household waste will be carried out by three groups of existing 400 waste

pickers. This will result in the collection of valuables like plastics, iron or aluminum products, cans,

glass etc present in household waste with a purity of 100% and a recovery rate of 35%.

74

b) Fermentation (household waste and market waste. Different systems)

During fermentation, breakdown of organic matter and the evaporation of water content due to

decomposition heat (exothermic reaction) will result in reduction of volume. The evaporation of the

water content due to decomposition heat will result also in the evaporation of water content that is

included in inorganic waste that does not decompose during the fermentation process.

Table 3.3.6 Decomposition rate and decomposition heat from the organic component

Item Decomposition ratio of

solid component

Decomposition heat of

solid component

Kitchen waste 30％ 18.8MJ/kg

Other organic waste 20％ 11.5MJ/kg


c) Compost (Household waste and market waste. Different systems)

As opposed to fermentation as explained in b) above which is considered as the primary fermentation

process where air is introduced to prepare an aerobic environment which promotes fermentation,

compost is prepared from the secondary fermentation process whereby the organic matter prepared as a

result of the primary fermentation process is matured to produce a compost product.

B) Specification of the major equipments.

Equipment specification of the intermediate treatment facility is shown in table 3.3.7.

Table 3.3.7 Equipment specification of the intermediate treatment facility

No Process Major equipments, devices Specification

１ Waste intake and storage

Building (Concrete floor)

Length 200m×Width 480m Total equipment inspection: 7days/inspection = Retention days: 7 days/inspection

2 Bag shredding Bag breaker Treatment capacity: 80m3/h

Treatment capacity: 3.7×5.5kW

3 Manual segregation Conveyer 3m Width×60m×8 rows

4 Magnetic segregation

Magnetic segregation

5

Fermentation Building (concrete floor)

Length 260m×Width 500m Space for 14 days storage: 14,760t

Wheel loader Volume of packet 1.5m3 compost turning capacity about 200m3 per hour, 30 in number

Conveyer No 1 200m×1m width×1 row Conveyer No 2 500m×1m width×1row

6 Mechanical segregation

Mechanical segregation

Treatment amount 261.88m3/h (16h treatment)

7 RDF manufacture (only for CASE 1)

Compacting and bailing

480 t/d

75

No Process Major equipments, devices Specification

8 Compost manufacture

Building (Concrete Floor not required)

Length 90m×Width 180m Space for 14 days worth storage : 2,310t

NOTE: (Conceptual design) if the time to pick up in packets, move it and unload it is considered to be

about 1 minute, the operating efficiency can be estimated from the volume of the packet. The average

efficiency of tractors and skid loaders for turning is from about 15 to 54m3/h. Wheel loaders have excellent

turning performance and have a large hydraulic lift that makes them preferable to tractors from the

viewpoint of ease of work. The compost turning efficiency for a wheel loader using packet volume of

1.5m3 is equal to 200m3/h.


The treatment system flow expressed above is shown in the figure below as reference.

Reference: Detailed Treatment System Flow of Principal Facilities


(2) Final Disposal Site Landfill

A. Landfill development plan

According to the geological survey, ground in the landfill site partially comprises a thin sandy surface

layer, while the majority comprises silt clay. In order to secure landfill above the groundwater layer,

the land will be excavated to 2.5 m, and banking of similar height will be built in order to make a

landfill that is 5 m deep. In consideration of seepage control works, the shape of site creation has been

configured based on the banking slope gradient geared to securing uniformity of the slope structure.

76

According to the following table, the banking slope gradient of landfill is prescribed as 1:1.8~1:2.0

for soft clay, although this applies to structures that are no more than 5 m high. In the Project, when

raised landfill slope is included, since the structure will be more than 15 m high, gradient of 1:2.5 has

been set. Also considering the possibility that compost will be utilized as covering material, the slope

gradient has been set at a gentle angle to further enhance safety.

Table 3.3.8 Banking Slope Gradient

Banking Material Banking Height Gradient Remarks

Good particle size sand (SW) Gravel or sand mixed with gravel (GM) (GC) (GW) (GP)

Less than 5m 1：1.5～1：1.8 Apply when the foundation ground has adequate bearing capacity and there is no risk of water infiltration of banking. The unified classifications in parentheses “( )” indicate representative types.

5～15m 1：1.8～1：2.0

Poor particle size sand (SP) Less than 10m 1：1.8～1：2.0

Rocks (including earth) Less than

10m 1：1.5～1：1.8

10～20m 1：1.8～1：2.0 Sandy soil (SM) (SC), hard clayey soil, hard clay (hard diluvial clayey soil, clay, Kanto loam, etc.)

Less than 5m 1：1.5～1：1.8

5～10m 1：1.6～1：2.0

Soft clayey soil Less than 5m 1：1.8～1：2.0

Note) Banking height refers to the height difference between top of slope and foot of slope. Source: “Guidelines on Planning, Design and Management of Waste Disposal Site Construction” (Japan Waste Management Association)

77

Table 3.3.9 Cutting Slope Gradient

Ground Soil Quality Cutting Height Gradient

Hard rock 1：0.3～1：0.8Soft rock 1：0.5～1：1.2

Sand Unconsolidated sand with poor particle size distribution 1：1.5～

Sandy soil Consolidated Less than 5m 1：0.8～1：1.0

5～10m 1：1.0～1：1.2

Unconsolidated Less than 5m 1：1.0～1：1.25～10m 1：1.2～1：1.5

Gravel or sandy soil mixed with rocks

Consolidated soil with good particle size distribution

Less than 10m 1：0.8～1：1.010～15m 1：1.0～1：1.2

Unconsolidated soil with poor particle size distribution

Less than 10m 1：1.0～1：1.2

10～15m 1：1.2～1：1.5

Clayey soil Less than 10m 1：0.8～1：1.2Note) Silt is classified as clayey soil. Source: “Guidelines on Planning, Design and Management of Waste Disposal Site Construction” (Japan Waste Management Association)

B. Design Landfill Capacity

Two scenarios will be considered for landfill activity in the Project: first is the case of 123 t/d of

noncombustible waste only (CASE 1), and second is the case of 438 t/d of both noncombustible and

combustible waste (CASE 2).

Table 3.3.10 Design Landfill Capacity Calculation Sheet Landfill Case Waste targeted for

landfillWeight (t/d) Landfill period (y) Design total weight

(t) CASE 1 Noncombustible

waste123

20

897,900

CASE 2

Noncombustible waste and combustible waste 438 3,197,400

Landfill Case Unit volume weight (t/m3)

Design waste capacity (m3)

Covering soil capacity (m3) Total capacity (m3)

CASE 1 0.5 1,795,800 628,530 2,424,330CASE 2 0.5 6,029,800 2,238,180 8,632,980

Landfill Case Model design

landfill capacity (m3)

Remarks

CASE 1 2,500,000 Basically adopt zonal landfill divided into 4 sections. CASE 2 8,780,000 Basically adopt zonal landfill over 3 terms (5 years per term)

and 4 sections. (Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)

78

C. Landfill method

From the viewpoint of improving the properties of leachate and landfill gases as shown in Figure

3.3.5, a semi-aerobic landfill structure with open leachate collection pipes (vent pipes) will be

adopted.

Figure 3.3.5 Semi-aerobic Landfill Structure

Source: “Guidelines on Planning, Design and Management of Waste Disposal Site Construction” (Japan

Waste Management Association)

Moreover, as is shown in Figure 3.3.5, the waste will be landfilled by the sandwich approach

comprising an earth-fill dam, an intermediate soil covering and a final soil covering; moreover,

same-day soil covering will be conducted in order to prevent occurrence and spread of fires, fly-off of

waste, occurrence of odor and hygiene pests and so on.

D. Landfill work

As the Project site is on flatland, it will be necessary to conduct landfill to a height higher than the

holding dam and peripheral management road in order to secure the design landfill capacity. For this

reason, the sloped earth dam will be established in advance and the waste materials will be landfilled

to no higher than this.

The sloped earth-fill dam will be built no higher than 2.5 m and the gradient will be no greater than

1:25. Crest width of at least 4 m will be secured. The sloped earth-fill dam will be quickly planted

with vegetation to prevent the surface soil from being washed away.

Fully compacting the waste is important for stabilizing the landfill ground, thereby extending the life

of the landfill and enhancing the possibility to utilize the landfill site after it is closed. Waste will be

scattered to a thickness of 30~50 cm and compacted by pressing with a rolling compaction machine

going back and forth around five times. Thickness of a single landfill layer will be no greater than 3 m,

79

3000

5002500

2500

25001:2.5

1:2.51:2.5

4000

物棄廃

土覆

堤堰土

4000

2000

and intermediate cover soil of around 50 cm will be applied for each layer.

Through landfilling easily scattered wastes with other wastes and sediment, and also by sprinkling

water to prevent dust from rising at arid times, scattering of waste can be prevented and a major effect

can be obtained for rolling compaction too. However, water should not be sprinkled in excess of the

evapotranspiration volume since this would increase the amount of leachate generated.

a) Earth-fill dam

The landfill slope will be formed in stages by building the earth-fill dam in line with the progression

of landfill as shown in Figure 3.3.6. The inner side of the dam will be lined with impermeable liner.

Figure 3.3.6 Landfill Slope Structure


b) Cover soil

Intermediate cover soil: Apply 0.5 m of cover soil for every 3.0 m of waste.

Final cover soil: Apply 0.5~1.0 m of cover soil after completion of landfill

Cover soil material: Compost made from household waste would be applied

Cover soil volume: Necessary amount of cover soil: CASE 1: 630,000 m3,

CASE 2: 2,240,000 m3

Cover soil

Waste

Soil Embankment

mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

80

c) Landfill work

Figure 3 shows the flow of landfill work.

Figure 3.3.7 Flow of Landfilling operation

【landfilling operation】

End of day`s work

Completion of a compartment

Source: “Guidelines on Planning, Design and Management of Waste Disposal Site Construction” (Japan

Waste Management Association)

d) Landfill site maintenance plan

d1) Facilities maintenance and management

Facilities such as the storage dam and seepage control works will be inspected every day, and

improvement steps will be immediately implemented when risk of damage is found in them.

Surrounding enclosures will be inspected and maintained at least once per month and the damaged

sections will be immediately repaired. Gates will be closed and locked at the end of work every day.

In order to maintain the functions of drainage facilities and regulating reservoir, etc. for preventing

rainwater from flowing into the landfill, inspections will be conducted, accumulated sediment will be

removed and facilities will be repaired on a regular basis.

The incoming road will be kept clean and repaired as the need arises. Also, the vehicle washing

Carry in

Measurement

Dumping

Placement Shredding Surface compaction

(Daily earth cover)

Intermediate cover

Final cover

End of landfilling

Installation of hauling road

Slope construction

81

equipment will be periodically inspected and sediment will be promptly removed when it

accumulates.

d2) Landfill management

Incoming waste will as a rule be compacted, covered with soil and leveled, etc. on the day it arrives.

The impermeable liner will be inspected periodically and, in cases where there is risk that the seepage

control effect declines, the necessary steps will be taken to restore effectiveness.

d3) Management after landfilling

After landfill disposal is completed on the landfill site, drainage facilities of sufficient structure and

scale to drain off rainwater without any problem will be installed.

The cover soil will be inspected for subsidence, runoff and cracking, etc. and repairs will be made as

the need arises.

E. Seepage Control Plan

a) Structure of seepage control works based on Indonesian guidelines

According to Technical Guidelines on Final Disposal Site (Ministry of Public Works, 2006), the basic

seepage control structure uses clay as shown in the figure below. This prescribes that two 25 cm thick

layers of clay with coefficient of permeability of 1 x 10―7cm/s are built with a compaction intensity of

95%, and that these be sandwiched between an upper cohesive soil layer of 1 x 10―7cm/s and a lower

soil layer of 1 x 10―5cm/s. In terms of the landfill ideal of returning waste to the ground, these are

ideal seepage control materials, however, it is extremely difficult to secure such a high degree of

quality over a wide area. Since the said guidelines also allow for the use of geo-membrane products,

etc. that have empirical technical specifications, it may be more realistic to use such products. In the

plan here, the seepage control structure that is prescribed under Japanese law will be applied.

82

Ordinary soil 30cm Solid waste Ordinary soil 30cm k=10―4cm/s Geotextile Gravel 15cm Original compactedsoil 15cm k=10―7cm/s Clay 25cm Clay 25cm

Original compactedsoil 15cm k=10―5cm/s

Figure 3.3.8 Basic Structure of Landfill

(Source: Ministry of Public Works, 2006, Technical Guidelines on Final Disposal Site)

b) Seepage control structure according to Japanese standard ministerial ordinance

In Japan, based on revision of the “Order to partially revise the order stipulating technical standards

for general waste final disposal sites and industrial waste final disposal sites, 1998, Prime Minister’s

Office and Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare Ordinance No. 2” (hereafter called the standard

ministerial ordinance), steps are taken to strengthen water seepage control functions through adopting

dual seepage control and installing protective layers based on combination of impermeable liner and

impervious soil, etc. The seepage control structure prescribed under the standard ministerial ordinance

is as indicated below.

b1) Ground conditions where seepage control is not needed (standard ministerial ordinance Article 1,

Section 1, paragraph 5, sub-paragraph (a))

The ground comprises at least 5 m of continuous strata with a coefficient of permeability of no greater

than 100 nm/s (1 x 10-5cm/s), or the surface seepage control structure comprises one of the following

three types or an equivalent or better structure.

b2) Surface seepage control structure (standard ministerial ordinance Article 1, Section 1, paragraph 5,

sub-paragraph (a), (1))

Cases where impermeable liner at least 50 cm thick is spread over surface comprising clay, etc. with

coefficient of permeability of no greater than 100 nm/s (1 x 10-5cm/s) and thickness of 50 cm or

greater.

Cases where impermeable liner is spread over watertight asphalt concrete, etc. with coefficient of

permeability of no greater than 1 nm/s (1 x 10-7cm/s) and thickness of 5 cm or greater.

83

Cases where double impermeable liner is laid over a surface comprising unwoven cloth, etc. Cases

where unwoven cloth, etc. is placed in between two layers of seepage control lining to ensure that

both layers are not simultaneously damaged.

(Exceptional provision) In cases of slopes with a gradient of 50% or greater and where there is no

risk that leachate will build up, structure comprising spray mortar lined with impermeable liner or

rubber asphalt is acceptable.

b3) Provisions for protection of surface seepage control works

Unwoven cloth, etc. will be laid on the surface of impermeable liner in order to prevent degradation

of the liner in places where there is risk of degradation caused by sunlight (standard ministerial

ordinance Article 1, Section 1, paragraph 5, sub-paragraph (a), (2)).

A protective covering of sand, etc. will be applied before the start of work (standard ministerial

ordinance Article 2, Section 1, paragraph 8).

b4) Structure of vertical seepage control works (standard ministerial ordinance Article 1, Section 1,

paragraph 5, sub-paragraph (b))

In cases where ground under the landfill site is entirely composed of impervious earth strata, the

following vertical seepage control works are permitted.

Cases where the Lugeon value of ground down to the impervious layer is fixed at no greater than 1

through injection of chemical additives, etc.

Cases where continuous wall with coefficient of permeability of no greater than 10 nm/s (1 x

10-6cm/s) and thickness of 50 cm or greater is constructed down to the impervious layer.

Cases where steel sheet pile is installed down to the impervious layer, or where surface seepage

control has been implemented.

Japanese surface seepage control standards are based on the principle of maintaining a constant ratio

between the coefficient of permeability and seepage control layer thickness, with respect to seepage

control structures other than impermeable liner. In other words, if the hydraulic grade is constant, the

quantity of pollutants leaking from the landfill every unit hour (= water leakage passage speed) will

be the same in all structures, and the risk of groundwater pollution will also be the same.

84

Figure 3.3.9 Provisions on Surface Seepage Control Structure based on Standard Ministerial

Ordinance

(Source: “Guidelines on Planning, Design and Management of Waste Disposal Site Construction” (Japan

Waste Management Association))

c) Seepage control structure in the Project

According to the findings of the geological survey on the Project site, the coefficient of permeability

of ground is as indicated in the following table.

85

Table 3.3.11 Permeability Test Results

Bor.No Depth (m) Coefficient of

Permeability (m/s)

Remarks

1 1.50～2.00 4.06×10-10

1 3.50～4.00 5.97×10-10

1 5.50～6.00 8.86×10-10

1 7.50～8.00 5.94×10-10

2 0.50～1.00 1.05×10-9

2 5.50～6.00 3.98×10-8

2 7.50～8.00 ―

2 10.50～11.00 ―


The test results indicate there to be a distributed layer with coefficient of permeability of no greater

than 10-8m/s. According to the abovementioned standard ministerial ordinance, the ground conditions

required for not implementing seepage control are given as “The ground comprises at least 5 m of

continuous strata with a coefficient of permeability of no greater than 100 nm/s (1 x 10-5cm/s).” Since

these results were obtained in laboratory testing, compliance with the standard ministerial ordinance

provisions can be amply expected even after discounting the coefficient order.

In Japan, not only limited to the double seepage control structures stipulated in legislation, double

structures are becoming the norm. In consideration of this trend, a single impermeable liner will be

laid in order to be on the safe side in the Project. Protective mat will be placed above and below the

impermeable liner in order to provide sure protection.

F. Rainwater Drainage Plan

a) Purpose and functions of rainwater collection and drainage facilities

The purpose of rainwater collection and drainage facilities on final disposal sites is to separate waste

materials from rainwater. Through preventing rainwater from infiltrating the landfill site, these

facilities serve to reduce the quantity of leachate and mitigate the load placed on leachate treatment

facilities and seepage control works. Since the Project landfill site will be enclosed by an embankment,

rainwater will not flow into the site, however, since it will be necessary to remove rainwater from the

surface final cover soil following completion of landfilling, the scale of drainage facilities was

planned in consideration of the post-landfill conditions.

b) Arrangement of rainwater collection and drainage channels

Drainage channels will be installed as side ditches alongside the roads around the perimeter of the

landfill site. Channels will be arranged to broadly separate the landfill site into two and collect

86

rainwater from around the site. Since the landfill site is on flat terrain, it is difficult to identify the

catchment basin, however, water will be directed to the regulating reservoir to ensure that water

doesn’t accumulate in the local area.

c) Setting of rainwater drainage channel cross section

c1)Rainwater runoff amount

The rational formula is also applied to obtain design rainwater runoff amount.

Q=1/360×f×r×A

where;

Q: rainwater runoff amount (m3/s)

f: runoff rate

r: rainfall intensity (mm/h)

A: catchments area (hectare)

c2) Runoff coefficient

The runoff coefficient differs according to the terrain (including the planned site), geological

conditions and ground surface, etc. Most of the land in the project site will be utilized for intermediate

treatment facilities and landfill site. The remainder of the land will account for only a very small

percentage of the water catchment area. The rainwater that falls on the landfill site will be separately

drained as leachate. On the area where landfill is completed, steps to facilitate surface drainage will

basically be adopted, however, the land generally has well rooted vegetation and land use generally

consists of gently sloping mountain land and parkland with abundant lawns and trees.

Accordingly, the mode of land use is generally deemed to be conducive to good water permeation and

water retention.

There are various approaches to the runoff coefficient, however, the following most representative

proposal given by the Mononobe will be adopted here. Out of the terrain types indicated below, the

Project site is deemed to be at an intermediate point between “undulating mountain land and

forestland,” “flat cultivated land” and “irrigated paddy.” The value f = 0.60, which is the upper limit

for flat cultivated land, will be adopted.

87

Table 3.3.12 Peak Runoff Coefficient Indicated by Mononobe (Japan Society of Civil Engineers,

1999)

Terrain condition fp

Precipitous upland 0.75～0.90

Tertiary upland 0.70～0.80

Undulating land and forestland 0.50～0.75

Flat cultivated land 0.45～0.60

Irrigated paddy 0.70～0.80

Upland river 0.75～0.85

Flatland stream 0.45～0.75

Major river with catchment basin of which

at least half is flatland

0.50～0.75

(Source: “Guidelines on Planning, Design and Management of Waste Disposal Site Construction”, Japan

Waste Management Association))

c3) Rainfall intensity

The landfill site will inevitably assume rainwater adjustment functions due to its structure during the

landfill period. The landfill period in each phase will be relatively short at 3~4 years, however, rainfall

probability period will be set at around 10 years to be on the safe side. Moreover, since there is no

rainfall intensity formula that can be applied to the Project, when it comes to calculating rainwater

flow, the 1/10th year probability rainfall intensity of 142 mm/h used by local governments in the south

of Japan will be substituted. This is because rainfall conditions such as annual rainfall and heavy rains

due to typhoons in southern Japan is similar to that in the project site.

c4) Setting of the target catchment area

The target catchment area for setting the cross section of drainage channels will reach its peak when

landfilling over the entire site is completed. In the Project, as in the leachate treatment facilities plan,

the minimum unit of the catchment area will be 4.0 hectares, and the phased aggregate cross section

in each landfill case including 20% allowance will be planned. In the transition period until

completion of the final landfilling, the maximum collection area will be assumed for each channel.

c5) Setting of the drainage channel cross section

Trapezoidal channels with concrete lining will be adopted as the drainage channels. When deciding

the cross section, considering the accumulation of sediment and so on, average flow velocity will be

sought and the allowable cross section set based on the representative Manning Formula assuming

depth allowance of 20%. The results of calculation are shown in the following flow calculation table.

88

Table 3.3.13 Flow Calculation Table

Channel

No.

Catchmen

t area

Runoff

coefficient

Rainfall

intensity

Runoff

amount Channel cross section

Channel

gradient

Roughnes

s

Average

flow

Allowable

flow rate Remarks

ha - mm/h m3/s W(mm) B(mm) H(mm) ‰ - m/s m3/s

Case 1

1 4.8 0.6 142 1.136 1,600 600 1,000 5.0 0.015 1.588 1.270

2 9.6 0.6 142 2.272 2,100 1,100 1,000 5.0 0.015 2.081 2.497 1+2

3 4.8 0.6 142 1.136 1,600 600 1,000 5.0 0.015 1.588 1.270

4 9.6 0.6 142 2.272 2,100 1,100 1,000 5.0 0.015 2.081 2.497 3+4

5 19.2 0.6 142 4.544 2,800 1,800 1,000 5.0 0.015 2.687 4.729 2+4

Case 2

1 4.8 0.6 142 1.136 1,600 600 1,000 5.0 0.015 1.588 1.270

2 14.4 0.6 142 3.408 2,500 1,500 1,000 5.0 0.015 2.436 3.703 1+2

3 24.0 0.6 142 5.680 3,100 2,100 1,000 5.0 0.015 2.925 5.850 2+3

4 28.8 0.6 142 6.816 3,400 2,400 1,000 5.0 0.015 3.155 7.067 3+4

5 4.8 0.6 142 1.136 1,600 600 1,000 5.0 0.015 1.588 1.270

6 9.6 0.6 142 2.272 2,100 1,100 1,000 5.0 0.015 2.081 2.497 5+6

7 19.2 0.6 142 4.544 2,800 1,800 1,000 5.0 0.015 2.687 4.729 6+7

8 28.8 0.6 142 6.816 3,400 2,400 1,000 5.0 0.015 3.155 7.067 7+8

9 57.6 0.6 142 13.632 4,200 2,700 1,500 5.0 0.015 3.520 13.939 4+8


G. Groundwater collection and drainage facilities plan

a) Purpose and functions of groundwater collection and drainage facilities

On landfill sites that are equipped with surface seepage control works, unless groundwater and spring

water occurring under the seepage control are appropriately removed, the uplift pressure created by

groundwater, spring water and soil gas, etc. sometimes ruptures the seepage control works. Moreover,

if the groundwater level around the landfill site rises, this can sometimes loosen ground and trigger

landslides depending on the geological and soil conditions of the landfill site. Groundwater collection

and drainage facilities will be installed in order to promptly remove groundwater, etc. and prevent

such negative impacts from occurring.

b) Arrangement of groundwater collection and drainage pipes

Pipe diameters of groundwater collection and drainage facilities are usually φ200~300 mm for arterial

lines and φ150 mm for branch lines except in locations that have an exceptionally high level of

groundwater. Moreover, as the Road Earthworks and Drainage Works Guidelines (Japan Road

Association) stipulates that “pipes with inner diameter of φ100 mm or less shouldn’t be used because

they tend to become blocked,” the pipes installed in the Project will have diameter of φ150 mm.

89

c) Groundwater drainage routes

Groundwater and spring water underneath the seepage control works will be collected in tanks via

pipes installed in the base and slopes of the landfill. The water will then be drained to peripheral

channels and pumped to drainage channels and a disaster control regulating reservoir.

The groundwater that flows into the disaster control regulating reservoir will be discharged into the

river together with rainwater.

H. Leachate collection and drainage plan

a) Purpose and functions of leachate collection and drainage facilities

Leachate collection and drainage facilities are installed in order to quickly remove rainwater that has

infiltrated the landfill site to the leachate treatment facilities.

Through limiting the amount of leachate that occurs inside the landfill and conveying it quickly to the

leachate treatment facilities, leachate isn’t allowed to accumulate inside the landfill and impart water

pressure on the seepage control works and storage structure. The collection and drainage facilities will

have pipe diameters of sufficient size to secure ventilation air, and the ends of pipes, etc. will be open

to the outside air.

b) Arrangement of leachate collection and drainage facilities

b1) Base collection and drainage pipes

The arrangement of base collection and drainage pipes is determined upon giving consideration to the

coefficient of permeability of waste, coefficient of permeability of impermeable liner, landfill site

terrain and size and (in the case of semi-aerobic landfill structure) the air supply function of leachate

collection and drainage facilities. In the Project, in view of the shape of the landfill facilities, trunk

lines will be straight while branch lines will be arranged at an interval of 15 m (the median value out

of the 10~20 m notified in Japanese legislation).

b2) Slope collection and drainage pipes

Since slope collection and drainage facilities are more important for draining water in the vertical

direction rather than collecting water, they will be arranged at roughly twice the interval adopted for

the base collection and drainage pipes.

b3) Vertical collection and drainage pipes

Vertical collection and drainage pipes will be installed for every 2,000 m2 at intervals of around 45 m.

The vertical collection and drainage pipes will have a diameter of 600 mm.

c) Setting of diameter of leachate collection and drainage pipes

c1) Calculation of leachate amount

90

The generated amount of leachate used when compiling the leachate treatment plan will target the

daily rainfall, however, in order to conduct sanitary landfill, the amount of time that leachate is

allowed to accumulate inside the landfill needs to be made as short as possible. In the case where

impermeable liner is damaged, since hardly any leakage will occur if there is little water inside the

landfill, it will be important for collection and drainage facilities to have the capacity to remove

leachate quickly.

Therefore, as is also the case in the rainwater drainage plan, it will be necessary to secure the capacity

to immediately drain water in the leachate collection and drainage facilities. Based on this viewpoint,

as in the case of rainwater runoff calculation, the most commonly used Rational formula will be used

to the leachate runoff amount as indicated below

The following formula will be used to calculate leachate runoff.

Q f r A1360

(m3/s)

Where,

Q: Design runoff amount (m3/s)

f: Runoff coefficient = 0.44 (according to (3) leachate treatment facilities of the final disposal

site)

r: Design rainfall intensity (mm/h) = 142 mm/h (10-year probability according to cases in Japan)

A: Catchment area (hectare)

Table 3.3.14 Leachate Amount Calculation Results

Landfill Catchment area

(ha)

Rainfall permeation (m3/s)

r=142mm/h

f=0.44

Minimum block 4.00 0.694


c2) Drainage capacity of leachate collection and drainage pipes

Runoff amount

Q＝A・V (m3/sec)

Flow velocity

V ＝１

×R2/3×I1/2 (m/sec) n

Where,

A: Catchment area (m2)

91

V: Flow velocity (m/s)

N: Roughness coefficient (double polyethylene pipe 0.01 in this study)

R: Hydraulic radius (= A/P) (m)

P: Length of wetted perimeter of flowing water (m)

I: Gradient (0.5%)

The following table indicates the drainage capacity of collection and drainage pipes according to each

pipe diameter.

Table 3.3.15 Drainage Capacity of Leachate Collection and Drainage Pipes (m3/s) Type Full flow

Gradient ‰ 5.0

Flow rate m3/s

Pipe

diameter mm

200 0.030

300 0.089

400 0.191

500 0.347

600 0.564

700 0.851

800 1.216

900 1.664

1000 2.204


c3) Setting of pipe diameter

The following table shows the pipe diameters of collection and drainage pipes according to each

location.

Table 3.3.16 Diameters of Collection and Drainage Pipes

Installed location Pipe Diameter

Base collection and drainage pipes φ700

Slope collection and drainage pipes φ200

Slope collection and drainage pipes φ200

Vertical collection and drainage pipes φ600 (Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)

92

I) Disaster control regulating reservoir plan

a) Planning criteria

When planning the disaster control regulating reservoir, it is necessary to give consideration to the

basin area, landfill area, installation of rainwater collection and drainage facilities, area of

development other than the landfill, discharge capacity of downstream river and so on.

In consideration of these conditions, the disaster control regulating reservoir will be planned

according to the Technical Criteria for Disaster Control Regulating Reservoir, etc. (Draft) (Japan

River Association).

Moreover, since there is no confirmed formula for rainfall intensity applicable to the Project, when

calculating the regulating reservoir capacity, the 1/30 year probability rainfall intensity formula used

by local governments in the south of Japan will be substituted, as rainfall conditions are considered to

be similar.

b) Consolidation of design conditions

The following table consolidates the design basic conditions for planning the disaster control

regulating reservoir.

93

Table 3.3.17 Design Basic Conditions

Item Value and/or Formula Remarks

Basic particulars

Catchment area (A) 100 ha

Permissible discharge

flow

34.40 m3/s

Runoff coefficient (f) 0.79

Arrival time (t) 10.0 minutes

Rainfall conditions

Rainfall waveform Rear concentrated type

Rainfall continued time 24 hours

Probability rainfall 1/30 year probability rainfall

Rainfall intensity

formula 287.0100.111

5/3tI

Inflow formula

A3601

・・・ rfQ

Q: Flow rate (m3/s)

f：Runoff coefficient

r：rainfall intensity (mm/h)

A：Catchment area (ha)


b1) Catchment area

The Project site is flatland surrounded by ponds and paddies that also have regulating functions and

make it difficult to identify the catchment area. Here, the rainwater collection and drainage area will

be set at 100 hectares, which corresponds to the Project area.

b2) Allowable discharge flow

The regulation flow will target the increase in the amount of runoff that accompanies the development.

Therefore, the allowable discharge flow will be as follows:

ｓｍ＝・・・ 3/4.340.1000.1770.7360/1A360

1 rfQ

Where,

Q: Runoff amount (m3/s)

f: Runoff coefficient before development

r: Rainfall intensity (mm/h) (30 year probability r = 177 mm/h)

A: Catchment area (hectare)

b3) Runoff coefficient

94

The runoff coefficient will be set as shown below in consideration of cases in Japan.

Table 3.3.18 Adopted Values for Runoff Coefficient

Symbol Condition of ground surface Catchment area (ha)

Runoff coefficient

① Before development / Field, cultivated land, paddy 10.0 0.7

② After development / Land developed for residential use 90.0 0.8

Total ― 100.0 0.79


b4) Arrival time

Unit time shall be t = 10 min.

b5) Amount of sedimentation

The design amount of sedimentation shall be set at 150 (m3/ha/y) for every unit area.

V v AS

Where,

VS : Amount of sedimentation (m3)

v : Amount of sedimentation per unit developed area (=150m3/ha/y) A : Developed area (=100.0 ha)

0.100150SV

＝15,000 (m3)

Therefore, capacity of 15,000 m3 will be secured. The sedimentation level shall be +0.5m.

c) Calculation of regulating capacity

Based on settings of the basic structural conditions such as the basic design conditions indicated in

Table 3.3.17 and the discharge holes, etc. indicated in Table 3.3.19, the inflow and discharge

calculation will be conducted to seek the maximum capacity.

As is shown in the calculation results below, the regulating reservoir will have a capacity of 34,823

m3.

95

Table 3.3.19 Basic Structural Conditions

Item Basic Structural

Conditions Remarks

Regulating reservoir

crest height +2.50ｍ

Abnormal flood level +2.35ｍ

Design flood level +1.60ｍ

Initial water level +0.50m

Rim height +0.50ｍ Sedimentation level

Discharge hole H1100×B24000 Cross-sectional area 26.40m2

Total capacity 79,450m3

Sedimentation 15,000m3

Possible regulating

capacity 34,823m3


Table 3.3.20 Calculation Results

Item Calculation Results Remarks

Maximum capacity 22,298(m3) Possible regulating capacity ＝34,823m3

OK

Maximum water level +1.209(m) Design flood flow ＝+1.600m OK

Maximum discharge

flow 25,717(m3/s)

Allowable discharge flow ＝34.40m3/s

OK


d) Setting of scale of spillway

The regulating reservoir will be equipped with a free overflow spillway in case of abnormal flooding.

The design flow rate of the spillway will be set at 1.5 times the flow rate in the 1/100 year annual

probability of exceedance flooding, and the structure of it will be water collecting tower type. The

peak flow rate will be calculated based on the Rational formula.

The probability rainfall intensity curve formula adopted in the Project will assume a 1/30 year

probability and the following formula for the said area.

1/100 year probability rainfall 306.01.134

5/3100 tr

ｒ=102.7mm/h

96

- Cross-sectional calculation

Spillway design flow will be as follows:

sec229.375.10.1007.10287.0360

15.1360

1 3mArfQ

The spillway will be square shaped.

Q C L H 3 2/

Where,

Q : Flood overflow rate (m3/s)

C : Flow coefficient (1.8)

L: Overflow length (m)

H : Overflow depth

Assuming the overflow depth is Ｈ=0.75m,

mHQL 843.31)75.08.1(229.37)8.1( 2323

∴ 96.74843.31B ≒8.0m

Here, the spillway will need to have a square opening cross section of at least 8.0 m per side.

Also, since the orifice in the discharge culvert will require width of 24.0 m on three sides, the cross

section will need to be 24.0 ÷ 3＝8.0m.

Therefore, the discharge culvert opening will measure 9.0 m per side.

97

Computational Output (regulating capacity calculation)

NOTE: Calculations are based on the method given in the Technical Standards (Draft) for Disaster

Prevention Regulating Reservoirs, etc.: Commentary and Design Cases (Japan Rivers Association).

Table 3.3.21 T

Time Rainfall Peak Rainfa Intensity Intensity

98

Table of Flood Regulation Calculations (1)

all Time of Peak Inflow Balancing Reservoir Water Oy Rainfall reservoir capacity level

Outflow Outflow/ time unit

Table o

99

of Flood Regulation Calculations (2)

Table o

100

of Flood Regulation Calculations (3)

101

(3) Final Disposal Site Leachate Treatment Facilities

Regarding the leachate treatment facilities plan, the treated amount and capacity of regulating facilities

will be simultaneously set according to the “Guidelines on Planning, Design and Management of Waste

Disposal Site Construction” (Japan Waste Management Association).

The design influent flow of leachate treatment facilities will be set between the maximum and minimum

values of the design amount of inflow, and the capacity of regulating facilities will be decided so that the

amount of leachate in excess of the treatment capacity of facilities can be stored, thereby ensuring that

the leachate that is generated each day can be treated without delay.

Figure 3.3.10 Method for Seeking the Scale of Leachate Treatment Facilities

(Source: “Guidelines on Planning, Design and Management of Waste Disposal Site Construction”,

Japan Waste Management Association)

In other words, considering the water balance between the daily generated amount of leachate (design

influent flow) and treatment capacity of the leachate treatment facilities, the capacity of the leachate

regulating facilities will be sought. Water balance and capacity of the leachate regulating facilities will

be calculated for a number of design inflow scenarios in the leachate treatment facilities; then the

appropriate design inflow to leachatnt facilities will be decided while considering the operating rate of

facilities (treatment amoune treatmet/treatment capacity) and economy, etc.

Rainfall data for the 10 year period between 2001 and 2010 in Tangerang will be used. Two cases will be

sought according to the scale of the landfill site.

Chronological calculation of storage amount of leachate controlling facility

Determination of capacity of leachate controlling facility

Chronological setting of daily leachate amountDetermination of planned influent quantity of

leachate treatment facility

102

Table 3.3.22 Table of Specifications in the Leachate Treatment Plan

Design particulars CASE-1 CASE-2

(1) (2) (3) Rainfall data 2001 to 2010 (10 years)

Average daily rainfall (mm) 5.0

Landfill area (ha) 16.0 16.0 32.0 48.0

Leachate coefficient (average)

Currently being

landfilled 0.44

Already landfilled

0.27

Average leachate flow (m3/d) 250 250 470 690

Maximum leachate flow (m3/d) 1,110 1,110 2,060 3,020

Calculation results

Daily treatment amount (m3/d)

400 400 750 1,100

Amount of increase (m3/d)

― ― 350 350

Regulating capacity (m3)

45,000 45,000 80,000 117,000

Amount of increase (m3)

― ― 35,000 37,000


A) Design inflow amount calculation method

The Rational formula will be used to calculate the average leachate amount and maximum leachate

amount. The used rainfall data will be that obtained from the meteorological observatory of

Tangerang between 2011 and 2010.

Q I C A C A11000 1 1 2 2

Where,

Q: Leachate amount(m3/d)

I: Daily precipitation (mm/d)

C1: Leachate coefficient from landfill in progress (-)

C2: Leachate coefficient from landfill that is idle or has been finished (-)

A1: Area of zone currently being landfilled (m2)

A2: Area of zone of landfill that is idle or has been finished (m2)

The average daily precipitation will be used when calculating the average leachate amount, while the

daily conversion of the maximum monthly precipitation level will be used when calculating the

maximum leachate amount.

103

B) Target disposal site area (CASE-1；16.0ha, CASE-2；48.0ha)

The landfill site will be divided into blocks with a minimum unit area of 4.0 hectares. In CASE 1,

there will be four blocks, while in CASE 2 there will be 12. The blocks will be successively landfilled

with the next block being moved to when the design completion height is reached. There will always

be a minimum block size of 4.0 hectares being landfilled, and the already landfilled blocks will

increase cumulatively so that the amount of leachate flow is greatest when the remaining three blocks

are completed.

The leachate coefficient will be sought for each month upon calculating the amount of

evapotranspiration based on temperature and sunlight time. The average figures are as shown below,

i.e. 0.44 for the block currently being landfilled and 0.27 for blocks that have been finished. During

the dry season from July to September, since there is hardly any rainfall and the amount of

evapotranspiration exceeds the amount of leachate, the leachate coefficient is negative but is set at

zero for calculation purposes.

Table 3.3.23 Leachate Treatment Target Area (ha)

Season

Area (A) Leachate Coefficient (C)

Block being landfilled

(Ａ1)

Already landfilled

block (Ａ2)

Total( Ａ) Block being

landfilled (Ｃ1)

Already landfilled

block (Ｃ2)

CASE-1 4.00 12.00 16.00

0.44 0.27CASE-2

(1) 4.00 12.00 16.00

(2) 4.00 28.00 32.00

(3) 4.00 44.00 48.00


C) Setting of rainfall

The following table shows the aggregate results of data for the past 10 years. Data is taken from

Tangerang meteorological station for the period from 2001 to 2010. Among the data for the past 10

years, there are no outstanding years: the average value is 1,832 mm/y and the highest rainfall is 2,059

mm for 2010.

Table 3

(Source:

104

.3.24 Rainfall Data Statistical Table Observed days: 3,652 days Total rainfall: 18,320 mm Maximum year: 2010

Prepared by the authors of this report)

105

D) Calculation of design influent flow

a) Average leachate flow

From the aggregate table, the total rainfall over 10 years is 18,320 mm and the number of

observation days is 3,652. The daily average rainfall is thus calculated as follows:

dmmdmmI 0.5

652,3320,18

＝

Accordingly, the average leachate amount is as follows.

CASE-1

日30.250000,12027.0000,4044.00.51000

1 mQ

CASE-2

日31 0.250000,12027.0000,4044.00.5

10001 mQ

日32 0.466000,28027.0000,4044.00.5

10001 mQ

日33 0.682000,44027.0000,4044.00.5

10001 mQ

b) Maximum leachate amount

Based on the table, maximum monthly rainfall was 663.8 mm/month for February 2008, and this is

converted into a daily amount as follows:

dmmdmmI 1.22

308.663

＝

Therefore, the maximum leachate amount is calculated as follows.

CASE-1

日30.105,1000,4427.0000,4044.01.221000

1 mQ

CASE-2

日31 0.105,1000,12027.0000,4044.01.22

10001 mQ

日32 7.059,2000,28027.0000,4044.01.22

10001 mQ

日33 4.014,3000,44027.0000,4044.01.22

10001 mQ

The above results are compiled into the following table.

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

106

Table 3.3.25 Design Influent Flow Calculation Results

Target precipitation Annual average daily

precipitation

Maximum monthly precipitation

converted to daily amount

CASE-1

Average leachate flow amount

250m3/d ―

Maximum leachate flow amount

― 1,110m3/d

CASE-2

(1)

Average leachate flow amount 250m3/d ―


― 1,110m3/d

(2)


470 m3/d ―


― 2,060m3/d

(3)


690 m3/d ―


― 3,020m3/d


As is mentioned later, the case for calculating the daily treatment amount used in the chronological

calculation of leachate regulating facilities storage capacity will be set as the safest case, i.e. the

maximum value according to the conditions.

E) Setting of leachate regulating facilities capacity

Using the average leachate amount and maximum leachate amount as rough guides, 10 cases will be

set for daily treatment amount and the leachate regulating facilities capacity will be calculated. As

for the calculation method, the generated amount of leachate (= influent flow I) will be sought from

the daily rainfall chronological data, and maximum capacity will be sought from the set daily

treatment amount (=runoff amount O) and water balance calculation (in/out calculation). While

comparing the calculation results in each case, the leachate regulating facilities capacity and daily

treatment amount will be set.

Moreover, in the case where there is found to be residual leachate regulating capacity on the last

day of December as a result of the water balance calculation, continuous calculation will be

conducted using the same daily rainfall chronological data.

107

a)Water balance calculation method

In the water balance calculation, assuming that the difference between influent flow I and daily

treatment amount O is stored horizontally inside the regulating facilities, the difference in storage

amount on any given day ΔＶ will be as follows:

OIV

Therefore, the amount stored V (d) at the end of the optional day (d) will be calculated by the

following formula:

VdVdV 1

dOdIdV 1

Where,

V: Storage amount (m3)

I: Generated leachate amount (m3)

O: Daily treatment amount (m3/d)

Figure 3.3.11 Water Balance Model for Landfill

b) Setting of daily precipitation time series

As the daily precipitation time series data used in water balance calculation, the daily precipitation

time series for the year of highest precipitation over the past 10 years will be used.

According to the precipitation data statistics table, the year of highest precipitation was 2010 (annual

precipitation = 2,059 mm).

c) Calculation of generated leachate amount

The amount of generated leachate will be calculated by means of the Rational formula as follows:

Q I C A C A11000 1 1 2 2

Where,

I

O V(ｄ－1)

ΔV

108

Q: Leachate amount (m3/d)

I: Daily precipitation (mm/d)

C1: Leachate coefficient from landfill in progress (-)

C2: Leachate coefficient from landfill that is idle or has been finished (-)

A1: Area of zone currently being landfilled (m2)

A2: Area of zone of landfill that is idle or has been finished (m2)

d) Water balance calculation results

Using the aforementioned in/out calculations, average leachate amount and maximum leachate

amount as rough guides, daily treatment amount was set and water balance calculation was carried

out for the 10 cases shown in Table 3.3.26. Calculation was conducted on the safe side by assuming

the year of highest precipitation (2010). The calculation results are shown in the table and Figure

3.3.26.

Table 3.3.26 In/Out Calculation Results (CASE 1)

Case Daily treatment amount (m3/d)

Maximum year (2010) Maximum leachate

regulation capacity (m3)

Treatment facilities

operating rate (%)

1 200 60,355 158.0% 2 250 55,855 126.4% 3 300 51,388 105.3% 4 350 47,388 90.3% 5 400 43,388 79.0% 6 450 39,388 70.2% 7 500 35,388 63.2% 8 550 31,388 57.5% 9 600 28,960 52.7%

10 650 27,310 48.8% Note) Treatment facilities operating rate = Total amount of treated water/Total daily treatment

amount


109

Figure 3.3.12 Daily Treatment Amount and Regulating Capacity (CASE 1)


In the maximum year (2010), the adjustment capacity changes almost uniformly according to the

increase in treated amount in this calculation case. Assuming an operating rate of around 80%, the

daily treatment amount is set at around 400 m3/d. The following figure shows a graph of changes in

stored amount over time assuming this daily treatment capacity of 400 m3/d.

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650

Max

imum

regu

latin

g ca

paci

ty(m

3 )

Daily treatment amount(m3/d)

110

Figure 3.3.13 Changes in Stored Amount over Time assuming Daily Treatment Capacity of 400 m3/d

(CASE 1)


Table 3.3.27 In/Out Calculation Results (CASE 2)

Case Daily Treatment Amount (m3/d)

Maximum Year (2010) Maximum leachate

regulating capacity (m3)


operating rate (%)

1 500 100,465 117.4% 2 550 95,965 106.7% 3 600 91,962 97.8% 4 650 87,962 90.3% 5 700 83,962 83.8% 6 750 79,962 78.2% 7 800 75,962 73.4% 8 850 71,962 69.0% 9 900 67,962 65.2%

10 950 63,962 61.8% Note) Treatment facilities operating rate = Total treatment amount/Total daily treatment amount


0

50

100

150

200

250

3000

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

1 15 29 43 57 71 85 99 113 127 141 155 169 183 197 211 225 239 253 267 281 295 309 323 337 351 365

Dai

ly p

reci

pita

tion

amou

nt (m

m/d

)

Reg

ulat

ing

amou

nt (m

3 )

Days

Chronology(Yearly data for the maximum year)

Daily precipitation amount

400m3/day

Daily precipitation (mm/d)

111

Figure 3.3.14 Daily Treatment Amount and Regulating Capacity (CASE 2-(2))


Figure 3.3.15 Changes in Stored Amount over Time assuming Daily Treatment Capacity of 750 m3/d

(maximum year 2010) (CASE 2-(2))


0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950

Max

imum

regu

latin

g am

ount

(m3 )

Daily treatment amount(m3/d)

Maximum year (m3)

0

50

100

150

200

250

3000

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

100000

1 15 29 43 57 71 85 99 113127141155169183197211225239253267281295309323337351365

Dai

ly p

reci

pita

tin a

mou

nt (m

m/d

)

Reg

ulat

ing

amou

nt (m

3 )

Days

Chronology(Yearly data for the maximum year)

Daily Precipitatin amount750m3/day


112

Table 3.3.28 In/Out Calculation Results (CASE 2-(3))

Case Daily Treatment Amount (m3/d)

Maximum Year (2010) Maximum leachate

regulating capacity (m3)


operating rate (%)

1 900 132,537 95.3% 2 950 128,537 90.3% 3 1,000 124,537 85.8% 4 1,050 120,537 81.7% 5 1,100 116,537 78.0% 6 1,150 112,537 74.6% 7 1,200 108,537 71.5% 8 1,250 104,537 68.6% 9 1,300 100,537 66.0%

10 1,350 96,537 63.5% Note) Treatment facilities operating rate = Total treatment amount/Total daily treatment amount


Figure 3.3.16 Daily Treatment Amount and Regulating Capacity (CASE 2-(3))


0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350

最大

調整容

量(m3)

日処理量(m3/日)

113

Figure 3.3.17 Changes in Stored Amount Over Time assuming Daily Treatment Capacity of 1,100

m3/d (maximum year 2010) (CASE 2-(3))


In the Project, daily treatment capacity has been set with room to spare assuming a facilities operating rate

of 80%. As is indicated below, in CASE 1, daily treatment amount is 400 (m3/d) and regulating capacity is

45,000 (m3), while in CASE 2, it is planned to increase facilities to around the same degree in phased

development every five years. Considering the overall facilities development at the start of construction, it

will be necessary to set the scale as daily treatment amount of 1,100 (m3/d) and regulating capacity of

117,000 (m3).

Table 3.3.29 Scale of Leachate Treatment Facilities

Item CASE-1 CASE-2

(1) (2) (3)

Daily treatment amount (m3/d) 400 400 750 1,100

Amount of increase(m3/d) ― ― 350 350

Regulating capacity (m3) 45,000 45,000 80,000 117,000

Amount of increase(m3/d) ― ― 35,000 37,000


F) Leachate treatment facility of the landfill

In order for the leachate treatment system to meet the treated water effluent standard, it is composed the

following components.

0

50

100

150

200

250

3000

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

200000

1 15 29 43 57 71 85 99 113 127 141 155 169 183 197 211 225 239 253 267 281 295 309 323 337 351 365

日降水量

(mm/日)

調整容量(m3)

日付

日降水量

1100m3/日


114

(i) Primary coagulating sedimentation treatment

(ii) Biological treatment

(iii) Secondary coagulating sedimentation treatment

(iv) Filteration

(v) Activated carbon adsorption

(vi) Disinfection

(vii) Sludge dewatering

The above mentioned system flow is shown in the following Figure.

Reference: System Flow of Leachate Treatment


115

3.3.3 Contents of the Proposed Project (Area of Project Site, Project Budget, etc.)

(1)The Project Site

The project site is approximately 100 ha located at Jatiwaringin area in Tangerang Regency, adjoining

west side of Jakaruta. The site area is categorized for waste treatment facilities in the Land Use Plan of

Tangerang Regency (2011-2031), and an existing final disposal site (landfill) of Tangerang Regency is

also located. The project site is shown in figure 3.3.18.

Figure 3.3.18 Map of project site

(Source: Prepared by the authors of the report based on map by Google)

(2) Maintenance plan

A) Landfill plan

a) Basic policy

In designing the landfill plan, since the landfill period will be long at more than 15 years, zonal

landfilling will be planned with the objectives of reducing the amount of leachate, facilitating

management and achieving the early stabilization of the landfill.

The landfill will be divided into four sections by partition embankments. Rainwater in the sections

where landfilling hasn’t yet been started will be discharged into the regulating reservoir, and the

discharge destination will be switched to the leachate treatment system when landfilling starts.

Landfilling in each section will be conducted from the downstream side to ensure stabilization of the

impermeable liner, earth covering will be conducted when landfilling is finished and surface water

will be removed as much as possible in an effort to reduce the amount of leachate.

Jati Waringin

Tangerang Regency

Jakarta DKI

116

b) Design landfill capacity

Landfill in the Project will be considered assuming the case of 123 t/d of noncombustible waste and

the case of 438 t/d of combustible and noncombustible waste.

Table 3.3.30 Design Landfill Capacity Calculation Sheet

Landfill case Target landfill waste Weight (t/d) Landfill period (y) Design total weight (t)

CASE 1 Noncombustible waste 123 20

897,900

CASE 2 Noncombustible waste and combustible waste

438 3,197,400

Landfill case Unit volumetric

weight (t/m3) Design waste capacity (m3)

Cover earth capacity (m3)

Total capacity (m3)

CASE 1 0.5 1,795,800 628,530 2,424,330CASE 2 0.5 6,029,800 2,238,180 8,632,980

Landfill case Model design landfill

capacity (m3) Remarks

CASE 1 2,500,000 Basically adopt zonal landfill divided into 4 sections.

CASE 2 8,780,000 Basically adopt zonal landfill over 3 terms (7 years per term) and

4 sections. (Source: Prepared by authors of this report)

c) Landfill method

From the viewpoint of improving the properties of leachate and landfill gases as shown in Figure

3.3.19, a semi-aerobic landfill structure in where the leachate collection pipes (vent pipes) are

open-air will be adopted.

117

Figure 3.3.19 Semi-aerobic Landfill Structure


Moreover, the waste will be landfilled in a sandwich structure, comprising an earth-fill dam, an

intermediate soil covering and a final soil covering; moreover, same-day soil covering will be

conducted in order to prevent occurrence and spread of fires, fly-off of waste, occurrence of odor and

hygiene pests and so on.

Concerning the daily landfill method, wastes will be leveled to a thickness of around 30~50 cm and

amply compacted by heavy machinery.

d) Landfill work

As the Project site is on flat land, it will be necessary to conduct landfill up to a height in excess of the

height of the holding dam and peripheral management road in order to secure the design landfill

capacity. For this reason, the slope earth dam will be established in advance and the waste materials

will be landfilled to no higher than this.

The slope earth-fill dam will be built no higher than 2.5 m and the gradient will be no greater than

1:25. Crest width of at least 4 m will be secured. The slope earth-fill dam will be quickly planted with

vegetation to prevent the surface soil from running off.

Fully compacting the waste is important for stabilizing the landfill ground, extending the service life

of the landfill and enhancing the usability of the landfill site after it is closed. Waste will be scattered

to a thickness of 30~50 cm and compacted by pressing with a rolling compaction machine around five

times. Thickness of a single landfill layer will be no greater than 3 m, and intermediate cover soil of

around 50 cm will be applied for each layer.

Through landfilling easily scattered wastes with other wastes and sediment, and also by sprinkling

water to prevent dust from rising at arid times, scattering of waste can be prevented and a major effect

118

3000

5002500

2500

25001:2.5

1:2.51:2.5

4000

物棄廃

土覆

堤堰土

4000

2000

can be obtained for rolling compaction too. However, water should not be sprinkled in excess of the

evapotranspiration volume since this would increase the amount of leachate generated.

d1) Earth-fill dam

The landfill slope will be formed in stages by building the earth-fill dam in line with the progression

of landfill as shown in Figure 3.3.20. The inner side of the dam will be lined with impermeable liner.

Figure 3.3.20 Structure of Landfill Slope


d2) Cover soil

Intermediate cover soil: Apply 0.5 m of cover soil for every 3.0 m of waste.

Final cover soil: Apply 0.5~1.0 m of cover soil after completion of landfill

Cover coil material: Compost made from household waste would be applied

Cover soil volume: Necessary amount of cover soil: CASE 1: 530,000 m3,

CASE 2: 2,530,000 m3

d3) Landfill work

Figure 3.3.21 shows the flow of landfill work.

Cover soil

Waste

Soil Embankment

119

Figure 3.3.21 Flow of Landfill Work

< landfilling operation >

End of day`s work

Completion of a compartment


B) Landfill site maintenance plan

a) Facilities maintenance and management

Facilities such as the storage dam and seepage control will be inspected every day, and improvement

steps will be immediately implemented when damage is found in them.

Surrounding enclosures will be inspected and maintained at least once per month and the damaged

sections will be immediately repaired. Gates will be closed and locked at the end of work every day.

In order to maintain the functions of drainage facilities and regulating reservoir, etc. for preventing

rainwater from flowing into the landfill, inspections will be conducted, accumulated sediment will be

removed and facilities will be repaired on a regular basis.

The incoming road will be kept clean and repaired as the need arises. Also, the vehicle washing

equipment will be periodically inspected and sediment will be promptly removed when it

accumulates.

b) Landfill management

Incoming waste will as a rule be compacted, covered with soil and leveled, etc. on the day it arrives.

Carry in

Measurement

Dumping

Placement Shredding Surface compaction

(Daily earth cover)

Intermediate cover

Final cover

End of landfilling

Installation of hauling road

Slope construction

120

The waterproof sheet will be inspected periodically and, in cases where there is risk that the seepage

control effect declines, the necessary steps will be taken to restore effectiveness.

c) Management after landfilling

After landfill disposal is completed on the landfill site, drainage facilities of sufficient structure and

scale to drain off rainwater without any problem will be installed.

The cover soil will be inspected for subsidence, runoff and cracking, etc. and repairs will be made as

the need arises.

C) Landfill management setup

Figure 3.3.22 shows the maintenance setup during the landfill period.

Figure 3.3.22 Maintenance setup (CASE 1)

1 member

2 members

4 members (10 members)

2 members

10 members (20 members)

NOTE: Figures in parentheses show CASE 2


It is possible to outsource the operation management of landfill work and leachate treatment facilities

as well as the repair of facilities, however, in CASE 1, it will be necessary to have control personnel

of 12 members including the plant manager. In CASE 2, assuming two weighing personnel and 10

landfill workers, it will be necessary to have control personnel of around 24 members including the

plant manager.

D) Landfill maintenance costs

a)Landfill costs: Employees

Management office of landfill site

Director

Administrative matters

Measurement

Landfill work

Management of facilities

121

Table 3.3.31 Personnel Expenses

Unit: …/y

Item Unit cost

(yen)

CASE 1 CASE 2

Num

ber of

staff

Personnel

expenses

Num

ber of

staff

Personnel

expenses

Plant manager 3,250,000 1 3,250,000 1 3,250,000

General affairs supervisor 1,560,000 2 3,120,000 2 3,120,000

Weighing supervisor 910,000 4 3,640,000 10 9,100,000

Facilities maintenance supervisor 1,040,000 4 4,160,000 4 4,160,000

Member in charge of landfill work 650,000 10 6,500,000 20 13,000,000

Total 20,670,000 32,630,000


b) Landfill work cost: Heavy machinery lease charge, fuel cost, cover earth cost, etc.

Table 3.3.32 Landfill Work Cost

Unit: …/y

Reference quantities (/y)

Earth-fill dam

(m3)

Intermediate cover

soil (m3)

Total (m3) Impermeable liner

(m2)

CASE-1 10,000 25,300 35,300 1,300

CASE-2 40,800 128,200 169,000 5,400


c) Inspection and repair costs: Landfill

Item Cost

Remarks CASE 1 CASE 2

Heavy

machinery lease

charge

21,600,000 43,200,000

Bulldozer, back-how, dump truck, tire roller

Fuel cost 0 0 Light diesel oil Include in the heavy

machinery lease charge.

Cover earth cost 15,501,000 68,378,000 Earth-fill dam

Total 37,101,000 111,578,000

122

Table 3.3.33 Inspection and Repair Cost

Unit: …/y

Item CASE 1 CASE 2 Remarks

Length of gas

extraction pipes 388,800 1,166,400

CASE 1: 108 locations

CASE 2: 324 locations

Drainage channels

installation

880,000 2,350,000 Slope steps

Drainage channel

cleaning, etc.

3,960,000 7,920,000 10% increase for cost of expendable

items

Total 5,228,800 11,436,400


(3)The project content and budget scale

The project content is a construction of facilities consisting of a receiving station (including an

administration building), intermediate treatment facilities (bag shredder, manual sorting, MBT,

composting, RDF manufacture), a landfill (leachate treatment system) and a reservoir for preventing

rainwater from flowing into the landfill. The facilities are expected to treat and dispose 1,500 t/d of

municipal waste generated from Jakaruta for 20 years. An abstract description of the facilities is

indicated in table 3.3.34.

The land use planning of the facilities to be constructed under this project is shown in Figure 3.3.23 and

3.3.24.

Table 3.3.34 This Project Scale and Facility Component, etc.

Facility Component Content・Capacity・Facility Component, etc.

Controlled Landfill Landfill area: 16ha , landfill volume: 250m3, semi-aerobic landfill

structure(an earth-fill dam used excavated soil with gentle slope gradient,

sandwich approach, seepage control structure, vent pipes, open leachate

collection system, leachate treatment system)

Receiving Station Scale equipment, administration building

Bag Shredder ＋

Manual Sorting

Bag shredder, building, conveyer belt

MBT (Mechanical

Biological

Treatment)Facility

Daily treatment capacity 1,410t(1,185 + 225 ton), treatment

method:recyclable segregation facility, shredding facility, conveyer belt,

fermentation tank、building, segregation facility, storage facility

RDF Manufacturing

Facility

Capacity 480 t/d(product amount 430 t/d)

Composting Facility Capacity 410 t/d(334 + 76 t/d) (product amount 165 t/d)


123

Figure 3.3.23 Land use planning (CASE 1)


124

Figure 3.3.24 Land use planning (CASE 2)


125

As shown in Table 3.3.35, the budget necessary for construction and operation of the facilities for 20

years is 3.4383 trillion Rp (29.6 billion yen or 343.83 million USD) for CASE 1 and 3.3844 trillion Rp

(29.1 billion yen or 375.56 million USD) for CASE 2.

Table 3.3.35 Project budget

Item CASE 1 CASE 2

1,000Rp 1,000yen 1,000Rp 1,000yen

Land acquisition 60,000,000 516,000 60,000,000 516,000

Preparation 2,325,000 20,000 2,325,000 20,000

Initial investment 1,061,537,000 9,129,000 1,295,542,000 11,141,660

O&M 1,614,651,000 13,886,000 1,509,870,000 12,984,880

Fund procurement

cost

245,700,000 2,113,020 292,144,000 2,512,442

Contingency 186,035,000 1,599,902 180,201,000 1,549,730

Tax 268,061,000 2,305,329 44,354,000 381,446

Total 3,438,309,000 29,569,251 3,384,436,000 29,106,158

Total in USD (1,000

USD) 381,539

375,563

Item in local currency in Japanese yen In local currency in Japanese yen

1,000Rp 1,000yen 1,000Rp 1,000yen

Land acquisition 60,000,000 0 60,000,000 0

Preparation 2,325,000 0 2,325,000 0

Initial investment 491,770,000 4,900,000 1,016,472,000 2,400,000

O&M 1,614,651,000 0 1,509,870,000 0

Fund procurement

cost

2,113,020 2,512,442

Contingency 93,017,500 799,951 90,100,500 774,865

Tax 268,061,000 0 44,354,000 0

Total 2,529,824,500 7,812,971 2,723,121,500 5,687,307


3.3.4 Issues and Solutions in Adopting the Proposed Technologies and System

Issues and solutions regarding to apply proposed technologies/systems are as follows:

(1) Procurement and management of workers for tasks including manual sorting

This project requires about 1,200 workers. As a result, there are challenges to procure the number of

workers and to manage them. For the solution, existing workers tasked for collecting waste are gathered

to employ continuously, and made to follow contract of employment by opening their bank accounts for

126

salary payment. Additionally, they receive medical check regularly to keep their health.

(2) Procurement of heavy equipment operators

In this project, about 40 loaders are operated to treat/dispose waste; therefore, appropriate skilled

operators are necessary. For the solution, heavy equipment operators are locally and widely recruited,

and for fulfilling shortage of the number of operators, non-skilled workers are trained to become the

operators until the project starts.

(3) Procurement of RDF users with considerations of transportation

It is necessary to procure users of RDF manufactured through this project. Also, transportation system

for the RDF users needs to be evaluated.

For the solution, cement factories are the first candidate for the RDF user because they already have

been purchasing 150Rp/kg to 375Rp/kg of RDF. As a result, the RDF user providing the most profitable

is selected under considerations of efficient RDF transportation. Also, it is discussed to seek RDF

demand from other than the cement factories. For instance, it is evaluated a possibility to use RDF as

fuel substitution at a thermal power plant, located at coastal area 10 km NW away from this project site.

For the evaluation, it is approached by both technical and economic aspects. The evaluation of this

power plant as the RDF user is resulted from advantages which are its location relatively close to the

project site and its stable business almost indefinitely comparing with the cement factories, and it is an

effective management to reduce risk by dealing with several users not only the cement factories but also

other businesses. For the reasons, the RDF quality sustains to satisfy the users with shape, impurity

and etc. under economically feasible range as well as calorific value.

(4) Compost quality procuring the compost users

Users of compost which manufactured through this project are necessary to be procured. The compost

quality is under precondition to satisfy the compost users; therefore, for especially organic oriented

market waste as material, it is necessary to be evaluated in details about the compost demand

mechanism later on as well as maintaining the compost quality standard.

For the solution, the existing compost users’ condition is reviewed and the compost demand forecast is

analyzed.

(5)Supplying transportation systems

At the project site, there is the existing landfill of Tangerang Regency and a total of approximately 100

waste transportation vehicles are daily moved. In this project, about 1,500t waste is expected to be

transported by a total of 1,000 vehicles if one vehicle carries 1.5t of waste amount. In this case, it

creates major impact to the neighborhood.

127

As stated in the Chapter 3, as one of the solutions, it is considered to establish a transfer station in west

Jakaruta. Since an existing transfer station in Sunter is abolished and an incinerator plant is planned to

be replaced, the transfer station needs to be considered to repair including to utilize usable materials.

Regarding the transportation cost, as mentioned in Chapter 3, no matter if the transfer station is

established, it is aimed to improve the existing waste transportation system for Batar Gebang via Sunter.

129

Chapter 4

Evaluation of Environmental and Social Impacts

131

In this chapter, the environmental and social aspects of the Project are analysed. It must be noted that

although environmental and social impact of the project has been analyzed for both the area near the

existing Bantar Gebang and the project site in Jatiwaringin area, analysis has been more extensively done

for the project site as the impact and effect is expected to be more significant.

4.1 Analysis of the Present Environmental and Social Conditions

4.1.1 Analysis of the Present Conditions

(1) Area near the Bantar Gebang final disposal site

A) Present Environmental Conditions

As was mentioned in Chapter 3, the final disposal of wastes generated in Jakarta is concentrated into the

final disposal site at Bantar Gebang, located in Bekasi City. On average, between 5,000~6,000t of wastes

are carried into this site every day. These large amounts of waste are simply dumped without any earth

covering, thus imparting a heavy load on the environment. On conducting survey of Bantar Gebang final

disposal site, the following results were obtained (Source: Indonesia Ministry of Environment, State of

Environment Report 2009):

- As a result of water quality survey, 40% of the samples were found to be in excess of the

standard value for acidity.

- As a result of water quality survey, 95% of the samples were found to contain coli bacteria.

- As a result of rectal swab inspection, 60% of targets were found to carry pathogenic germs.

Among these were coli bacteria (62%), salmonella bacteria (2%) and dysentery bacteria (2%).

- As a result of pulmonary tuberculosis inspection based on sputum sampling, 100 people were

found positive in 1998 while the number dropped to 16 in 1999.

- As a result of x-ray inspection, it was found that 34% of residents have chronic lung diseases

such as pulmonary tuberculosis, etc.

Moreover, the large numbers of trucks carrying waste to the site are a cause of traffic

congestion and an impediment to local economic activities.

B) Present Social Conditions

At Bantar Gebang final disposal site, numerous waste pickers scavenge for valuable resources. According

to the results of an interview survey of residents conducted in 2008, many waste pickers live in temporary

houses while collecting plastic, cans, bottles and iron, etc. on the site, and from these activities they earn

between 500,000~1,000,000 Rp per month. In the same survey, whereas 19% of the respondents said that

the final disposal site provided benefits (increased income, widened roads, etc.), 92% said that there is

need to carry out improvement of the site in sanitary terms (source: SAPROF report).

132

(2) Project site (Tangerang Regency, Jatiwaringin Village and environs)

A) Present Environmental Conditions

An environmental survey was conducted locally to quantitatively analyse the likely improvement effects of

the Project as much as possible. This survey involved the sampling of environmental air, river water,

groundwater, odour and leachate around the project site and the chemical analysis of these samples at a

laboratory. Existing documents and aerial photographs were used to assist the survey on the natural

environment (see Figure 4.1.1. for the sampling points). The survey findings are described next.

Figure 4.1.1 Sampling Sites of Environmental Air, River Water, Groundwater, Odour and Leachate

(Source: (Source: Prepared by the authors of this report using Google aerial map)

NOTE: The work shed has been indicated because it affects the water quality)

a) Results of environmental survey

a1) Ambient Air

Compared to the clean air standards set forth by Government Regulation No. 41 (1999) on Air

Pollution Control, the TSP value on the leeward side exceeds the reference value. It is inferred that

smoke generated at the existing disposal site has pushed up the TSP value on the leeward side.

In contrast, the SO2, CO, NO2 and O3 values are lower on the leeward side than those on the

windward side. Compared to their reference values, the differences are inferred to be within the range

of fluctuation at a much lower level.

133

Table 4.1.1 Environmental Air Analysis Results

Item Unit Analysis Results

Reference Value Windward

(Southeast) Leeward

(Northwest) SO2 μg/Nm3 124 117 365 CO μg/Nm3 558 269 100,000 NO2 μg/Nm3 22 6 150 O3 μg/Nm3 20 10 235 TSP μg/Nm3 101 414 230 CO2 μg/Nm3 108 223 None

(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report. The analysis was conducted as part of the Study. The

reference values are those of Government Regulation No. 41 (1999) on Air Pollution Control.)

Figure 4.1.2 Comparison of TSP Values Between Windward and Leeward Sides


Photo 4.1.1 Smoke generated by the existing disposal site

(Source:Taken by the authors of this report)

a2) River Water

Cirarap River running at the side of the project site is contaminated by various organic compounds. The

river water of Cirarap River is classified as “Class D: usable for agriculture, small-scale projects, industry

and hydroelectric generation” by Government Regulation No. 82 (2001) on the Management of Water

Quality and Control of Water Pollution. Compared to the reference values set forth by this regulation for

Class D water, only the BOD value of the sampled water exceeds the relevant reference value.

0

100

20

300

400

500

Southeastern Side Northwestern Side

TSP

TSP

μg/Nm3

134

Table 4.1.2 River Water Analysis Results

Item Unit Analysis Results Reference

Value Upstream Downstream Total dissolved solids (TDS) mg/liter 232 346 2,000Residue on evaporation 173 193 400 pH 7 7 5-9BOD mg/liter 21 48 12COD mg/liter 40 77 100DO mg/liter 0 0 0T-P mg/liter 0.1 0.1 5Nitrate nitrogen mg/liter 0.05 1 20Soluble cobalt mg/liter 0.03 0.04 0.2Boron mg/liter 0.5 0.4 1Soluble cadmium mg/liter < 0.0003 < 0.0003 0.01Cr6+ mg/liter 0.04 0.05 1Soluble copper mg/liter 0.01 0.01 0.2Soluble lead mg/liter < 0.004 < 0.004 Soluble zinc mg/liter 0.1 0.1 2Soluble iron mg/liter 1.1 0.6 ―Fluorides mg/liter 0.4 0.4 ―Chlorides mg/liter 36 53 ―Soluble manganese mg/liter 0.8 0.4 ―Nitrite mg/liter 0.02 0.04 ―Fecal coliforms 2,640 1,000 2,000Total coliforms 28,500 12,500 10,000

(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report. The analysis was conducted as part of the study. The

reference values are those of Government Regulation No. 82 (2001) on the Management of Water Quality

and Control of Water Pollution.)

NOTE: The reference values in the above table are those applicable to Class D water: usable for

agriculture, small projects, industry and hydropower generation.

The sample water was taken from both the upstream and downstream sides of the disposal site. There is a

tendency for the BOD and COD values to be higher on the downstream side than those on the upstream

side.

Figure 4.1.3 Comparison of BOD and COD Values Between Upstream and Downstream Sides

0

20406080

100

Upstream Downstream

CODmg/L

0

20

40

60

Upstream Downstream

BODmg/L

135


It was confirmed during the field survey that plastic bags, etc. recovered from the waste brought to the

disposal site are washed at a shed located between the upstream and downstream river water sampling

sites. For this work, river water is pumped up and then returned to the river after use for washing. Many

bags, etc. which have escaped during the washing work are scattered at the riverside, implying their

possible adverse effects on the river water quality (see Photo 4.1.2). This situation suggests that the

higher BOD and COD values on the downstream side as shown by the river water analysis results are

likely to be attributable to not only the final disposal site itself but also to a whole range of waste

recycling activities.

Photo 4.1.2 Riverside near the bag washing shed （Source: Prepared by the authors of this report）

The coliform count was found to be higher on the upstream side than the downstream side. The field

survey confirmed that this is caused by the existence of a toilet facility near the water sampling site on

the upstream side.

Photo 4.1.3 View of the river water sampling site on the upstream side


a3) Groundwater

Compared to the reference standards for Class A water: Usable for drinking water without treatment set

forth by Government Regulation No. 82 (2001) on the Management of Water Quality and Control of Water

Flow directionRiver

Shed

Inflow of waster water to the river Scattered bags, etc. from the shed

Toilet Sampling site

Flow direction

Scattered bags, etc.

136

Pollution, the turbidity, Fe, Cr6+ and coliform values are higher in some samples. No clear correlation is

observed between the sampling locations and sites as well as levels of pollution, suggesting that the

pollution of groundwater is almost evenly spread over the entire area. According to the local consultant

entrusted to conduct the environmental survey, the local groundwater has likely been affected by industrial

activities given the high level of such activities in Tangerang District even though the sources of pollution

have not been identified.

Table 4.1.3 Groundwater Analysis Results

Item Unit Analysis Results Reference

Value Sample No. 1 Sample No. 2 Sample No. 3

TDS mg/liter 726 906 1,422 1,000Turbidity Nephelometric

Turbidity Units (NTU)

9 0.5 12 5

Taste Tasteless Tasteless Tasteless TastelessTemperature Celcius 27.9 27.9 27.5 Air temperature

±3Colour True colour

units 9 < 4 9 15

Fe mg/liter 0.2 0.04 0.2 0.1F mg/liter 0.3 0.4 0.2 1.5Cd mg/liter < 0.003 < 0.003 < 0.003 0.005CaCO3 mg/liter 500Cl mg/liter 194 500 407 600Cr6+ mg/liter 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.05Mn mg/liter 0.04 0.1 0.1 0.5NO3- mg/liter < 0.08 < 0.08 < 0.08 10NO2- mg/liter 0.02 < 0.0009 0.01 1pH 6.5- 6.6 7.3 6.5-8.5Coliforms (MPN) MPL/100ml 60 50 43 50

*The reference values in the above table are those applicable to Class A water: usable for drinking

water without treatment


reference values are those of Government Regulation No. 82 (2001) on the Management of Water Quality

and Control of Water Pollution.) a4) Odour

The NH3 and H2S values exceed their corresponding reference values in Indonesia, confirming the

presence of bad odour around the project site. Sampling took place at the same sites for the sampling

of environmental air (windward and leeward sides) and a tendency for the odour values to be higher

on the leeward side is observed.

137

Table 4.1.4 Odour Analysis Results

Item Unit Analysis Results Reference Value Windward Leeward

NH3 mg/liter 1.2 2.6 2.0CH3SH mg/liter 0.003 0.005 0.002H2S mg/liter 0.03 0.04 0.02(CH3)2S mg/liter 0.005 0.008 0.01C6H5CHCH2 mg/liter 0.008 0.006 0.1

(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report. The analysis was conducted as part of the study.

The reference values are those set forth by Ministerial Decree No. 50 (1996)

of the Ministry of Environment on Odour Standards.)

a5) Leachate

Compared to the reference values set forth by Ministerial Decree No. 51 (1995) of the Ministry of

Environment on Effluent Standards for Industry, the fluorine, mercury and selenium values of some

samples exceed the relevant reference values.

Table 4.1.5 Leachate Analysis Results

Item Unit Analysis Results Reference Value Sample No. 1 Sample No. 2

Arsenic mg/liter 0.1 0.01 0.1Barium mg/liter <0.001 <0.001 － Boron mg/liter 3.2 0.6 － Cadmium mg/liter <0.007 <0.007 0.05Chrome mg/liter 0.1 0.1 0.5Copper mg/liter 0.02 0.2 2Cyanogen compounds mg/liter 0.03 0.02 0.05Fluorine mg/liter 5.5 6.4 2Lead mg/liter 0.04 0.01 0.1Mercury mg/liter 0.01 0.004 0.002Nitrate + nitrite mg/liter 7.5 2.1 － Nitrite mg/liter 0.9 0.1 － Selenium mg/liter 0.1 0.1 0.05Silver mg/liter 0.03 0.01 － Zinc mg/liter 0.5 0.1 5

*The reference values are those applicable to Group 1 factories with an advanced effluent treatment

system.


reference values are those set forth by Ministerial Decree No. 51 (1995) of the Ministry of Environment on

Effluent Standards for Industry.)

138

Photo 4.1.4 Leachate accumulating at the disposal site

*Leachate and waste are mixed up together.


a6) Natural Environment

According to existing documents and aerial photographs, there is no nature reserve designated by the

government near the project site. However, a wild mangrove forest which is protected under the

national government policy is located some 7 km away from the project site.

b) Summary of Environmental Issues

The findings of the field survey indicate the following environmental issues to be considered.

・ Air pollution attributable to the natural combustion of waste at the existing disposal site is

observed even though the level of pollution is below the relevant environmental standard for air.

・ While the quality of river water is affected by human sewage, there is another factor that effluent

from the operation at a nearby shed of washing plastic bags, etc. recovered from waste for

recycling is discharged to the river without any treatment. This situation indicates that

environmental loads are produced by the operation of the final disposal site as well as waste

recovery and recycling activities of which the underlying motivation is quite favourable.

・ The local groundwater fails to meet the reference standard in relation to several analysis items. The

groundwater pollution appears to be common knowledge locally and all of the local residents

interviewed replied that they buy drinking water. This suggests that the groundwater from local

boreholes is used for washing and other purposes. Cr6+ was detected in the groundwater from

boreholes located in the upstream of the project site. It is inferred that industrial waste, etc. at

another final disposal site located in the upstream of the project site may well be the source of this

pollution but the exact source has not yet been identified. Meanwhile, the slightly high level of

coliforms is thought to be attributable to human sewage, including that of waste pickers operating

near the disposal site.

・ In regard to leachate, some heavy metals show relative high values and these must be noted from

the viewpoint of the management of hazardous waste. The relevant control measures include

restrictions on incoming waste containing heavy metals (for example, fluorescent lamps, dry cells,

139

mercury thermometers and manometers) and continual monitoring with a view to preventing an

unwanted increase of the level of heavy metal concentration in leachate.

・ The interviews with local residents on the state of their health found that 83% were healthy before

the opening of the existing disposal site. None of them described themselves as “healthy” since the

opening of the disposal site. 8% complained of stomach pains, 28% complained of the symptoms

of skin disorders (hives, chromphytosis, scabies and others) and 64% complained of the symptoms

of respiratory disorders (TB, shortness of breath and others). It is probably safe to assume that

these medical conditions are related to the environmental pollution described above.

・ At present, the following management techniques for the final waste disposal site have not yet

been adopted.

a) Appropriate landfill method

b) Environmental management and monitoring techniques

c) Techniques designed to reduce environmental loads in order to minimise adverse impacts on

the local environment

(3) Present Social Conditions

a) Results of Social Survey

A social environment survey was conducted around the project site. The main components of this survey

were a series of interviews with administrators and local residents and the gathering of administrative

statistics. The main findings are described next.

a1) Housing

At present, the project site is mostly used for rice cultivation. Although there are no permanent dwellings,

some 10 temporary buildings occupied by waste pickers, etc. exist in the area. Some of these buildings are

used for the storage of recovered valuables from the disposal site or the resting of waste pickers.

a2) Livelihood

According to the manager of the Jatiwaringin Disposal Site and others, 843 local residents recover

valuables from the said disposal site. In general, these recovered valuables provide some 50% of the

income for many of these people with the remaining 50% coming from farming, etc. The most popular

item recovered from the disposal site is plastics but other valuables include steel (iron), aluminium (broken

pans, etc.), tins (food tins, etc.), broken glass, worn sandals and electric bulbs.

Waste pickers collect these valuables without sorting and sell them to middlemen (lapak) at 1,400 Rp/kg

(glass is the only item with variable prices from 250 Rp/kg for coloured glass to 400 Rp/kg for clear glass).

Middlemen then clean, sort and sell the valuables to recycling plants at a price of 500 Rp to 3,900 Rp/kg

depending on the type of waste. This process of recycling valuable waste from waste pickers at a recycling

plant is shown in Figure 4.1.4.

Figure. 4.1.4 Flow o

Waste pickers

They collect valuable resources from the disposal site and sell them to middlemen without separating.

They svaluable vendors.

(Source: Prepared by t

The interviews with the largest middle

recovered from the Jatiwaringin dispos

Waste pickers earn some 18,925,000 R

picker earns an average of 2,450 Rp/d.

Table 4.1.6 Quantities and Value

Type R

Plastic High-density polyethylene bags Polypropylene (PP) bags Polyethylene (PE) bags Other bags Polyethylene (PE) packaging Other packaging Plastic bottles Plastic toys

Iron Aluminum (e.g. pieces of pan) Tin (e.g. cans of canned foods) Broken glass (clear) Broken glass (colored) Sandals Light bulbs

Total(Source: Prepared by the author

Mixed valuable resources (e.g.

PET bottles, cans, plastic bags)

140

of Recovered Valuables (in case of PET bottles)

Middlemen Vendors

separate and clean items and sell them to

They purchase only specific valuable items, conduct further separation, cleaning, crushing and drying where necessary, and sell them to recycling companies.

Tbototeet

the authors of this report based on the interview resul

emen operating in Jatiwaringin revealed the quantiti

al site and the middlemen’s purchase prices as shown

Rp/d from the recovery of valuables at the disposal s

es of Valuables Recovered from the Jatiwaringin DQuantity

Recovered (kg/d) Sales to middlemen

(kg/d) Sales Price (Rp/kg) Total sale7,000 1,400

1,000 1,400 1,000 1,400 2,000 1,400

50 700

20 1,400 50 700

1,000 1,400 20 1,400

143 1,400 1,000 1,400 500* 400 500* 250

3 1,400 50 1,400

14,336 rs of this report based on the interview results with m

PET bottles PET bottle fragmen

Recycling companies at

home and abroad

They use PET ottle fragments o manufacture extile products, tc.

lts)

ies of valuables

n in Table 4.1.6.

site. Each waste

Disposal Site

es to (Rp/d)9,800,000

1,400,000 1,400,000 2,800,000

35,000

28,000 35,000

1,400,000 28,000

200,000 1,400,000

200,000 125,000

4,000 70,000

18,925,000 middlemen)

nts

141

a3) Cultural Assets, Landscape and Ethnic Minorities

As mentioned earlier, the land at the project site is mostly used for rice cultivation at present. Even though

there are no permanent dwellings, some 10 temporary buildings exist to accommodate waste pickers, etc.

These buildings are also used to store valuables recovered from the disposal site and for the resting of

waste pickers. No cultural assets protected by a public body exist on or around the project site. Neither are

there any colonies of ethnic minorities or indigenous people on or around the project site.

a4) Work Environment

At the Jatiwaringin disposal site, 843 people operate as waste pickers to recover valuables from the surface

of the waste mountains and near the trucks unloading the waste. Some landfill sites in Indonesia have

experienced the death of waste pickers due to the collapse of the waste mountains as mentioned earlier. In

the case of an open dumping type disposal site such as the existing Jatiwaringin disposal site where waste

is simply piled up, not only the possible collapse of the waste mountains but also the frequent autogenous

ignition of the waste through the fermentation of organic matters make the work environment for waste

pickers unsafe.

a5) Transport

The access road to the Jatiwaringin disposal site currently carries some 115 dump trucks transporting waste

to the site as well as some 145 vehicles a day. The results of interviews with local residents indicate their

desire to see the use of the road by dump trucks outside the busy hours of between 07:00 and 09:00 in the

morning and between 16:00 and 18:00 in the evening.

b) Summary of Social Issues

The field survey has identified the following social issues concerning the area surrounding the project site.

・ Although there are 10 temporary housing, there are no permanent housing

・ Many of the residents in the area collect valuables in the existing landfill site and the disposal site

is contributing to the local community

・ There are no natural or cultural heritages near the project site.

・ The work environment is not very safe for waste pickers because of the possible collapse of the

waste mountains as well as the frequent autogenous ignition of these mountains to cause fires.

・ Trucks that pass the near roads for transporation of wasts may be hindering economic and social

activities of the local communities during the busy morning and evening hours.

4.1.2 Future projections (if project is not implemented)

Section 3.1.2(3) summarizes the problems that will arise in the case where the Project isn’t implemented,

and the following paragraphs examine problems from the viewpoint of environmental and social

consideration.

142

(1) Area around Bantar Gebang final disposal site

As was mentioned earlier, since a lot of waste is carried into Bantar Gebang final disposal site every

day, this leads to environmental pollution in terms of water contamination, health damage to local

residents and traffic congestion, etc. Since the generated amount of waste in Jakarta is expected to

increase even more in line with economic growth in future, in the event where the Project is not

implemented, the said problems around Bantar Gebang final disposal site are likely to deteriorate.

(2) On the Project site (area around Jatiwaringin Village in Tangerang District)

The final disposal site in Tangerang Regency conducts open dumping with hardly any earth covering,

and fermenting waste is allowed to spontaneously combust. Revision of pertinent legislation has made

it necessary to switch from open dumping to sanitary landfill by 2013, however, due to the difficulty

of acquiring covering materials and lack of experience in management technology, it will be very

difficult to effect improvement. Conversely, in Jatiwaringin in Tangerang Regency, since there are no

facilities for receiving municipal wastes from Jakarta, no contribution can be expected with respect to

the rehabilitation of existing facilities through, for example, the economic effect and supply of

covering materials to existing final disposal sites described in the coming sections.

The major problems from the viewpoint of environmental and social consideration are as follows:

- The air pollution caused by smoke, etc. rising from spontaneously combusting waste on the site

will remain unchanged or deteriorate even more.

- Since bag cleaning work, etc. implemented on and around the site will remain unchanged, it

will not be possible to remove the cause of pollution to river water. Similarly, the quality of

bottom sediment will remain unchanged or deteriorate even more.

- The current situation of water pollution due to human excreta and other wastewater from waste

pickers and other locals will remain unchanged, and pollution caused by fecal bacteria will

remain unchanged or worsen.

- Since no improvements will be made to the noise and vibration situation in terms of equipment

and maintenance, the current situation will remain unchanged or deteriorate even more.

- Since no improvements will be made to the odor situation in terms of equipment and

maintenance, the current situation will remain unchanged or deteriorate even more.

- Many local residents collect valuable materials from the existing disposal site, however, since

there is risk of the waste mountain collapsing and catching fire, the work environment is not

safe for them. These conditions will remain unchanged or deteriorate even more.

143

4.2 Environmental Improvement Effects of the Project

The environmental improvement effects of the Project are examined separately for Jakarta and

Tangerang Regency.

4.2.1 Improvement Effects in the Bantar Gebang Final Disposal Site

(1) Environment

The amount of waste at Bantar Gebang final disposal site will decrease, while construction of facilities on

the west side of Jakarta as opposed to Bantar Gebang in the east will help improve the waste transportation

efficiency, reduce waste transportation costs and improve traffic congestion around Bantar Gebang. The

improvement in traffic congestion will also lead to improvement in the state of air pollution caused by

exhaust gases from passing vehicles. Furthermore, on Bantar Gebang disposal site, even though it is

planned to switch from open dumping to the more sanitary landfill approach, the site is unable to conduct

earth covering on the same day due to the large amounts of waste being carried in. However, since the

amount of incoming waste will be reduced as a result of the Project, it will become possible to conduct

same day earth cover, not to mention the fact that a major effect can be expected in terms of extending the

landfilling service life.

(2) Society

Concern is raised over the negative impact of the Project in that the reduction of incoming municipal waste

to Bantar Gebang disposal site will adversely affect the income of waste pickers who make a living by

collecting and selling valuable wastes from the site. However, since the waste pickers form an extensive

organization, it is expected that the impact can be kept to a minimum if the waste pickers move in line with

the flow of waste.

4.2.2 Improvement Effects on the Project Site (area around Jatiwaringin Village in Tangerang District)

(1) Environment

The Project will not directly conduct improvements to the existing disposal site in Jatiwaringin,

however, as the neighbouring land will be developed and the existing disposal site will be improved,

the environmental load in this area will decline. It is also hoped that new management methods will

be introduced, thereby leading to improvement in the skill levels and so on of operators.

- Since sanitary landfilling, which doesn’t entail risk of spontaneous combustion, will be

introduced on the new disposal site, naturally occurring fires will be prevented and this will

lead to improvement in the air environment.

- In addition to improvement of the Project disposal site, the activities of waste pickers around

the site will be modified to a more environmentally considerate method, thereby leading to

reduction in the environmental load placed on water quality. The situation regarding resource

144

collection in bags, etc. around the disposal site will be improved, and the pollutant load

entering rivers will be mitigated as a result of the integrated treatment of bag washing water

and leachate. Moreover, as an incidental effect, the construction of toilets, etc. will help

improve the sanitary environment and reduce inflow of coliform bacteria to rivers, etc. The

resulting improvement in water quality will also be effective in improving bottom sediment

quality.

- The adoption of low noise heavy machinery will help improve noise and vibration.

- The introduction of sanitary landfilling will lead to improvement in the effects of odor.

(2) Society

Through constructing a new disposal site, it is anticipated that this will lead to vitalization of the local

economy around Jatiwaringin improvement in the working environment for waste pickers.

・ The construction of a new disposal site is expected to create new employment at Jatiwaringin and

to stimulate the local economy. When the new disposal site opens, it is estimated that some 1,500t

of waste will be brought in every day. Establishment of 8 lines for manual sorting of valuables from

wastes with 50 staffs for each line ise planned, which would employ a total of 1,200 people. The

revenue from sales of collected valuables would be paid to the workers in the sorting lines. In

addition to these sorting workers, the recruitment of approximately 20 workers will be necessary

for administration of the operation of the landfill site (e.g. operation of machineries), creating

further employment.

・ The construction of an environmentally sound waste disposal site under the Project will much

improve the work environment of waste pickers. The new disposal site is designed to prevent the

collapse of the waste mountains and also to reduce the risk of autogenous ignition as organic waste

will be either composted or covered by soil after landfilling operation (see Chapter 3 for the design

of the new disposal site). As waste pickers will recover valuables from the waste on a manual

sorting line in an orderly manner instead of picking them out from among waste mountains, the

work environment will be much safer without the risk of accidents due to contact with heavy

machinery or dump trucks.

4.3 Environmental and Social Impacts of the Implementation of the

Project 4.3.1 Environmental and Social Issues Requiring Consideration at the Next Stage of the Study

Careful attention must be paid to the following issues in the process leading to the implementation of the

Project. Detailed examination of these issues is necessary as part of the environmental impact assessment

(AMDAL) scheduled to take place in due course.

145

(1) Environmental Issues

・ Impacts of increased traffic noise and vibration and emissions resulting from the delivery of waste

by dump trucks to the disposal site

・ Impacts of dust, noise, vibration and emissions caused by heavy machinery involved in the landfill

operation of waste

・ Impacts on the river, etc. due to prevention of the underground seepage of the leachate from the

disposal site, installation of a waste water treatment system and discharge of treated water

・ It is appropriate to include the period required for the stabilisation of the landfilled waste when

considering the impacts of the final disposal site.

・ Impacts of human sewage and waste water produced by people working at the final disposal site,

including those engaged in waste recycling

・ It is appropriate for planning of the scope of the final disposal site to include recycling activities

conducted around the disposal site.

(2) Social Issues

・ Any legal requirement must be clarified in relation to the procedure to relocate the 10 temporary

buildings which are currently used by waste pickers for dwelling and other purposes. Any negative

impacts on the people using these buildings must be minimised.

・ Interviews with 36 local residents found that 10 of them (approximately 28%) are engaged in

farming full-time or part-time with an average income from farming of some 1,179,285Rp/month.

Because the construction of the new final disposal site means partial loss of the existing farmland,

some of these people will find it impossible to continue farming. Although the new disposal site

will create new employment opportunities, it will be desirable to provide the necessary training,

etc. for those people who may be forced to abandon farming and to seek work with a valuables

recovery line, etc. at the disposal site so that they can quickly adapt to a new job and environment.

・ It is necessary to carefully ensure that the income of no local resident will drop due to the

implementation of the Project.

・ The construction of a large-scale final disposal site means a substantial increase of the traffic

volume involving dump trucks which is likely to disrupt traffic involving local residents. As such

disruption may hinder the development of the local economy, an IEA must examine any likely

impacts of the increased traffic with a view to coming up with suitable remedial measures (for

example, widening of the roads and the compression of waste at transfer stations to reduce the

waste volume).

Table 4.3.1 and Table 4.3.2 summarise the present environmental and social conditions, environmental and

social improvement effects and likely impacts of the implementation of the Project.

146

Table 4.3.1 Current Environmental and Social Conditions, and Improvement Effects and Impacts

Arising in Line with Project Implementation (Area around Bantar Gebang Final Disposal Site) Item Current Conditions Improvement Effect Impact

Environment Waste is being concentrated into 1 final disposal site, causing overload, and there is concern over air pollution, etc. caused by transporting vehicles.

Construction of a new treatment facility will mitigate load, reduce the number of incoming vehicles and improve air pollution. Construction of a disposal site on the west side of the regency will resolve the issue of over-concentration on the east side.

－

Society Concentration of incoming vehicles is causing traffic congestion.

The number of incoming vehicles will fall, leading to improvement in traffic congestion.

Reduction in the amount of incoming waste will lead to reduced employment on the disposal site.


Table 4.3.2 Present Environmental and Social Conditions and Improvement Effects and Impacts of

the Project (in areas near the Project site) Item Present Conditions Improvement Effects Impacts Environmental Aspect

Air There is air pollution caused by smoke from the autogenous ignition of waste at the existing disposal site. At one survey site, the TSP value of 414 g–Nm3 far exceeds the reference value (230

g-Nm3).

The Project will have the effect of improving the existing disposal site, preventing autogenous ignition to improve the air environment. For the new disposal site, the sanitary landfill method with no autogenous ignition will be adopted.

The increased number of vehicles transporting waste will increase the overall amount of emissions while the increased amount of waste will increase the amount of emissions from heavy machinery. Careful attention will be required to deal with dust, etc. associated with the landfill work.

Water Quality

The river water is polluted by the operation to wash recovered plastic bags, etc. and human sewage produced by waste pickers and others. For example, the BOD value increases from 21 mg/liter in the upstream to 48 mg/liter in the downstream.

Apart from the improvement of the existing disposal site, the activities of waste pickers in the area should be guided to more environmentally sound activities to reduce the overall environmental load.

Treated leachate is discharged from the existing disposal site and its environmental load should be taken into consideration.

Waste At present, the Jatiwaringin disposal

As the Project will take place at land adjacent

With the completion of the Project, the area

147

Item Present Conditions Improvement Effects Impacts site is operated by the Tangeran district authority but is marred by a number of problems as described in this table because of its open dumping method.

to the existing disposal site, it does not directly aim at improving the existing disposal site. However, with the opening of a new disposal site, positive impacts, including improvement of the operation and management, are expected to be realised at the existing disposal site.

will become a major destination for waste from Jakarta. While individual issues are described under the suitable headings in this table, it is essential to ensure an appropriate design, construction work and management of the new site to prevent an increase of the environmental load.

Soil Pollution

Groundwater is polluted by Cr6+, etc. released from a source located upstream of the project site (a Cr6+ level of 0.14 mg/liter which is well above the reference value of 0.05 mg/liter was detected at three boreholes, including one located in the upstream).

*It is inferred that there must be a groundwater pollution source which has nothing to do with the waste disposal site. This pollution should be carefully monitored as known pollution.

The pollution of groundwater by leachate from the final disposal site can be avoided by the introduction of an impermeable layer. The prevention of groundwater pollution also requires an appropriate design, construction work and management of the disposal site.

Noise and Vibration

While there are no private houses in the immediate vicinity, noise and vibration may occur at the disposal site due to the operation of heavy machinery. Noise and vibration will also occur at the roadside due to the passing of dump trucks.

With the introduction of low noise heavy machinery, the noise level at the new disposal site should be much lower than that of conventional disposal sites.

The increased number of dump trucks required to bring in a much greater volume of waste means a likely increase of noise and vibration. The introduction of appropriate measures (quiet operation, use of low noise machinery and others) will be important.

Ground Subsidence

No ground subsidence has been observed.

- As no component of the Project is likely to cause ground subsidence, this aspect can be disregarded.

Bad Odour The impacts of the disposal site are observed, including an ammonia concentration level of 2.6 mg/liter on the leeward side compared to a reference value of 2.0 mg/liter.

The introduction of the sanitary landfill method should curtail the bad odour.

It is important to regularly cover the dumped waste with soil to prevent the occurrence of bad odour.

Bottom Although the bottom Improvement of the As an increased

148

Item Present Conditions Improvement Effects Impacts Sediment material at the riverbed

has not been analysed, there can be an accumulation of pollutants in the material in view of the state of river water pollution.

treated water to be discharged to the river should reduce the burden on the river, etc.

amount of waste transported to the disposal site means a likely increase of the leachate load, it is essential to conduct the proper management of leachate.

Natural Environment

There is a mangrove forest some 7 km from the site. Even though this is not an official reserve, mangrove trees are subject to protection under a government policy.

There are no likely impacts on the natural environment in need of protection but the project design should take harmony with the surrounding natural environment into consideration.

No adverse impacts on the natural environment in need of protection will occur.

Social Aspect Relocation of Residents

There are some 10 temporary buildings used as dwellings, etc.

- These temporary buildings will require relocation.

Local Livelihood

843 waste pickers earn an average of 22,450 Rp per day from the recovery of valuables.

Employment will be created for the recovery of valuables and the operation and management of the disposal site and the income of local residents will increase.

There will be some shifts of the local production and industrial activities due to the reduction of farmland.

Cultural Assets

There are no cultural assets designated by the government

- -

Landscape River fields extend over the project site - -

Indigenous People and Ethnic Minorities

There are no communities of indigenous people or ethnic minorities locally.

- -

Work Environment

The work environment is not quite safe because of the piled up waste and autogenous ignition of the waste.

The construction of a safe disposal site will improve the work environment.

-

Transport The access road is used by some 115 dump trucks transporting waste and 145 other vehicles a day.

-

The overall traffic volume will increase due to a large number of dump trucks and other vehicles connected to the operation at the new disposal site.


149

4.3.2 Comparative Analysis between the Project Components and Other Options with Fewer

Environmental and Social Impacts

Comparison was carried out between the Project and alternative (rival) technologies and systems,

namely incineration (waste power generation) + managed final disposal site, and methane

fermentation + RDF + managed final disposal site. In selecting the system, it is important to consider

whether the technology is superior and what kind of contribution can be made to the Project area. The

alternative proposals are also excellent technologies with merits, however, ultimately the plan to

introduce MBT and managed final disposal site is considered to be superior in terms of its diversity in

providing cover soil for Jatiwaringin disposal site next to the composting facility and providing

compost for local farmland.

Table 4.3.3 Comparison with Alternative Proposals [Project]

MBT + Managed final disposal site

[Alternative 1] Incineration (waste power

generation) + Managed final disposal site

[Alternative 2] Methane fermentation + RDF + Managed final

disposal site

Products from intermediate treatment

Compost Treatment residue

Incineration ash (including fly-ash) Treatment residues (noncombustible waste, etc.)

Biogas RDF Digestion fluid (including residues)

Main environmental loads

Leachate from disposal site

Leachate, exhaust gases, incineration ash (including fly-ash) from disposal site

Leachate from disposal site Digestion fluid

Noteworthy environmental load substances

BOD, COD, T-N, etc. HCl,NO2, CO, dioxins, heavy metals in flay-ash

High concentration organic wastewater

Environmental improvement effects

Compost can be effectively utilized as covering material.

There is a large volume reduction effect. Compared to other options, the time required for treatment is short. Electric power can be obtained.

Fuels such as biogas and RDF, etc. can be obtained.

Social effects Employment creation, improvement in labor environment

Securing of electric power Securing of fuels

Problems The energy collection effect is worse than in the alternative proposals.

Caution is required in implementing dioxin countermeasures concerning exhaust gases and incineration ash Plastic bags, which are currently collected for recycling, have high potential for being incinerated with a view to securing heating value. This runs counter to the goal of collecting resources.

There are uncertainties regarding effective utilization of digestion fluids and its treatment may increase costs.

150

In addition to incinerators, it is possible that costs will rise due to maintenance of exhaust gas treatment facilities and power generating facilities.

Applicability to the Project

Compared to the alternative proposals, the environmental load is lower and maintenance costs are less. The obtained compost can be used as cover soil for improving Jatiwaringin disposal site (switch to sanitary landfilling) or it can be returned to farmland, etc. Due to the diversity of such uses, a large contribution can be made to the local area.

If incineration facilities are constructed, it is better in terms of transportation efficiency to build them close to the city where wastes are generated. Care is required in environmental terms concerning exhaust gases and dioxins. It is possible that maintenance costs will increase.

It would be effective if there are demands for biogas and RDF cloes to the project site. Costs may increase due to t digestion fluid treatment costs.

Overall assessment Good Moderate Moderate

(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report) 4.3.3 Discussions with Stakeholders

The likely main stakeholders in the Project are those listed in Table 4.3.4. Although separate

discussions with the officials in charge of the Project in the Jakarta Raya and Tangerang district

governments have started, it will be necessary to set up a discussion forum for local residents and

other stakeholders.

151

Table 4.3.4 Likely Main Stakeholders in the Project

Central

Government

Ministry of Environment

Ministry of Public Works

Local

Governments

Government of Jakarta Raya (Governor, Cleansing Department)

Government of Tangerang District (Governor’s Office; Cleansing

Department; Land Department)

Village authorities in the project-affected area (Jatiwaringin, Buaran Jati,

Gintung, Tanjakan Mekar and Rajeg)

Others Local residents (including waste pickers), middlemen to purchase recovered

valuables and local NGOs

(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report based on

the interview results and other relevant information)

The interviews with 36 local residents found that 33 respondents (92%) are in favour of the

construction of a new disposal site employing environmentally sound techniques and technologies

with 3 respondents (8%) against. However, the following conditions were put forward for the

construction. The primary reason for opposition to a new disposal site given by those against is that

they could not trust government promises to improve the existing disposal site.

Provision of free medical insurance for communities adversely affected by the disposal site

Secured employment for local residents

Road improvement (particularly the access road to Tanjakan Mekar village)

Environmentally sound management of the disposal site.

4.4 Summary of Regulations regarding Environmental and Social

Considerations in the Partner Country.

4.4.1 Summary of regulations regarding environmental and social considerations in order to implement the

project.

In Indonesia, Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is called AMDAL(Analisis Menganai Dampak

Lingkungan), and regulated by Laws or Decrees of the Minister of State for Environment as shown on the

following table. Also, under Law No.32/2009 concerning Environmental Protection and Management,

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA or KLHS in Indonesian)1 is regulated to be conducted.

Central and local governments are obligated to perform SEA when the following policies, plans, etc. are 1 SEA is called Kajian Lingkungan Hidup Strategies (KLHS) in Indonesian.

152

prepared.

・ Long-term Development Plans

・ Medium-term Development Plans

・ Spatial Plans across National, Province and District

・ Policies, Plans and Programs which give environmental impact or its risk.

Table 4.4.1 Laws and regulations on EIA in Indonesia Law

・ Government Regulation No.27/1999: Process of the conduct of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA/AMDAL)

・ Law No.32/2009 concerning Environmental Protection and Management Decree of the Minister of State for Environment

・ Decree of the Minister of State for Environment No. 11/2006 about Types of Business or Activity Compulsory Equipped with Environmental Impact Analysis

・ Decree of the Minister of State for Environment No.2/2000 on Guidance on the Evaluation of the EIA (AMDAL) Document

・ Decree of the Minister of State for Environment No.8/2000 on Guidance on Public Participation and Information Disclosure of the EIA Process.

・ Decree of the Minister of State for Environment No.9/2000 on Guidelines for Preparation of Environmental Impacts

・ Decree of the Minister of State for Environment No.40/2000 on Guidance on the Working Procedure of the EIA Commission.

・ Decree of the Minister of State for Environment No.41/2000 on Guidance on the Establishment of Commission for the EIA Evaluation in Regency/City.

(Source: Ministry of Environment, Indonesia)

153

4.4.2 AMDAL and KLHS

The following table provides comparison of AMDAL and KLHS.

Table 4.4.2 AMDAL and SEA Compared AMDAL KLHS Scope Decision Making

Applied to Projects Applied to Policies, Plans and Programs

Structure Nature Applied to Operation Strategitic, Abstract, ConceptualOutput Detail Abstract Considered Range of Project Alternatives

Location/Site Decision, Design, Construction and Operation

Area, Rule, Technology,Economy, Finance

Time Scale Short to Medium Medium to Long Impact Capacity Detailed Impact over Specified

Area Impact over more Broad Range

Main Data Sources On-site study Strategy of Sustainable Development, Balanced Environment and Vision

Depth of Research Limited and Profound Details More Conditions required rather than Profound and Broad Details

Data Type Relatively Quantitative Relatively Qualitative Quality Evaluation More Accurate Highly Uncertainness Focus Evaluate and Manage for

significant Environmental Negative Impact

Achievement on Issues of Sustainability, Review of Sources causing Environmental Burden

Fundamental Evaluation, Benchmark

Compliance with Regulations and Custom Practices regarding Best Practices

Sustainable Standards and Achievement of Goals

(Source: Peraturan Menteri Negara Lingkungan Hidup Nomor 27 Tahun 2009 Tentang Pedoman Pelaksanaan Kajian Lingkungan Hidup Strategis)

Figure 4.4.1 The scope of strategic environmental assessment

SEA（KLHS）

Policy

Plan

Project

AMDAL Project

(Source: Peraturan Menteri Negara Lingkungan Hidup Nomor 27 Tahun 2009, Tentang Pedoman

Pelaksanaan Kajian Lingkungan Hidup Strategis)

154

4.4.3 Businesses subjected to EIA

A decree of the State Minister for Environment in 19942 indicates a detailed list dividing business

activities subjected to EIA into 14 sectors such as industry and public works, etc., and shows specific

activities and scales by sector. The authority to implement EIA is given to government offices with

jurisdiction over the business concerned, or the Province (Level-1 Region), and the. Environmental

Impact Management Agency (BAPEDAL: Badan Pengendalian Dampak Lingkungan) is assigned to

coordinate the overall EIA preparation. In the case when a Japanese company performs a project

activity with some investment, firstly the project proposal is required to be submitted to the National

Investment Coordinating Board (BKPM: Badan Koordinasi Penanaman Modal), which forwards it to

an appropriate responsible ministry or agency. The proposal is screened if EIA is required, and then

EIA procedures are started. For the project activities subjected to the EIA, it is mandatory to

implement EIA for approval of the project activities.

In accordance with Decree of Ministry of Environment No. 11/2006 about Types of Business or

Activity Compulsory Equipped with Environmental Impact Analysis, a final disposal site which is

fallen under the Table 4.4.3 is mandatory to implement AMDAL. Since this project area exceeds

more than 10 ha, AMDAL procedures is necessary due to potential impacts such as air pollution,

residential health risk, odors, illness vector and leachate contamination.

Table 4.4.3 Project Activities Required EIA No Kinds of activity Quantity Scientific Justification Waste management a Final Disposal Site (TPA, or

Tempat Pembuangan Akhir) with control landfill/sanitary landfill include supporting facilities

- Area of TPA or - Total Capacity

10 ha 10,000t

Potential impacts are air pollution, community health risk, odor, illness vector and leachate pollution

b. TPA in Tidal Area - Area of TPA or - Total Capacity

5 ha 5,000t

c. Transfer Station - Total Capacity

1,000t/d

d. Integrated waste Management - Total Capacity

500t/d

e. Management by using Incinerator - Total Capacity

500t/d

Fly ash and bottom ash, biogas emission (H2S, NOx, SOx, COx and dioxine)

2 Decree of the State Minister for Environment of the Republic of Indonesia concerning the Types of

Businesses or Activities Required to Prepare an Environmental Impact Assessment

(KEP-11/MENLH/3/1994)

155

f. Composting Plant

- Capacity 100t/d

Potential impacts are air pollution, community health risk, odor, illness vector and leachate pollution

（Sources: Decree of Ministry of Environment No. 11/2006 about Types of Business or Activity

Compulsory Equipped with Environmental Impact Analysis）

4.4.4 Procedure of EIA (AMDAL) Implementation

EIA(AMDAL) is composed of (1) Environmental Impact Statement(ANDAL), (2) Environmental

Management Plan (RKL）, (3) Environmental Monitoring Plan (RPL). The other documents required for

EIA (AMDAL) is summarized as below.

Table 4.4.4 Required Documents for Implementing EIA (AMDAL)

Document

（Original） Description

AMDAL EIA - Environmental Impact Assessment

KA-ANDAL Implementation Plan: a document that describes research range of EIA,

methods of data collection and analysis, etc.

ANDAL EIS - Environmental Impact Statement: a detailed research document that

describes factors which is likely to give major environmental impacts as a

result of proposed project activities

RKL Environmental Management Plan: an effort to handle major environmental

impact brought from proposed project activities

RPL Environmental Monitoring Plan: an effort to monitor identifying

environmental component changes brought from proposed project activities

（Sources：Global Environmental Forum “Overseas Environmental Measures of Japanese

Companies(Indonesia)” March, 1998）

156

The following is a flow chart of AMDAL and a process of AMDAL implementation and a procedure of

public participation and information disclosure.

Figure 4.4.2 Flow Chart of AMDAL

Sources: ASIA (Revised Edition), Asian Economic Research Institute, 1996

(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report based on the figure in Kajima Corporation, Feasibility

Study on the MSW Intermediate Treatment Programmatic CDM in West Java Province, Indonesia,

February 2009)

Responsible Ministry/ Agency

AMDAL Committee in the responsible Ministry/Agency

Project Owner（Government）

Project Owner（Private Sector）

(Not BKPM

Project Owner（Government）(BKPM related)

Screening (whether or not there is major impact)

AMDAL required

Recording as the project that is environmentally managed in

accordance with Standard Operating Procedure(SOP)

Approval for the project

National Investment Coordinating Agency

Small-scale or it is possible to use

technology to minimize impact.

Screening the project based on BAPEDAL

standard

ANDAL/RKL/RPL reviewed by Committee in

45 days

KA-ANDAL reviewed by Committee in 12 days

AMDAL not required

157

Figure 4.4.3 Process of AMDAL Implementation

(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report based on the figure in Kajima Corporation, Feasibility

Study on the MSW Intermediate Treatment Programmatic CDM in West Java Province, Indonesia, February 2009)

Project Owner (Proponent) AMDAL Commission Approval Authority

①

②

③

④

⑤

⑥

⑦

⑧

⑨ ⑩

⑪

⑫

⑬

Submission ofKA-ANDAL

Acception of KA-ANDAL submission

Evaluation of KA-ANDAL

Requesting to prepareANDAL, RKL, RPL

Review （Revision）

Approval confirmation ofANDAL, RKL, RPL

Submission ofANDAL, RKL,

Evaluation ofANDAL, RKL,

Approval confirmation ofKA-ANDALReview（Revision）

Approval for the projectReceiving theapproval

Decision making for KA-ANDAL approval

158

Figure 4.4.4 Procedure of Public Participation and Information Disclosure

(Source: Kajima Corporation, Feasibility Study on the MSW Intermediate Treatment Programmatic CDM

in West Java Province, Indonesia, February 2009)

4.5 Items to be borne by the Recipient Country (Implementing

Agency and other Related Agencies) for Realizing the Project

4.5.1 Outline of Procedures

As the Project entails construction of waste treatment facilities, it will be necessary to conduct design and

obtain the necessary authorizations according to waste-related legislation and environmental law. The

normally expected authorization contents are indicated below, however, it will be necessary to conduct

procedures in close liaison with each government office.

- Land acquisition

- Development permit

- Permission to establish waste treatment facilities

- Permission to establish buildings and structures, etc.

- Procedures based on environmental law (leachate treatment facilities, etc.)

Project Owner (Proponent) Responsible Authority Related Local Residence

Projectannouncement

Confirmation of project& EIA implementation

Announcement ofEIA

　Discussion

Comments & Opinions

KA-ANDALpreparation

Evaluation ofKA-ANDAL

Approval for theproject

from environmental

Comments & opinionsConfirmation ofcomments &

ANDAL, RKL, RPL　　　preparation

ANDAL, RKL, RPL　　　preparation

159

4.5.2 Environmental Impact Assessment (AMDAL)

Since the Project entails construction of a final disposal site larger than 10 hectares, it will be necessary to

conduct AMDAL procedure. Through introducing technologies for environmental consideration, it is

planned to reduce environmental load and maximize social benefits.

4.5.3 Environmental Management Plan (RKL)

In the AMDAL procedure, it is necessary to present both the environmental management plan (RKL) and

environmental monitoring plan (RPL). In implementing the Project, an appropriate environmental

management plan will be compiled and coordinated with the maintenance plan and Project plan.

4.5.4 Environmental Monitoring (RPL)

Environmental monitoring is important for confirming environmental loads arising from Project

implementation and compliance with standard values and legal controls. Furthermore, the social benefits

imparted by the Project will be identified to the extent possible. Table 4.5.1 shows the draft monitoring

plan for environmental and social consideration. The details will need to be discussed and decided with the

local authorities in the Project plan implementation stage.

Table 4.5.1 Environmental and Social Consideration Monitoring Plan (Draft) Item Monitoring Item Frequency Location Environmental consideration

Air SO2, CO, NO2, TSP Particulate fallout Wind direction and velocity

2 times per year 1 location each on the windward and leeward sides

Water quality

pH, BOD, COD, SS, T-N, T-P, heavy metals, etc.

4 times per year (depending on the item, monthly implementation may be desirable)

Treated leachate effluent

pH, BOD, COD, SS, T-N, T-P, heavy metals, etc.

4 times per year Water from 1 river location each upstream and downstream from the disposal site discharge point

Heavy metals, nitrate-nitrogen, nitrite-nitrogen, chloride ion, electric conductivity

4 times per year 2 neighboring wells

Bottom sediment

Heavy metals, etc. 1 time per year Bottom sediment from 1 river location each upstream and downstream from the disposal site discharge point

Noise and Noise and 1 time per year 1 location on the site

160

Item Monitoring Item Frequency Location vibration vibration on the

site and access road

boundary 1 location on the incoming road

Odor Ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, etc.

1 time per year 1 location each on the windward and leeward sides

Natural environment

Ecosystem, etc.

Changes in the ecosystem before and after construction

1 time per year Target area

Social consideration

Relocation of residents

Relocated number, amount of guarantee

Before start of work Target area

Livelihood Survey of employment and income using the interview method, etc.

1 time per year Target area


161

Chapter 5

Financial and Economic Evaluation

163

5.1 Cost Estimation for Project Expense

The project expense consists of 1) preparation cost centering around full-scale FS and consulting before

BOT contract, 2) initial cost starting after contract, then detail design, construction, until completion, and

3) operation and maintenance (O&M) cost for 20 years after inauguration. The cost considered in this

chapter is those related to the cash flow of the project owner for the project implementation. CASE 1 is the

estimation for the project, while CASE 2 shows the estimation for another possible option explained in

chapter 3 (MBT, compost, and controlled landfill type landfill site).

5.1.1 Assumptions for Cost Estimation

The following are the assumptions for cost estimation.

(1) Inflation and Exchange Rate

The prices are as of December 2011. If there is price escalation due to the inflation, the fluctuation in costs

such as initial investment and operation and maintenance would be balanced out with the fluctuation in

revenue. The exchange rates are set as follows:

Rp = 0.0086 Yen

1.00 US$ ＝77.5 Yen

1.00 US$ ＝9,000 Rp

(2) Contingency Fund

The contingency fund is calculated as 10% of the annual expense.

(3) Depreciation

Depreciation period is 20 years. Depreciation method is straight-line depreciation.

(4) Financing Method

70% of the initial investment would be financed by JICA’s investment and loan, and the rest is financed

from the market and own resources. JICA’s scheme provides interest rate of 1.5 % with 15 years repayment

period, and it is limited up to 70% of the cost for facility construction. The interest rate of the market is 5%

with 10 years repayment period.

(5) Corporation Taxes

The effective tax rate for a corporation in Indonesia is 25%.

164

5.1.2 Preparation Cost

Preparation cost consists of geological survey, environmental impact study, and other items as shown in

table 5.1.1.

Table 5.1.1 List of the Preparation Cost (for both CASE 1 and CASE 2; all in local currency)

Item Amount

(1,000 Rp) Amount

(thou. yen) a) Geological Survey 465,000 4,000b) Environmental Impact

Study 581,000 5,000

c) Development Permission 116,000 1,000d) Basic Design for

Facilitaion 1,163,000 10,000

Total (1,000 Rp) 2,325,000 20,000Total (thou. yen) 20,000

Total (1,000 USD) 258 (Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)

5.1.3 Initial Cost

Initial cost consists of formation of SPC, design, construction management, construction cost, and others as

shown in the table 5.1.2. The total cost amounts to 9.12 billion yen for CASE 1 and 9.14 billion yen for

CASE 2. However, for CASE 2, 2 billion yen would be necessary during the project period in order to

construct an additional leachate treatment facility.

In addition, 516 million yen would be necessary for land acquisition.

165

Table 5.1.2 List of the Initial Cost

Item Amount (CASE 1) Amount (CASE 2)

Remarks 1,000 Rp

Thousand yen

1,000 Rp Thousand

yen

i) Formation of SPC 116,000 1,000 116,000 1000Local currency

ii) Execution Design 5,814,000 50,000 4,651,000 40,000Local currency

iii) Construction Management 20,698,000 178,000 20,748,000 178,000Local currency

iv) Civil Engineering and Construction (mainly, final disposal site, leachate control reservoir, and stormwater reservoir)

220,909,000 1,900,000 572,402,000 4,922,660Table 5.1.2AB

v) Equipment (mainly, intermediate treatment facility and leachate treatment facility)

814,000,000 7,000,000 465,000,000 4,000,000Table 5.1.2C

Total (1,000Rp) 1,061,537,000 9,129,000 1,062,917,000 9,141,660 Total (1,000USD) 1,061,537,000 9,129,000 118,102


The details of the above table are as follows.

Table 5.1.2A: Cost of Civil Engineering and Construction

(Initial Cost for Final Disposal Site) (CASE 1)

Class Item Quantity Unit Rate (JPY)

Amount (JPYx1,000) Remarks

Earthworks <347,283> Excavation 363,000 m3 174 63,162 BH1.0 Soil Transportation 363,000 m3 535 194,205

Embankment 53,000 m3 473 25,069

21t Bulldozer, Fill with excavated soil, including slope ditches

Soil Disposal 310,000 m3 124 38,440 Cost at Disposal Field only

Cut Slope Trimming 20,000 m2 174 3,480 Fill Slope Trimming 21,800 m2 236 5,144 Bottom Grading 129,000 m2 100 12,900 Hydroseeding 11,200 m2 436 4,883 20mm thicknessLeachate Control Works <435,634> Membrane Anchor 6,000 m 3,733 22,398

Bottom Membrane Lining 131,600 m2 2,576 339,001

Including a Protection Layer t=500

Side Slope Membrane Lining 30,600 m2 2,426 74,235

166



Storm Drainage Works <142,338> Concrete U-channel 880 m 11,971 10,534 U-1600×600×1000 Concrete U-channel 880 m 13,414 11,804 U-2100×1100×1000 Concrete U-channel 100 m 15,878 1,587 U-2800×1800×1000 Catchpit 4 place 261,312 1,045 Slab for channel crossing 4 place 1,493,213 5,972 Buried Drain 800 m 6,782 5,425 φ300 Buried Drain 3,130 m 4,753 14,876 φ150

Buried Drain Pit 2 place 186,652 373 Excluding Pumping Facility

Pumping facility in Pit 2 place 3,733,032 7,466

Regulating reservoir 1 set 79,262,215 79,262 Including Box Culvert 4.5x2x20m

Regulating tower 1 set 3,994,344 3,994 Sewage Works <103,106> Catchment Basin 1 place 846,154 846 H=6.0m Arterial Pipe Drain 800 m 38,824 31,059 φ700 Branch Pipe Drain 4,040 m 13,414 54,192 φ200 Gas Vent at Slope 860 m 7,590 6,527 φ200 Gas Vent Pipe 108 place 97,059 10,482 φ600Administration Facilities <169,198>

Access road 2,200 m 59,729 131,403 Asphalt Pavement, W=8.0m

Wheel washing bay 1 set 2,426,471 2,426

with a high pressure washer, excluding power supply

Monitoring well 4 place 248,869 995 L=20m Track scale 1 set 4,759,615 4,759 Administration building 1 set 29,615,384 29,615 340m2

Ancillary Works <25,261> Gate 1 set 373,303 373 Chain link fencing 4,000 m 6,222 24,888 H=1.8mTotal Amount of Direct Works 1,222,820

Temporary Works 122,282 10% of Direct Works

Site expense, tax, etc. 403,530 30% of Above Total

Total Amount 1,748,632 Sewage Plant <151,189>

1 set 151,189,000 151,189

All (including expense, etc.) for Basing only

Grand Total Amount 1,899,821


167

Table 5.1.2B: Cost of Civil Engineering and Construction

(Initial Cost for Final Disposal Site) (CASE 2)



Earthworks <1,043,098> Excavation 1,126,000 m3 174 195,924 BH1.0 Soil Transportation 1,126,000 m3 535 602,410

Embankment 117,000 m3 473 55,341

21t Bulldozer, Fill with excavated soil, including slope ditches

Soil Disposal 1,009,000 m3 124 125,116 Cost at Disposal Field only

Cut Slope Trimming 30,700 m2 174 5,341 Fill Slope Trimming 43,300 m2 236 10,218 Bottom Grading 392,000 m2 100 39,200 Hydroseeding 21,900 m2 436 9,548 20mm thicknessLeachate Control Works <1,283,829> Membrane Anchor 11,900 m 3,733 44,422

Bottom Membrane Lining 404,100 m2 2,576 1,040,961

Including a Protection Layer t=500

Side Slope Membrane Lining 81,800 m2 2,426 198,446

Storm Drainage Works <244,361> Concrete U-channel 880 m 11,971 10,534 U-1600×600×1000 Concrete U-channel 440 m 13,414 5,902 U-2100×1100×1000 Concrete U-channel 440 m 14,808 6,515 U-2500×1500×1000 Concrete U-channel 440 m 15,878 6,986 U-2800×1800×1000 Concrete U-channel 440 m 17,421 7,665 U-3100×2100×1000 Concrete U-channel 880 m 18,279 16,085 U-3400×2400×1000 Concrete U-channel 100 m 19,424 1,942 U-4200×2700×1500 Catchpit 7 place 447,964 3,135 Slab for channel crossing 8 place 2,239,819 17,918 Buried Drain 2,400 m 6,782 16,276 φ300 Buried Drain 9,390 m 4,753 44,630 φ150

Buried Drain Pit 6 place 186,652 1,119 Excluding Pumping Facility

Pumping facility in Pit 6 place 3,733,032 22,398

Regulating reservoir 1 set 79,262,218 79,262 Including Box Culvert 4.5x2x20m

Regulating tower 1 set 3,994,344 3,994 Sewage Works <306,133> Catchment Basin 3 place 846,154 2,538 H=6.0m Arterial Pipe Drain 2,400 m 38,824 93,177 φ700 Branch Pipe Drain 12,120 m 13,414 162,577 φ200 Gas Vent at Slope 2,160 m 7,590 16,394 φ200 Gas Vent Pipe 324 place 97,059 31,447 φ600Administration Facilities <264,765>

Access road 3,800 m 59,729 226,970 Asphalt Pavement, W=8.0m

Wheel washing bay 1 set 2,426,471 2,426

with a high pressure washer, excluding power supply

168



Monitoring well 4 place 248,869 995 L=20m Track scale 1 set 4,759,615 4,759 340m2

Administration building 1 set 29,615,385 29,615 Ancillary Works <25,261> Gate 1 set 373,303 373 Chain link fencing 4,000 m 6,222 24,888 H=1.8mTotal Amount of Direct Works 3,167,447

Temporary Works 316,744 10% of Direct Works

Site expense, tax, etc. 1,045,257 30% of Above Total

Total Amount 4,529,448 Sewage Plant <393,212>

1 set 393,212,000 393,212

All (including expense, etc.) for Basing only

Grand Total Amount 4,922,660


Table 5.1.2C: Cost of Equipment

(Initial cost for intermediate treatment facility)

No Process Main

equipment/machineSpecifications

CASE 1

(thousand yens)

CASE２

(thousand yens)

1 Bag breaker* Bag breaker Capacity: 80m3/h 200,000 200,000

2

Manual sorting Conveyor 3m width × 60m×8

rows 100,000 100,000

3 Magnetic sorting* Magnetic sorter 200,000 200,000

4 Fermentation Shovel loader 30 × 1.5m3 buckets 200,000 200,000

5 Mechanical sorting Mechanical sorter Capacity: 261.88m3/h 600,000 300,000

6 RDF manufacturing

(only for CASE １)

Presser, bailer 480t/d

2,500,000 0

3,800,000 1,000,000

7 Building Facilities to accept and store waste,

manufacture compost and other 1,200,000 1,000,000

Total 5,000,000 2,000,000

*: Indicated in Japanese yen (for both CASE 1 and CASE 2)


Table 5.1.2D Cost of Equipment

169

(initial cost for intermediate treatment facility, all in Japanese yens）

Main facility Fee (1,000 yens)

(i) Primary Coagulating Sedimentation 290,000

(ii) Biological Treatment 750,000

(iii) Secondary Coagulating Sedimentation 290,000

(iv) Sand filtration 240,000

(v) Disinfection 20,000

(vi) Sludge Dehydration 410,000

合計 2,000,000


5.1.4 Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Cost

O&M cost consists of items related to intermediate treatment, landfill at the final disposal site, and leachate

treatment at the final disposal site, as shown in Table 5.1.3. Depreciations is separately calculated.

・ Labor cost

・ Utility

・ Consumables

・ Facility Maintenance

・ Equipment Replacement

・ Depreciation

170

Table 5.1.3 List of the O&M Cost (Annual)

Item Cost（CASE 1） Cost（CASE 2）

1,000 Rp 1,000 yen 1,000 Rp 1,000 yen

Landfill

Labor 2,403,000 20,670 3,794,000 32,630Utility 4,314,000 37,101 12,974,000 111,578Facility Maintenance

608,000 5,229 1,330,000 11,436

Subtotal 7,325,000 63,000 18,098,000 155,644

Intermediate treatment and leachate treatment

Labor (for work other than manual sorting)

18,291,000 157,300 18,291,000 157,300

Labor (for manual sorting)

30,698,000 264,000 21,488,000 184,800

Operation and maintenance

24,419,000 210,000 13,953,000 �120,000

Subtotal 73,408,000 631,300 53,732,000 462,100Grand Total 80,733,000 694,300 71,830,000 617,744

Total (1,000 USD) 8,959 7,971

・ When additional leachate treatment facility is constructed, the cost would double

・ Operating hours per day is assumed to be 16 hours.

・ Operating days per year is assumed to be 330 days.0


As a result of the above estimation, it will cost 700 million yen per year for the operation of CASE 1. Cost

per t is 1,300 yen. For CASE 2, it will cost 620 million yen per year. Cost per t is 1,000 yen. However,

these costs exclude depreciation, financing cost, contingency fund, and tax.

(1) Labor Cost

Based on the maintenance cost and personnel plan estimated in the previous chapter, annual labor cost will

be as shown in Table 5.1.4.

171

Table 5.1.4 A Labor Cost (for final disposal site) (Unit; yen/y)

Item Unit cost (yen)

CASE 1 CASE 2 No. of staff

Personnel expenses

No. of staff

Personnel expenses

Plant manager 3,250,000 1 3,250,000 1 3,250,000Staffs in charge of general affairs 1,560,000 2 3,120,000 2 3,120,000Staffs in charge of Weighing 910,000 4 3,640,000 10 9,100,000Staffs in charge of facilities maintenancer

1,040,000 4 4,160,000 4 4,160,000

Staffs in charge of landfill work 650,000 10 6,500,000 20 13,000,000Total 20,670,000 32,630,000


Table 5.1.4B Labor Cost

(for intermediate treatment and leachate treatment facility; apply for both CASE 1 and CASE 2)

Item Unit

(1,000 yen/y per person)

No. of staff/group

No. of group

Total no. of staff

Labor cost (1,000 yen/y)

Manager of facility 1,040 10 2 20 20,800

Shovel loader operator 650 70 3 210 136,500

Total 157,300


Table 5.1.4C Labor Cost (for manual sorting)

Item Unit

(1,000 yen/y per person)

No. of staff/group

No. of group

Total no. of staff

Labor cost (1,000 yen/y)

CASE 1 220 400 3 1,200 264,000

CASE 2 220 280 3 840 184,800


172

a. Utility

Cost related to utility is shown in Table 5.1.5.

Table 5.1.5 Utility


b. Facility Maintenance

Cost for maintenance is shown in Table 5.1.6

Table 5.1.6 Inspection and Repair Cost

(Unit: yen/y)

Item CASE 1 CASE 2 Remarks Length of gas extraction pipes

388,800 1,166,400 CASE 1: 108 locations CASE 2: 324 locations

Drainage channels installation

880,000 2,350,000 Slope steps

Drainage channel cleaning, etc.

3,960,000 7,920,000 10% increase for cost of expendable items

Total 5,228,800 11,436,400 (Source: Prepared by the Authors of this report)

Item Annual cost (yen/y)

Remarks CASE 1 CASE 2

Heavy machinery lease charge

21,600,000 43,200,000 Bulldozer, back-how, dump truck, tire roller

Fuel cost 0 0 Light diesel oil Include in the heavy machinery lease charge.

Cover earth cost 15,501,000 68,378,000 Earth-filled dam Total 37,101,000 111,578,000

173

5.2 Outline of Preliminary Financial and Economic Evaluation of the Project

5.2.1 Project revenue and cost recovery

(1) Revenue from sales and cost recovery

Revenue from the project includes tipping fee from Jakarta and revenue from the sale of outputs from the

project activities. Output from the project includes plastics and other valuables, compost and RDF.

Revenue is dependent on the collection ratio of the products (material balance) and the sale amount. The

planned value as explained in chapter 3 is considered for the material balance for the project .

Table 5.2.1 Input and output from the project

Item Unit

CASE 1 CASE 2 Input Output Yield of

collection ratio

Input Output Yield of collection ratio

Plastics t/d 195 68 35% 195 68 35%Metals (Iron, Aluminum)

t/d 13 12 90% 13 12 90%

Glass t/d 26 9 35% 26 9 35%Compost (from household waste)

t/d 301 139 46% 301 139 46%

Compost (from market waste)

t/d 68 26 38% 68 26 38%

RDF t/d 430 430 100% 0 0 - (Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)

Sale price for the output products is set as follows.

- Plastics: Plastics collected using manual segregation is set at1,400 Rp/kg (12.04 yen/kg)

using data explained in chapter 4.

- Metals (Iron, Aluminum): Metals (Iron, Aluminum) collected using manual segregation is set

at 1,400Rp/kg (12.04 yen/kg) using data explained in chapter 4.

- Glasses: Glasses collected from manual segregation is set at 300Rp/kg (2.58 yen/kg) using

data explained in chapter 4.

- Compost: It can be expected that it will not be easy to sell compost from household waste at a

good price. So it is assumed that compost will be used as a covering agent at landfills and

will not be considered as a source of revenue. For compost from market waste, the rate is set

at 500Rp/kg (4.3 yen/kg).

- RDF (Only CASE 1) : RDF will be primarily of paper and plastics with a high value as a fuel.

As explained in chapter 3, the rate is set at 375Rp/kg (3.225 yen /kg), which is the current

selling price in Jakarta.

174

Cost recovery rate from revenue from sales is 64% for CASE 1 and 30% for CASE 2. Regarding the

investment cost, it can be said that recovery only from sales revenue would be difficult.

Table5.2.2. Recovery rate of OM cost from revenue from sales

Scale Annual sale amount

（1,000 yen/y）

OM Cost

（1,000 yen /y） OM Cost recovery

CASE 1 907,105 1,425,551 63.6%

CASE 2 400,850 1,342,658 29.9%

Note: OM cost is inclusive of depreciation portion


The figures when not including depreciation is shown in table 5.2.3. Recovery of OM cost (not including

depreciation) is at 93.6% for CASE 1 and 45.2% for CASE 2.

Table 5.2.3 OM cost recovery rate from revenue from sales (excluding depreciation)

Scale yearly sale amount

（1,000 yen /y）

OM cost

（1,000 yen /y） OM cost recovery

CASE 1 907,105 969,551 93.6%

CASE 2 400,850 885,658 45.2%

Note: OM cost does not include depreciation portion


(2) Tipping fee

Tipping fee from Jakarta for the project will be the same amount that has been set by Jakarta in its existing

contracts i.e. 189,000 Rp/t (1625 yen/t) under the assumption that MBT will be included.

The total initial investment cost, annual treatment volume, and annual revenue and expenditure (for each

item and also their sum) are shown below.

175

Table 5.2.4 Initial Investment Cost

Item CASE１ CASE２

1,000Rp 1,000 yens 1,000Rp 1,000 yens

Land procurement cost 60,000,000 516,000 60,000,000 516,000

Preparation 2,325,000 20,000 2,325,000 20,000

Initial investment 1,061,537,000 9,129,000 1,295,542,000 11,141,660

O&M 1,614,651,000 13,886,000 1,645,916,000 14,154,880

Fund procurement cost 245,700,000 2,113,020 292,144,000 2,512,442

Contingency 186,035,000 1,599,902 180,201,000 1,549,730

Tax 268,061,000 2,305,329 44,354,000 381,446

Total 3,438,309,000 29,569,251 3,384,436,000 29,106,158

Total in USD

（1,000USD） 381,539 375,563


176

Table 5.2.5 Total initial investment cost, annual treatment volume, and annual revenue and expenditure (for each item and its sum)（CASE１）

Unit: 1,000yen/y


Year 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 TotalOperating year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Waste treatmentvolume (t/y) 547,500 547,500 547,500 547,500 547,500 547,500 547,500 547,500 547,500 547,500 547,500 547,500 547,500 547,500 547,500 547,500 547,500 547,500 547,500 547,500 10,950,000

RevenueTipping fee 889,907 889,907 889,907 889,907 889,907 889,907 889,907 889,907 889,907 889,907 889,907 889,907 889,907 889,907 889,907 889,907 889,907 889,907 889,907 889,907 17,798,130

Sales of manual sortedrecyclables 360,043 360,043 360,043 360,043 360,043 360,043 360,043 360,043 360,043 360,043 360,043 360,043 360,043 360,043 360,043 360,043 360,043 360,043 360,043 360,043 7,200,866Sales of PDF 506,255 506,255 506,255 506,255 506,255 506,255 506,255 506,255 506,255 506,255 506,255 506,255 506,255 506,255 506,255 506,255 506,255 506,255 506,255 506,255 10,125,100Sales of compost 40,807 40,807 40,807 40,807 40,807 40,807 40,807 40,807 40,807 40,807 40,807 40,807 40,807 40,807 40,807 40,807 40,807 40,807 40,807 40,807 816,140

0Total revenue 1,797,012 1,797,012 1,797,012 1,797,012 1,797,012 1,797,012 1,797,012 1,797,012 1,797,012 1,797,012 1,797,012 1,797,012 1,797,012 1,797,012 1,797,012 1,797,012 1,797,012 1,797,012 1,797,012 1,797,012 35,940,236

ExpenditureLabor cost (for finaldisposal site, manualsorting, operator, etc.) 441,970 441,970 441,970 441,970 441,970 441,970 441,970 441,970 441,970 441,970 441,970 441,970 441,970 441,970 441,970 441,970 441,970 441,970 441,970 441,970 8,839,400Consumables 0Maintenance of finaldisposal site 5,229 5,229 5,229 5,229 5,229 5,229 5,229 5,229 5,229 5,229 5,229 5,229 5,229 5,229 5,229 5,229 5,229 5,229 5,229 5,229 104,580Utility of final disposalsite 37,101 37,101 37,101 37,101 37,101 37,101 37,101 37,101 37,101 37,101 37,101 37,101 37,101 37,101 37,101 37,101 37,101 37,101 37,101 37,101 742,020O&M for intermediateand leachate treatmentfacilities 210,000 210,000 210,000 210,000 210,000 210,000 210,000 210,000 210,000 210,000 210,000 210,000 210,000 210,000 210,000 210,000 210,000 210,000 210,000 210,000 4,200,000

0Total balance(exludingdepreciation, interstrate, income tax) 694,300 694,300 694,300 694,300 694,300 694,300 694,300 694,300 694,300 694,300 694,300 694,300 694,300 694,300 694,300 694,300 694,300 694,300 694,300 694,300 13,886,000

177

5.2.2 Cash flow

The project period is set as 20 years. It is expected that the service life of the facility is 20 years after

which it will need to be replaced.

Regarding the procurement of fund, out of 9.2 billion Rp (total of Table 5.1.1 and 5.1.2) which is the total

business establishment and initial investment cost, 70% would be financed by the JICA investment and

loan (15 years repayment with 5 years loan moratorium, interest rate of 1.5%) and 20% would be from

commercial banks as a long term loan (10 years repayment, interest rate of 5%). The remaining 10% would

be self-funded. All repayments would be done in a level payment basis.

Further, contingency fund would be 10% of the annual cost. The cash flow and FIRR for this project are

shown in Table 5.2.6.

Table 5.2.6 Results of Cash Flow and FIRR Analysis

Cash Flow FIRR NPV B/C

CASE 1 No shortage:

Refer to Table 5.2.7 12.2% 5.8 billion yen 1.24

CASE 2

Shortage:

Refer to Table 5.2.8

(In order to keep FIRR at 7%, tipping fee was

raised by 16% (i.e. 219,240Rp/t, 24USD/t、or

1,885 円/t))

6.8% 1 billion yen 1.07

*Discount rate was set at 6%


The results of the calculation show that there is no shortage of cash flow in CASE 1. In this case, the FIRR

is 12.2% which exceeds the interest rate of the long-term Indonesian government bonds 6.215% (as of

December). Regarding CASE 2, in order for it to become feasible to implement, the tipping fee must

increase from 189,000Rp/t (equivalent to 21USD/t or 1,625 yen) to 219,240 Rp/t (equivalent to 24 USD/t

or 1,885 yen/t).

178

Tab

le 5

.2.7

Pro

ject

Cas

h Fl

ow (C

ASE

1)

(S

ourc

e: P

repa

red

by th

e au

thor

s of t

his r

epor

t)

Yea

r20

1320

1420

1520

1620

1720

1820

1920

2020

2120

2220

2320

2420

2520

2620

2720

2820

2920

3020

3120

3220

3320

3420

35Pr

ojec

t yea

r1

23

45

67

89

1011

1213

1415

1617

1819

2021

2223

Cap

ital e

xpen

sela

nd a

cqui

sitio

n51

6,00

0SP

C e

stab

lishm

ent c

ost

1,00

0D

etai

l Des

ign

cost

50,0

00Su

perv

isin

g co

st17

8,00

0C

ivil

engi

neer

ing

cons

truct

ion

cost

1,90

0,00

0M

ater

ial a

nd m

achi

nery

cos

t7,

000,

000

Com

mer

cial

ize

cost

　(I

nclu

ding

EIA

）20

,000

Instr

umen

tatio

n &

Cab

ling,

Pip

ing

Frei

ght (

15%

of J

apan

ese

Supp

ly)

Phys

ical

Con

tinge

ncy

Engi

neer

ing

(15%

) V

AT

Sub-

tota

l51

6,00

021

,000

9,12

8,00

0In

tere

st d

urin

g th

e co

nstru

ctio

nT

otal

516,

000

21,0

009,

128,

000

00

Tipp

ing

fee

889,

907

889,

907

889,

907

889,

907

889,

907

889,

907

889,

907

889,

907

889,

907

889,

907

889,

907

889,

907

889,

907

889,

907

889,

907

889,

907

889,

907

889,

907

889,

907

889,

907

Han

d so

rting

recy

clab

le m

ater

ial s

ellin

g36

0,04

336

0,04

336

0,04

336

0,04

336

0,04

336

0,04

336

0,04

336

0,04

336

0,04

336

0,04

336

0,04

336

0,04

336

0,04

336

0,04

336

0,04

336

0,04

336

0,04

336

0,04

336

0,04

336

0,04

3R

DF

selli

n g50

6,25

550

6,25

550

6,25

550

6,25

550

6,25

550

6,25

550

6,25

550

6,25

550

6,25

550

6,25

550

6,25

550

6,25

550

6,25

550

6,25

550

6,25

550

6,25

550

6,25

550

6,25

550

6,25

550

6,25

5Co

mpo

st s

elin

g40

,807

40,8

0740

,807

40,8

0740

,807

40,8

0740

,807

40,8

0740

,807

40,8

0740

,807

40,8

0740

,807

40,8

0740

,807

40,8

0740

,807

40,8

0740

,807

40,8

07

Tota

l Inc

ome

1,79

7,01

21,

797,

012

1,79

7,01

21,

797,

012

1,79

7,01

21,

797,

012

1,79

7,01

21,

797,

012

1,79

7,01

21,

797,

012

1,79

7,01

21,

797,

012

1,79

7,01

21,

797,

012

1,79

7,01

21,

797,

012

1,79

7,01

21,

797,

012

1,79

7,01

21,

797,

012

Ope

ratin

g ex

pens

esM

anpo

wer

cos

t44

1,97

044

1,97

044

1,97

044

1,97

044

1,97

044

1,97

044

1,97

044

1,97

044

1,97

044

1,97

044

1,97

044

1,97

044

1,97

044

1,97

044

1,97

044

1,97

044

1,97

044

1,97

044

1,97

044

1,97

0C

onsu

mab

les

Mai

nten

ance

cos

t5,

229

5,22

95,

229

5,22

95,

229

5,22

95,

229

5,22

95,

229

5,22

95,

229

5,22

95,

229

5,22

95,

229

5,22

95,

229

5,22

95,

229

5,22

9U

tility

cos

t37

,101

37,1

0137

,101

37,1

0137

,101

37,1

0137

,101

37,1

0137

,101

37,1

0137

,101

37,1

0137

,101

37,1

0137

,101

37,1

0137

,101

37,1

0137

,101

37,1

01O

&M

cos

t of I

nter

med

iate

and

leac

hate

trea

tmen

t21

0,00

021

0,00

021

0,00

021

0,00

021

0,00

021

0,00

021

0,00

021

0,00

021

0,00

021

0,00

021

0,00

021

0,00

021

0,00

021

0,00

021

0,00

021

0,00

021

0,00

021

0,00

021

0,00

021

0,00

0In

tere

st p

aym

ent f

or J

ICA

Loa

n95

,850

95,8

5095

,850

95,8

5095

,850

95,8

5089

,460

83,0

7076

,680

70,2

9063

,900

57,5

1051

,120

44,7

3038

,340

31,9

5025

,560

19,1

7012

,780

6,39

0In

tere

st p

aym

ent f

or p

riva

te lo

ngte

rm lo

an91

,260

91,2

6091

,260

91,2

6091

,260

82,1

3473

,008

63,8

8254

,756

45,6

3036

,504

27,3

7818

,252

9,12

60

00

00

0In

tere

st p

aym

ent f

or s

hort-

term

loan

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0D

epre

ciat

ion

456,

000

456,

000

456,

000

456,

000

456,

000

456,

000

456,

000

456,

000

456,

000

456,

000

456,

000

456,

000

456,

000

456,

000

456,

000

456,

000

456,

000

456,

000

456,

000

456,

000

Con

tinge

ncy

88,1

4188

,141

88,1

4188

,141

88,1

4187

,228

85,6

7784

,125

82,5

7481

,022

79,4

7077

,919

76,3

6774

,816

73,2

6472

,625

71,9

8671

,347

70,7

0870

,069

Tot

al o

pera

ting

expe

nses

1,42

5,55

11,

425,

551

1,42

5,55

11,

425,

551

1,42

5,55

11,

415,

512

1,39

8,44

51,

381,

377

1,36

4,31

01,

347,

242

1,33

0,17

41,

313,

107

1,29

6,03

91,

278,

972

1,26

1,90

41,

254,

875

1,24

7,84

61,

240,

817

1,23

3,78

81,

226,

759

(ex

clud

ing

depr

ecia

tion)

969,

551

969,

551

969,

551

969,

551

969,

551

959,

512

942,

445

925,

377

908,

310

891,

242

874,

174

857,

107

840,

039

822,

972

805,

904

798,

875

791,

846

784,

817

777,

788

770,

759

Prof

it be

fore

tax(

inco

me-

OM

exp

ense

s)37

1,46

137

1,46

137

1,46

137

1,46

137

1,46

138

1,50

039

8,56

741

5,63

543

2,70

244

9,77

046

6,83

848

3,90

550

0,97

351

8,04

053

5,10

854

2,13

754

9,16

655

6,19

556

3,22

457

0,25

3C

orpo

rate

inco

me

tax

92,8

6592

,865

92,8

6592

,865

92,8

6595

,375

99,6

4210

3,90

910

8,17

511

2,44

211

6,70

912

0,97

612

5,24

312

9,51

013

3,77

713

5,53

413

7,29

113

9,04

914

0,80

614

2,56

3Pr

ofit

afte

r ta

x27

8,59

627

8,59

627

8,59

627

8,59

627

8,59

628

6,12

529

8,92

531

1,72

632

4,52

633

7,32

735

0,12

836

2,92

937

5,73

038

8,53

040

1,33

140

6,60

341

1,87

441

7,14

642

2,41

842

7,69

0

Rec

over

y (re

venu

e/O

M c

ost)t

ax e

xmpt

ed62

.43%

62.4

3%62

.43%

62.4

3%62

.43%

62.8

7%63

.64%

64.4

2%65

.23%

66.0

5%66

.90%

67.7

7%68

.66%

69.5

8%70

.52%

70.9

2%71

.32%

71.7

2%41

.03%

41.2

7%R

ecov

ery (

reve

nue/

OM

cos

t)with

tax

Rec

over

y (re

venu

e/O

M c

ost e

xclu

ding

dep

reci

atio

n)91

.79%

91.7

9%91

.79%

91.7

9%91

.79%

92.7

5%94

.43%

96.1

7%97

.97%

99.8

5%10

1.80

%10

3.83

%10

5.94

%10

8.13

%11

0.42

%11

1.39

%11

2.38

%11

3.39

%87

.40%

86.6

1%R

ecov

ery (

reve

nue/

OM

incl

udin

g re

duct

ion

reve

nue)

185.

34%

185.

34%

185.

34%

185.

34%

185.

34%

187.

28%

190.

68%

194.

19%

197.

84%

201.

63%

205.

57%

209.

66%

213.

92%

218.

36%

222.

98%

224.

94%

226.

94%

228.

97%

231.

04%

233.

15%

Rep

aym

ent f

or JI

CA

loan

00

042

6,00

042

6,00

042

6,00

042

6,00

042

6,00

042

6,00

042

6,00

042

6,00

042

6,00

042

6,00

042

6,00

042

6,00

042

6,00

042

6,00

042

6,00

0R

epay

men

t for

pri

vate

long

-term

loan

00

182,

520

182,

520

182,

520

182,

520

182,

520

182,

520

182,

520

182,

520

182,

520

182,

520

00

00

00

Rep

aym

ent f

or p

riva

te s

hort-

term

loan

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

Bal

ance

at t

he fi

scal

yea

r end

734,

596

734,

596

734,

596

734,

596

552,

076

133,

605

146,

405

159,

206

172,

006

184,

807

197,

608

210,

409

223,

210

236,

010

431,

331

436,

603

441,

874

447,

146

452,

418

457,

690

Bal

ance

bro

ught

forw

ard

734,

596

1,46

9,19

12,

203,

787

2,93

8,38

23,

490,

458

3,62

4,06

33,

770,

468

3,92

9,67

44,

101,

680

4,28

6,48

84,

484,

096

4,69

4,50

54,

917,

714

5,15

3,72

45,

585,

055

6,02

1,65

86,

463,

532

6,91

0,67

87,

363,

096

7,82

0,78

6

Fund

rais

ing

Ow

ned

capi

tal

516,

000

21,0

0091

2,80

0Su

bisi

dyJI

CA

Gra

ntJI

CA

loan

6,39

0,00

0Pr

ivat

e lo

ng-te

rm lo

an1,

825,

200

Priv

ate

shor

t-ter

m lo

an

Loa

n ba

lanc

e at

the

fisca

l yea

r en

dJI

CA

loan

6,39

0,00

06,

390,

000

6,39

0,00

06,

390,

000

6,39

0,00

06,

390,

000

5,96

4,00

05,

538,

000

5,11

2,00

04,

686,

000

4,26

0,00

03,

834,

000

3,40

8,00

02,

982,

000

2,55

6,00

02,

130,

000

1,70

4,00

01,

278,

000

852,

000

426,

000

0Pr

ivat

e lo

ng-te

rm lo

an1,

825,

200

1,82

5,20

01,

825,

200

1,82

5,20

01,

825,

200

1,64

2,68

01,

460,

160

1,27

7,64

01,

095,

120

912,

600

730,

080

547,

560

365,

040

182,

520

00

00

00

0Pr

ivat

e sh

ort-t

erm

loan

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

179

Tab

le 5

.2.8

Pro

ject

Cas

h Fl

ow (C

ASE

2)

(Sou

rce:

Pre

pare

d by

the

auth

ors o

f thi

s rep

ort)

Yea

r20

1320

1420

1520

1620

1720

1820

1920

2020

2120

2220

2320

2420

2520

2620

2720

2820

2920

3020

3120

3220

3320

3420

35To

tal

Proj

ect y

ear

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1516

1718

1920

2122

23C

apita

l exp

ense

land

acq

uisi

tion

516,

000

516,

000

SPC

esta

blis

hmen

t cos

t1,

000

1,00

0D

etai

l Des

ign

cost

40,0

0040

,000

Supe

rvisi

ng c

ost

178,

000

178,

000

Civi

l eng

inee

ring

cons

truct

ion

cost

4,92

2,66

04,

922,

660

Mat

eria

l and

mac

hine

ry c

ost

4,00

0,00

01,

000,

000

1,00

0,00

06,

000,

000

Com

mer

cial

ize c

ost

20,0

0020

,000

Inst

rum

enta

tion

& C

ablin

g, P

ipin

g0

Frei

ght (

15%

of J

apan

ese

Supp

ly)

0Ph

ysic

al C

ontin

genc

y0

Engi

neer

ing

(15%

) 0

VAT

0Su

b-to

tal

516,

000

21,0

009,

140,

660

00

00

00

1,00

0,00

00

1,00

0,00

011

,677

,660

Inte

rest

dur

ing

the

cons

truct

ion

0To

tal

516,

000

21,0

009,

140,

660

00

00

00

1,00

0,00

00

1,00

0,00

011

,677

,660

Tipp

ing

fee

1,11

2,38

31,

112,

383

1,11

2,38

31,

112,

383

1,11

2,38

31,

112,

383

1,11

2,38

31,

112,

383

1,11

2,38

31,

112,

383

1,11

2,38

31,

112,

383

1,11

2,38

31,

112,

383

1,11

2,38

31,

112,

383

1,11

2,38

31,

112,

383

1,11

2,38

31,

112,

383

22,2

47,6

63H

and

sorti

ng re

cycl

able

mat

eria

l sel

ling

360,

043

360,

043

360,

043

360,

043

360,

043

360,

043

360,

043

360,

043

360,

043

360,

043

360,

043

360,

043

360,

043

360,

043

360,

043

360,

043

360,

043

360,

043

360,

043

360,

043

7,20

0,86

6RD

F se

ling

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

Com

post

sel

ing

40,8

0740

,807

40,8

0740

,807

40,8

0740

,807

40,8

0740

,807

40,8

0740

,807

40,8

0740

,807

40,8

0740

,807

40,8

0740

,807

40,8

0740

,807

40,8

0740

,807

816,

140 0

Tota

l Inc

ome

1,51

3,23

31,

513,

233

1,51

3,23

31,

513,

233

1,51

3,23

31,

513,

233

1,51

3,23

31,

513,

233

1,51

3,23

31,

513,

233

1,51

3,23

31,

513,

233

1,51

3,23

31,

513,

233

1,51

3,23

31,

513,

233

1,51

3,23

31,

513,

233

1,51

3,23

31,

513,

233

30,2

64,6

69

Ope

ratin

g ex

pens

esM

anpo

wer

cos

t37

4,73

037

4,73

037

4,73

037

4,73

037

4,73

037

4,73

037

4,73

037

4,73

037

4,73

037

4,73

037

4,73

037

4,73

037

4,73

037

4,73

037

4,73

037

4,73

037

4,73

037

4,73

037

4,73

037

4,73

07,

494,

600

Cons

umab

les

0M

aint

enan

ce c

ost

11,4

3611

,436

11,4

3611

,436

11,4

3611

,436

11,4

3611

,436

11,4

3611

,436

11,4

3611

,436

11,4

3611

,436

11,4

3611

,436

11,4

3611

,436

11,4

3611

,436

228,

720

Util

ity c

ost

111,

578

111,

578

111,

578

111,

578

111,

578

111,

578

111,

578

111,

578

111,

578

111,

578

111,

578

111,

578

111,

578

111,

578

111,

578

111,

578

111,

578

111,

578

111,

578

111,

578

2,23

1,56

0O

&M

cos

t of I

nter

med

iate

and

leac

hate

trea

tmen

t12

0,00

012

0,00

012

0,00

012

0,00

012

0,00

012

0,00

015

0,00

015

0,00

015

0,00

015

0,00

015

0,00

015

0,00

015

0,00

018

0,00

018

0,00

018

0,00

018

0,00

018

0,00

018

0,00

018

0,00

03,

030,

000

Inte

rest

pay

men

t for

JBIC

Loa

n95

,970

95,9

7095

,970

95,9

7095

,970

95,9

7089

,572

83,1

7476

,776

70,3

7863

,980

57,5

8251

,184

44,7

8638

,388

31,9

9025

,592

19,1

9412

,796

6,39

81,

247,

610

Inte

rest

pay

men

t for

priv

ate

long

term

loan

91,4

3091

,430

91,4

3091

,430

91,4

3082

,287

73,1

4496

,501

87,3

5878

,215

69,0

7256

,679

44,2

8631

,893

19,5

0016

,250

13,0

009,

750

6,50

03,

250

1,14

4,83

2In

tere

st p

aym

ent f

or s

hort-

term

loan

00

00

00

00

00

030

,000

30,0

0024

,000

18,0

0012

,000

6,00

012

0,00

0D

epre

ciat

ion

457,

000

457,

000

457,

000

457,

000

457,

000

457,

000

457,

000

507,

000

507,

000

507,

000

507,

000

507,

000

507,

000

507,

000

557,

000

557,

000

557,

000

557,

000

557,

000

557,

000

10,0

90,0

00Co

ntin

genc

y80

,514

80,5

1480

,514

80,5

1480

,514

79,6

0081

,046

82,7

4281

,188

79,6

3478

,080

76,2

0074

,321

75,4

4276

,563

75,5

9874

,034

72,4

6970

,904

69,3

391,

549,

730

Tota

l ope

ratin

g ex

pens

es1,

342,

658

1,34

2,65

81,

342,

658

1,34

2,65

81,

342,

658

1,33

2,60

11,

348,

506

1,41

7,16

11,

400,

066

1,38

2,97

11,

365,

876

1,34

5,20

51,

324,

535

1,33

6,86

51,

399,

195

1,38

8,58

21,

371,

370

1,35

4,15

71,

336,

944

1,31

9,73

127

,137

,052

(ex

clud

ing

depr

ecia

tion)

885,

658

885,

658

885,

658

885,

658

885,

658

875,

601

891,

506

910,

161

893,

066

875,

971

858,

876

838,

205

817,

535

829,

865

842,

195

831,

582

814,

370

797,

157

779,

944

762,

731

17,0

47,0

52

Prof

it be

fore

tax(

inco

me-

OM

exp

ense

s)17

0,57

617

0,57

617

0,57

617

0,57

617

0,57

618

0,63

316

4,72

896

,073

113,

168

130,

263

147,

358

168,

029

188,

698

176,

368

114,

038

124,

651

141,

863

159,

076

176,

289

193,

502

3,12

7,61

6

Corp

orat

e in

com

e ta

x42

,644

42,6

4442

,644

42,6

4442

,644

45,1

5841

,182

24,0

1828

,292

32,5

6636

,839

42,0

0747

,175

44,0

9228

,510

31,1

6335

,466

39,7

6944

,072

48,3

7678

1,90

4Pr

ofit

afte

r ta

x12

7,93

212

7,93

212

7,93

212

7,93

212

7,93

213

5,47

512

3,54

672

,054

84,8

7697

,697

110,

518

126,

021

141,

524

132,

276

85,5

2993

,489

106,

398

119,

307

132,

217

145,

127

2,34

5,71

2

Rec

over

y(re

venu

e/O

M c

ost)t

ax e

xmpt

ed82

.85%

82.8

5%82

.85%

82.8

5%82

.85%

83.4

7%82

.49%

78.4

9%79

.45%

80.4

3%81

.44%

82.6

9%83

.98%

83.2

1%79

.50%

80.1

1%81

.11%

82.1

5%0.

00%

0.00

%R

ecov

ery(

reve

nue/

OM

cos

t)with

tax

Rec

over

y(re

venu

e/O

M c

ost e

xclu

ding

dep

reci

atio

n)12

5.60

%12

5.60

%12

5.60

%12

5.60

%12

5.60

%12

7.04

%12

4.78

%12

2.22

%12

4.56

%12

6.99

%12

9.52

%13

2.71

%13

6.07

%13

4.04

%13

2.08

%13

3.77

%13

6.59

%13

9.54

%70

.11%

68.5

7%R

ecov

ery(

reve

nue/

OM

incl

udin

g re

duct

ion

reve

nue)

170.

86%

170.

86%

170.

86%

170.

86%

170.

86%

172.

82%

169.

74%

166.

26%

169.

44%

172.

75%

176.

19%

180.

53%

185.

10%

182.

35%

179.

68%

181.

97%

185.

82%

189.

83%

194.

02%

198.

40%

Repa

ymen

t for

JBIC

loan

00

042

6,53

342

6,53

342

6,53

342

6,53

342

6,53

342

6,53

342

6,53

342

6,53

342

6,53

342

6,53

342

6,53

342

6,53

342

6,53

342

6,53

342

6,53

36,

398,

000

Repa

ymen

t for

priv

ate

long

-term

loan

00

182,

859

182,

859

182,

859

182,

859

182,

859

182,

859

247,

859

247,

859

247,

859

247,

859

65,0

0065

,000

65,0

0065

,000

65,0

0065

,000

2,47

8,59

4Re

paym

ent f

or p

rivat

e sh

ort-t

erm

loan

00

00

00

00

00

00

060

,000

60,0

0060

,000

60,0

0060

,000

300,

000

Bala

nce

at th

e fis

cal y

ear e

nd0

00

584,

932

584,

932

584,

932

584,

932

402,

072

-16,

918

-1,0

28,8

47-3

0,33

8-1

7,51

7-4

,696

-56,

875

-41,

371

-25,

869

-35,

116

150,

995

98,9

5511

1,86

412

4,77

413

7,68

415

0,59

32,

259,

118

Bala

nce

brou

ght f

orw

ard

00

058

4,93

21,

169,

864

1,75

4,79

52,

339,

727

2,74

1,80

02,

724,

881

1,69

6,03

41,

665,

696

1,64

8,17

91,

643,

483

1,58

6,60

91,

545,

237

1,51

9,36

81,

484,

252

1,63

5,24

81,

734,

203

1,84

6,06

71,

970,

841

2,10

8,52

52,

259,

118

Fund

rai

sing

516,

000

21,0

009,

140,

660

00

00

00

1,00

0,00

00

00

00

01,

000,

000

00

00

00

11,6

77,6

60O

wne

d ca

pita

l51

6,00

021

,000

914,

066

350,

000

700,

000

2,50

1,06

6Su

bisi

dy0

JICA

Gra

nt0

JBIC

loan

6,39

8,00

06,

398,

000

Priv

ate

long

-term

loan

1,82

8,59

465

0,00

02,

478,

594

Priv

ate

shor

t-ter

m lo

an30

0,00

030

0,00

0

Loan

bal

ance

at t

he fi

scal

yea

r en

dJB

IC6,

398,

000

6,39

8,00

06,

398,

000

6,39

8,00

06,

398,

000

6,39

8,00

05,

971,

467

5,54

4,93

35,

118,

400

4,69

1,86

74,

265,

333

3,83

8,80

03,

412,

267

2,98

5,73

32,

559,

200

2,13

2,66

71,

706,

133

1,27

9,60

085

3,06

742

6,53

30

Priv

ate

long

-term

loan

1,82

8,59

41,

828,

594

1,82

8,59

41,

828,

594

1,82

8,59

41,

645,

735

1,46

2,87

51,

930,

016

1,74

7,15

61,

564,

297

1,38

1,43

81,

133,

578

885,

719

637,

859

390,

000

325,

000

260,

000

195,

000

130,

000

65,0

000

Priv

ate

shor

t-ter

m lo

an0

00

00

00

00

00

00

030

0,00

030

0,00

024

0,00

018

0,00

012

0,00

060

,000

0

180

Issues that should be considered when calculating economic internal rate of return (EIRR) are as follows:

a. Reduction of wastes volume going to existing landfills

b. Reduction of transportation cost to existing landfill sites

c. Reduction of green house gas emission

a. Reduction of waste volume going to existing landfills:

The implementation of the proposed project would reduce the volume of wastes that go to the existing

Bantar Gebang final disposal site and thus would prolong the life of the site. If the impact of prolonging

the life of the site is calculated as equivalent to the final disposal cost per ton (50,000Rp/t), the following

economic impact can be achieved.

(Economic impact of waste volume reduction)

= (Final disposal cost/t) × (Volume of waste treated in the proposed project)

= 80,000Rp ×1,500t/d × 365d

= 43.8 billion Rp/y (380 million yen/t)

b. Reduction of transportation cost to existing landfill site

As a result of implementation of the proposed project, a part of the wastes that are currently being

transported to Bantar Gebang final disposal site would be transported to the project site and thus there

would be reduction in transportation cost. The economic impact can be evaluated as follows when it is

assumed that the transportation cost per ton of waste is 75,000 Rp/t.

(Economic impact of transport cost reduction)

= (Transportation cost of waste/t) × (Volume of waste treated in the proposed project)

= 75,000Rp ×1,500t/d × 365d

= 41.1 billion Rp/y (350 million yen/t)


The economic impact of sales of RDF which would serve as the alternative fuel for coal at cement factories

is analyzed (as amount of compost and recyclables collected through manual sorting would be relatively

small, only sales of RDF has been considered here). The economic impact of applying waste-to-energy

technology in Sunter as planned has been set as the baseline.

(Economic impact of greenhouse gas emission reduction)

= (Calorie of RDF/t) × (Volume of RDF sold under the project) / (Calorie of coal/t) × (CO2 emission

from coal/t) × - (Amount of electricity generated from wastes including plastics) × (CO2 emission

from fossil fuel)

= 2.0MJ/kg×430t/d÷2.4MJ/t×2.4kg-CO2/kg－(3.6MJ/kg÷3.6MJ/kWh×0.2-200kWh/t)×430t/d

×0.5kg-CO2/kWh×＝645t-CO2/d

181

In monetary terms: 860t-CO2/d×500yen/t-CO2×365d＝160 million yen/y

The EIRR of the project when calculated only based on the above is 6.59%. Therefore, it can be said that

this project is economically beneficial.

5.2.3 Sensitivity Analysis

(1) When tipping fee declines

For sensitivity analysis, the cash flow, FIRR, NPV, and B/C were calculated under the assumption that the

tipping fee would decrease from 189,000Rp/t (1,625 yen/t) to 149,000 Rp/t (1,281 yen/t). As financial

analysis showed that CASE 2 would need increase in tipping fee, only CASE 1 was studied.

In CASE 1, cash flow would be maintained and FIRR would be as shown in Table 5.2.8. The calculation

sheet is shown in Table 5.2.10.

Table 5.2.8 Results of Sensitivity Analysis (when tipping fee declines) Tipping fee CASE 1

FIRR B/C NPV Cash flow Present revenue 22.4% 1.24 28 billion yen OK When tipping fee declines 19.4% 1.16 14 billion yen OK


(1) When RDF selling price declines

For sensitivity analysis, the cash flow, FIRR, NPV, and B/C were calculated when the RDF selling price

decline from 375Rp/kg (3.2yen/kg) to 150 Rp/kg (1.3yen/kg).

With CASE, it is shown that cash flow would be maintained even if the selling price of RDF delines. The

FIRR and other values are shown in Table 5.2.9 and the calculation sheet is shown as Table 5.2.11.

Table 5.2.9 Results of Sensitivity Analysis (when RDF selling price declines) Tipping fee CASE1

FIRR B/C NPV Cash flow Present revenue 12.2% 1.24 5.8 billion yen OK When RDF selling price declines

8.9% 1.03 2.3 billion yen OK


Tabl

e 5.

2.9

Proj

ect c

ash

flow

whe

n tip

ping

fee

decl

ines

(CA

SE 1

)

Ｓ(S

ourc

e: P

repa

red

by th

e au

thor

s of t

his r

epor

t)

Yea

r20

1320

1420

1520

1620

1720

1820

1920

2020

2120

2220

2320

2420

2520

2620

2720

2820

2920

3020

3120

3220

3320

3420

35To

tal

Proj

ect y

ear

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1516

1718

1920

2122

23C

apita

l exp

ense

land

acq

uisi

tion

516,

000

516,

000

SPC

esta

blis

hmen

t cos

t1,

000

1,00

0D

etai

l Des

ign

cost

50,0

0050

,000

Supe

rvisi

ng c

ost

178,

000

178,

000

Civi

l eng

inee

ring

cons

truct

ion

cost

1,90

0,00

01,

900,

000

Mat

eria

l and

mac

hine

ry c

ost

7,00

0,00

07,

000,

000

Com

mer

cial

ize c

ost 　

(Incl

udin

g EI

A）

20,0

0020

,000

Inst

rum

enta

tion

& C

ablin

g, P

ipin

g0

Frei

ght (

15%

of J

apan

ese

Supp

ly)

0Ph

ysic

al C

ontin

genc

y0

Engi

neer

ing

(15%

) 0

VAT

0Su

b-to

tal

516,

000

21,0

009,

128,

000

9,66

5,00

0In

tere

st d

urin

g th

e co

nstru

ctio

n0

Tota

l51

6,00

021

,000

9,12

8,00

00

09,

665,

000

Tipp

ing

fee

701,

567

701,

567

701,

567

701,

567

701,

567

701,

567

701,

567

701,

567

701,

567

701,

567

701,

567

701,

567

701,

567

701,

567

701,

567

701,

567

701,

567

701,

567

701,

567

701,

567

14,0

31,3

30H

and

sorti

ng re

cycl

able

mat

eria

l sel

ling

360,

043

360,

043

360,

043

360,

043

360,

043

360,

043

360,

043

360,

043

360,

043

360,

043

360,

043

360,

043

360,

043

360,

043

360,

043

360,

043

360,

043

360,

043

360,

043

360,

043

7,20

0,86

6RD

F se

lling

506,

255

506,

255

506,

255

506,

255

506,

255

506,

255

506,

255

506,

255

506,

255

506,

255

506,

255

506,

255

506,

255

506,

255

506,

255

506,

255

506,

255

506,

255

506,

255

506,

255

10,1

25,1

00Co

mpo

st s

elin

g40

,807

40,8

0740

,807

40,8

0740

,807

40,8

0740

,807

40,8

0740

,807

40,8

0740

,807

40,8

0740

,807

40,8

0740

,807

40,8

0740

,807

40,8

0740

,807

40,8

0781

6,14

0 0To

tal I

ncom

e1,

608,

672

1,60

8,67

21,

608,

672

1,60

8,67

21,

608,

672

1,60

8,67

21,

608,

672

1,60

8,67

21,

608,

672

1,60

8,67

21,

608,

672

1,60

8,67

21,

608,

672

1,60

8,67

21,

608,

672

1,60

8,67

21,

608,

672

1,60

8,67

21,

608,

672

1,60

8,67

232

,173

,436

Ope

ratin

g ex

pens

esM

anpo

wer

cos

t44

1,97

044

1,97

044

1,97

044

1,97

044

1,97

044

1,97

044

1,97

044

1,97

044

1,97

044

1,97

044

1,97

044

1,97

044

1,97

044

1,97

044

1,97

044

1,97

044

1,97

044

1,97

044

1,97

044

1,97

08,

839,

400

Cons

umab

les

0M

aint

enan

ce c

ost

5,22

95,

229

5,22

95,

229

5,22

95,

229

5,22

95,

229

5,22

95,

229

5,22

95,

229

5,22

95,

229

5,22

95,

229

5,22

95,

229

5,22

95,

229

104,

580

Util

ity c

ost

37,1

0137

,101

37,1

0137

,101

37,1

0137

,101

37,1

0137

,101

37,1

0137

,101

37,1

0137

,101

37,1

0137

,101

37,1

0137

,101

37,1

0137

,101

37,1

0137

,101

742,

020

O&

M c

ost o

f Int

erm

edia

te a

nd le

acha

te tr

eatm

ent

210,

000

210,

000

210,

000

210,

000

210,

000

210,

000

210,

000

210,

000

210,

000

210,

000

210,

000

210,

000

210,

000

210,

000

210,

000

210,

000

210,

000

210,

000

210,

000

210,

000

4,20

0,00

0In

tere

st p

aym

ent f

or JI

CA L

oan

95,8

5095

,850

95,8

5095

,850

95,8

5095

,850

89,4

6083

,070

76,6

8070

,290

63,9

0057

,510

51,1

2044

,730

38,3

4031

,950

25,5

6019

,170

12,7

806,

390

1,24

6,05

0In

tere

st p

aym

ent f

or p

rivat

e lo

ngte

rm lo

an91

,260

91,2

6091

,260

91,2

6091

,260

82,1

3473

,008

63,8

8254

,756

45,6

3036

,504

27,3

7818

,252

9,12

60

00

00

086

6,97

0In

tere

st p

aym

ent f

or s

hort-

term

loan

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

Dep

reci

atio

n45

6,00

045

6,00

045

6,00

045

6,00

045

6,00

045

6,00

045

6,00

045

6,00

045

6,00

045

6,00

045

6,00

045

6,00

045

6,00

045

6,00

045

6,00

045

6,00

045

6,00

045

6,00

045

6,00

045

6,00

09,

120,

000

Cont

inge

ncy

88,1

4188

,141

88,1

4188

,141

88,1

4187

,228

85,6

7784

,125

82,5

7481

,022

79,4

7077

,919

76,3

6774

,816

73,2

6472

,625

71,9

8671

,347

70,7

0870

,069

1,59

9,90

2To

tal o

pera

ting

expe

nses

1,42

5,55

11,

425,

551

1,42

5,55

11,

425,

551

1,42

5,55

11,

415,

512

1,39

8,44

51,

381,

377

1,36

4,31

01,

347,

242

1,33

0,17

41,

313,

107

1,29

6,03

91,

278,

972

1,26

1,90

41,

254,

875

1,24

7,84

61,

240,

817

1,23

3,78

81,

226,

759

26,7

18,9

22

(

excl

udin

g de

prec

iatio

n)96

9,55

196

9,55

196

9,55

196

9,55

196

9,55

195

9,51

294

2,44

592

5,37

790

8,31

089

1,24

287

4,17

485

7,10

784

0,03

982

2,97

280

5,90

479

8,87

579

1,84

678

4,81

777

7,78

877

0,75

917

,598

,922

Prof

it be

fore

tax(

inco

me-

OM

exp

ense

s)18

3,12

118

3,12

118

3,12

118

3,12

118

3,12

119

3,16

021

0,22

722

7,29

524

4,36

226

1,43

027

8,49

829

5,56

531

2,63

332

9,70

034

6,76

835

3,79

736

0,82

636

7,85

537

4,88

438

1,91

35,

454,

514

Corp

orat

e in

com

e ta

x45

,780

45,7

8045

,780

45,7

8045

,780

48,2

9052

,557

56,8

2461

,090

65,3

5769

,624

73,8

9178

,158

82,4

2586

,692

88,4

4990

,206

91,9

6493

,721

95,4

781,

363,

629

Prof

it af

ter

tax

137,

341

137,

341

137,

341

137,

341

137,

341

144,

870

157,

670

170,

471

183,

271

196,

072

208,

873

221,

674

234,

475

247,

275

260,

076

265,

348

270,

619

275,

891

281,

163

286,

435

4,09

0,88

6

Rec

over

y(re

venu

e/O

M c

ost)t

ax e

xmpt

ed49

.21%

49.2

1%49

.21%

49.2

1%49

.21%

49.5

6%50

.17%

50.7

9%51

.42%

52.0

7%52

.74%

53.4

3%54

.13%

54.8

5%55

.60%

55.9

1%56

.22%

56.5

4%41

.03%

41.2

7%R

ecov

ery(

reve

nue/

OM

cos

t)with

tax

Rec

over

y(re

venu

e/O

M c

ost e

xclu

ding

dep

reci

atio

n)72

.36%

72.3

6%72

.36%

72.3

6%72

.36%

73.1

2%74

.44%

75.8

1%77

.24%

78.7

2%80

.25%

81.8

5%83

.52%

85.2

5%87

.05%

87.8

2%88

.60%

89.3

9%11

0.86

%10

9.86

%R

ecov

ery(

reve

nue/

OM

incl

udin

g re

duct

ion

reve

nue)

165.

92%

165.

92%

165.

92%

165.

92%

165.

92%

167.

66%

170.

69%

173.

84%

177.

11%

180.

50%

184.

02%

187.

69%

191.

50%

195.

47%

199.

61%

201.

37%

203.

15%

204.

97%

206.

83%

208.

71%

Repa

ymen

t for

JICA

loan

00

042

6,00

042

6,00

042

6,00

042

6,00

042

6,00

042

6,00

042

6,00

042

6,00

042

6,00

042

6,00

042

6,00

042

6,00

042

6,00

042

6,00

042

6,00

06,

390,

000

Repa

ymen

t for

priv

ate

long

-term

loan

00

182,

520

182,

520

182,

520

182,

520

182,

520

182,

520

182,

520

182,

520

182,

520

182,

520

00

00

00

1,82

5,20

0Re

paym

ent f

or p

rivat

e sh

ort-t

erm

loan

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

Bala

nce

at th

e fis

cal y

ear e

nd59

3,34

159

3,34

159

3,34

159

3,34

141

0,82

1-7

,650

5,15

017

,951

30,7

5143

,552

56,3

5369

,154

81,9

5594

,755

290,

076

295,

348

300,

619

305,

891

311,

163

316,

435

4,99

5,68

6Ba

lanc

e br

ough

t for

war

d59

3,34

11,

186,

681

1,78

0,02

22,

373,

362

2,78

4,18

32,

776,

533

2,78

1,68

32,

799,

634

2,83

0,38

52,

873,

938

2,93

0,29

12,

999,

445

3,08

1,39

93,

176,

154

3,46

6,23

03,

761,

578

4,06

2,19

74,

368,

088

4,67

9,25

14,

995,

686

Fund

rai

sing

Ow

ned

capi

tal

516,

000

21,0

0091

2,80

01,

449,

800

Subi

sidy

0JI

CA G

rant

0JI

CA lo

an6,

390,

000

6,39

0,00

0Pr

ivat

e lo

ng-te

rm lo

an1,

825,

200

1,82

5,20

0Pr

ivat

e sh

ort-t

erm

loan

0

Loan

bal

ance

at t

he fi

scal

yea

r en

dJI

CA lo

an6,

390,

000

6,39

0,00

06,

390,

000

6,39

0,00

06,

390,

000

6,39

0,00

05,

964,

000

5,53

8,00

05,

112,

000

4,68

6,00

04,

260,

000

3,83

4,00

03,

408,

000

2,98

2,00

02,

556,

000

2,13

0,00

01,

704,

000

1,27

8,00

085

2,00

042

6,00

00

Priv

ate

long

-term

loan

1,82

5,20

01,

825,

200

1,82

5,20

01,

825,

200

1,82

5,20

01,

642,

680

1,46

0,16

01,

277,

640

1,09

5,12

091

2,60

073

0,08

054

7,56

036

5,04

018

2,52

00

00

00

00

Priv

ate

shor

t-ter

m lo

an0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

182

183

5.2.4 Financial and economic evaluation

(1) Financial evaluation

CASE 1 is commercially feasible. However, as shortage in cash flow is likely to occur in CASE 2

regardless of the fluctuation of the tipping fee. Therefore, CASE 1 is considered to be more desirable for

the project.

Tipping fee have been collected for recovery of initial investments in previous cases and can be relied on

as a guaranteed income. Furthermore, as there would be revenue from sales of recyclables and products, it

is highly likely that the recovery of the initial investments would be possible, although the sales of such

items would be affected by the economic conditions.

(2) Economic evaluation

The economic impacts of the followings were calculated as they would be considered when calculating

economic internal rate of return (EIRR).

a. Reduction of wastes volume going to existing landfills

b. Reduction of transportation cost to existing landfill sites


The EIRR of the project when calculated only based on the above is 6.59%. Therefore, it can be said that

this project is economically beneficial.

Further, the executive board of the Clean Development Mechanism sixty-second meeting held on 15th of

July at Morocco recognized the improvement of pre-existing landfills to “semi-anaerobic landfill (Fukuoka

type)” as a new method for which carbon credit can be issued. Hence, in addition to the sale of valuables,

compost and RDF, benefit from the reduction of CO2 emission from fossil fuel can also be achieved.

Additional benefits include the prompt removal of waste from the city and improvement of environment in

the existing landfill site and the surrounding.

(3) Conclusion

Only CASE 1 is both financially and economically feasible. However, a detailed investigation of the cost

including the transportation system is required in order to increase cost effectiveness

.

With regard to compost and RDF, one of the options is the implementation of a pilot project of a small

scale as the initial step. Further investigation is also required on transportation options including the

inclusion of relay station within the scope of the business.

185

Chapter 6

Planned Project Schedule

187

6.1 Assumptions

6.1.1 Priority order of waste management projects

Taking into account the cancellation of construction of the waste treatment and disposal facility at Ciangir

of Tangerang Regency, Jakarta has decided to prioritize the improvement and construction of municipal

waste treatment facility at Sunter and Marunda. In addition to the improvement and construction of these

facilities, it has been decided to construct a new facility at Jatiwaringin in Tangerang Regency.

Public notification of the tender for the construction of the treatment facility at Sunter as a BOT project was

done in the early part of December 2011 and presently, the process for selecting the contractor is ongoing.

It is assumed that this process will progress smoothly.

The building site for the treatment facility at Utara district located in the northern part of the province is the

prioritized project and the provincial government has appealed to the owners to sell their plot of land but

has not been able to get their approval as yet.

The provincial government understands the need to simultaneously construct a landfill facility at Tangerang

but have the policy to prioritize Marunda as the next site for the construction of treatment facility after

Suntar. Facility at Tangerang will only be considered after these others facilities take shape,

On the other hand, election for the governor of Jakarta is proposed to be held in June of 2012. The

governmental departments have judged that projects other than the ones being already considered will be

decided only after the election.

Hence, this project will not be able to avoid the impact of the decision making process due to the election

and hence the schedule of this project is also set accordingly.

6.1.2 Procedures of tender

Jakarta provincial government has its own internal procedure for the implementation of BOT projects

which involves getting the BPEDA permit and the approval from the provincial governor. For strategic

projects, according to the operating rules of the parliament approval of a special committee is required (this

process has not been followed for Suntar). Regardless, a policy of the provincial government (governor

policy) exists. The process of preparing the implementation plan of the project at the field unit section and

getting approval of the PPEDA and the governor is expected to take at least 6 months.

This project lies outside the Jakarta provincial government and the Jakarta provincial government plans to

implement this project as a proposal-based PPP project and not as a BOT project. Hence it is necessary to

expect the approval of the proposal to take about a year.

188

It is expected that this proposal-based PPP project will need approval from the provincial government and

on the financial side utilize the loan and investment of PPP scheme of JICA. This will require, as a

preparatory period, time for conducting JICA’s preliminary study and also the approval of implementation

from the Jakarta provincial government as a proposal-based PPP project.

6.2 Implementation schedule of the project

Following the assumptions explained above, it is planned to implement the project with the following

process and schedule.

Table 6 .2.1Work Schedule

(Source: Prepared by the Authors of this Report)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2

Pre Feasibility StudyDiscussions with DKI Jakartaon Project ImplementationEstablishment of the ProjectDevelopment Company forLand AcquisitionStarting Land Acquisition inTangerangRevision of MOU on WasteReception Between Kab.Tangerang and DKI JakartaRecommendation to JICA onProject Preparation Study forPPP ProjectImplementation of thePreparation Study for PPPProjectFinal Recommendation to DKIJakartaOfficial Authorization/Approvalof the Project by DKI JakartaEIA and Application forDevelopment Permits of theProjectWaste ManagementConcession Agreement withDKI JakartaEstablishment of SPC

Approval of JICA Loan andInvestmentFacility Construction

Completion of Construction

20162012 2013 2014 2015

189

Chapter7

Implementing Organizations

191

7.1 Implementing Organizations in Jakarta

In Indonesia, the Act Regarding Waste Management (2008, No. 18) was established in May 2008. This Act

regulates the roles and authorities of the local governments, rights and obligations of each entity, the

promotion of waste reduction by recycling and reusing, roles of communities, etc regarding handling of

urban wastes.

The most important article of this Act completely prohibits open dumping, which was allowed till then. It

obliges to establish a plan of closing the waste disposal plants within a year from establishment of the Act

and to close them within five years. Thus, the local governments must revolve social consciousness about

waste management, propagates participation of communities in waste management activities, and promote

waste reduction activities. Besides, the administrative organizations stand at the turning point of

investigating new intermediate disposal systems and enforcing hygienic reclaiming.

Article 14 of the Local Self-Government Law (Law No. 32/2004) and government ordinance No. 38, 2008

specifies that the waste management services in the municipal and prefectural areas should be done by the

cities and regencies.

192

7.1.1 Organization of Jakarta Cleansing Department Figure 7.7.1 shows the organizations of the Jakarta Cleansing Department.

Figure 7.7.1 Organizations of Jakarta Cleansing Department

Chief of office

Vice-chief ofoffice

Secretariat

Planning Section

General Affairs Section

Technology Technology Septic tank Coast

General

Disposal

Inventory

Community propagation

Infrastructureimprovement

Septic tank

Waste management

Disposalmanagement

Disposal management of areas

Acounting Section

Business

Personal Affairs Section

Managemnet SectionTchnology Section Facility Section Maintenance

Education Ⅰ

Technical Development

Education Ⅱ

Purchese

Storage

Reparing

Public Information

Instruction

PropagationMonitoring

Disposal

In charge of waste

Infrastructureimprovement

(Source: Jakarta Cleansing Department)

(1) Organization and number of staffs

The total number of regular staffs of the Cleansing Department is 1,805 and the number of temporary staffs

is 3,168.

193

Table7.1.1 Composition of Staff

1 Cleansing Department 330 22 0 0 22 442 Central Jakarta 267 532 0 0 90 6223 North Jakarta 195 538 40 10 51 6394 West Jakarta 287 477 0 0 35 5125 South Jakarta 331 513 0 11 63 5876 East Jakarta 395 588 0 0 42 6307 TPST - 96 0 0 30 1268 PALS - 5 0 0 3 8Ｔotal 1805 2771 40 21 336 3168

No District Full-timeStaff

Temporary Staff

Technical In North Composting Adminis-tration

Total


7.1.2 Businesses governance and authorization of Cleansing Department

The Act Regarding Waste Management specifies the right and obligation of each subject. The national

strategies about wastes are the following three: Reducing wastes at the sources, utilization of private

companies, and expanding the service ranges. The businesses and authorization of the Jakarta Special State

are to be executed according to the laws, national strategies, etc. as shown below.

In principle, they are systematic enforcement of collecting, transporting, processing and disposal

management of urban waste produced in the Jakarta Special State (central area, eastern area, western area,

southern area and northern area) and sludge produced from septic tanks and cleaning of roads.

（1）Business governance

1） Enforcement for managing public hygiene in the Jakarta Special State

2） Business functions of the Cleansing Department

a) Enforcing waste disposal businesses according to the business schedule

b) Enforcing technical policies and establishing hygiene management

c) Managing waste and managing septic tanks

d) Improving infrastructures and enforcing hygiene management

e) Participating in regional activities of communities and improving the hygienic and

residential environments

f) Improving waste management and septic tank management

g) Expanding the waste disposal services, enforcing environmental improvement, and

supporting service improvement

h) Enforcing legal regulations in the hygiene field

i) Collecting and reporting waste charges and enforcing social accountability

194

j) Maintenance, inspection and management of infrastructures, hygienic facilities and

equipment

k) Improving the regional societies and the capabilities of the staffs

l) Enforcing accounting business, personal affairs and budget

m) Enforcing business duties and business reports

（2）Laws related to the businesses of the Cleansing Department (Source: Jakarta Cleansing Department,

2010):

1. Law Regarding Jakarta Special State, 2007, No. 29;

2. Law Regarding Waste Management, 2008, No. 18;

3. Law Regarding Preservation of Living Environments, 2009, No. 32;

4. Law Regarding Local Self-Government, 2007, No. 41;

5. Law Regarding Waste Management by Home Secretary, 2010, No. 33;

6. Law Regarding Environmental Hygiene in Jakarta Special State, 1988, No. 5;

7. Government Ordinance Regarding Local Self-Governing Organizations in Jakarta Special State,

2008, No. 10;

8. Government Ordinance Regarding Enforcing Jakarta Special State Budget in 2010, 2010, No.

01;

9. Regulation Regarding Enforcing Jakarta Special State Budget, 2008, No. 130;

Governor’s Regulation Amendment No. 174

10. Organization and Governing of Cleansing Department of Jakarta Special State, Governor’s

ordinance for Jakarta Special State Regulation 2009, No. 131

The Cleansing Department bears the responsibility of collecting, carrying and finally disposing of urban

wastes produced in five areas, including the central area. Recently, waste management in cities becomes a

large social problem. It is difficult for the administrative organizations only to find solutions of this

problem. The Cleansing Department makes active efforts in improving the social consciousness regarding

waste management, promoting recycling, promoting participation in regional activities of the communities,

and public information activities, since it is important to reduce waste at the sources.

（3）Collecting and transporting of waste

This project will not cover collecting and transport of waste before wastes come to the landfill. Therefore,

the collecting and transporting capacity of waste by Jakarta will affect the project and thus should be

evaluated. The Cleansing Department owns two types of compact cars, which carry 6 m3 and 8 m3. It owns

128 compact cars and 365 typer cars. In addition, it owns 25 sweeper cars and 5 water cars. The total

number is 522（See Table7.1.2）

Table 7.1.2 Numbers and Types of Collection Cars

195

Large Small 6 8 Large Small1 Cleansing Department 6 9 1 0 4 0 3 232 Central Jakarta 46 29 8 8 5 2 1 993 North Jakarta 35 35 9 8 2 1 0 904 West Jakarta 43 34 13 18 1 1 0 1105 South Jakarta 31 29 10 17 2 2 1 926 East Jakarta 31 37 14 22 2 2 0 108

Ｔotal 192 173 55 73 16 8 5 522

TotalDistrictTyper[m3]

Compact car[m3]

Sweeper Streetwasher


In addition, private companies collect waste from markets on commission. Temporary storage facilities

managed by Jakarta separate waste by type and there are total of 3,963 facilities.

Table 7.1.3 Numbers of TPS in Jakarta

10m3 6m3

2 Central Jakarta 13 46 48 55 27 32 63 2843 North Jakarta 17 41 47 18 0 57 61 2414 West Jakarta 29 46 37 53 63 14 0 2425 South Jakarta 28 36 36 71 37 59 0 2676 East Jakarta 43 83 67 41 59 118 0 411

130 252 235 238 186 280 124 1,445

Container Total

Ｔotal

No Distrtict DIPO[Unit]

Containter Collection pointof carts

Temporarystorage

Concretecollection points


7.1.3 Budget and charge income

The budget of the Jakarta Cleansing Department in 2010 is approximately 807.1 billion Rp. It is

approximately 2.9 percent of the budget of the Jakarta Special State. The waste charges in large cities of 90

million population are not collected well.

7.2 Organizations concerned of Central Government

The major governmental organizations in charge of waste management in Indonesia are the Ministry of

Public Works and Ministry of Environment in addition to Agency For. Assessment And Application Of

Technology. The Ministry of Finance, National Development Planning Agency, and Investment

Coordinating Board Procurement Agency are the major organizations related to improvement of the waste

disposal plants by means of the Public Private Partnership (PPP).

(1) Ministry of Public Works

196

A) Governance and authorization

Among the different departments in the Ministry of Public Works (Kementerian Pekerjaan Umum, KPU),

the Human Residence Head Office (Direktorat Jenderal Cipta Karya) is in charge of living environments,

water and sewage, and waste management.

Environmental Hygiene Office controls establishment of policies and strategies about waste water and

waste management, technical supports, establishment of technical standards, etc. Waste Department of

Environmental Hygiene Office controls businesses about technical supports and operation supports related

to waste management.

B) Organizations

Organizations of Human Residence Head Office is as shown in Figure 7.2.1.

Figure 7.2.1 Organization of Human Residence Head Office of Ministry of Public Works

Subdit. of Regulationaland Institutional Development

Subdit. of

Subdit. ofDrainage

Subdit. of

Solid WasteRegion-II

Subdit. Of Arrangementsand Institutional Guidance

Subdit. ofPolicy and Strategy

Subdit. of Subdit. ofSewerage

Directorate of EnvironmentalSanitation Development

Program and Budgeting

Subdit. of Arrangementsand Institutional Guidance

Subdit. of

Subdit. ofRegion-I

Subdit. ofTechnical Planning Technical Planning

Directorate ofWater Supply Development

Subdit. of

Subdit. of BuildingsMngt and State Residences

Performance Evaluation

Subdit. of

Subdit. ofTechnical Planning

Subdit. ofRegion-II

InvestmentSubdit. of Settlement

Improvement of Region-II

Subdit. of

Data and Information

Directorate ofSettlement Development

Subdit. ofTechnical Planning

Subdit. ofNew Settlement Development

Subdit. of Settlement

Subdit. Of Arrangementsand Institutional Guidance

Director General ofHuman Settlement

Directorate ofProgramming

Subdit. ofForeign Cooperation

Subdit. of

Improvement of Region-I

Directorate of Buildings andEnvironmental Management

Region I

Financial Section

Legal & Legislation Section

Secretariat ofDirectorate General

G.Aff.&State Owned Mngt Section

Personnel and Organization Section

(Source: Ministry of Public Works)

(2) Ministry of Environment

A) Governance and authorization

The Ministry of Environment (Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup, KLH) consists of environmental planning

department, pollutant control department, environmental deterioration and climate change department,

environmental law department, environmental communication department, environmental technology and

capability enforcement department, and departments that control harmful waste management and

waste-related legal system and recycling (Deputi Bidang Pengelolaan Bahan Berbahaya dan Beracun,

Limbah Bahan Berbahaya dan Beracun dan Sampah).

197

As shown in the “Ordinance Regarding Organizations and Governance of Ministry of Environment (No.

16/2011)”, the Waste Management Department takes charge of works of establishing restrictions related to

waste and urban environment management and policies related to reusing and effective utilization of waste,

making adjustments for enforcing the policies, offering technical supports, etc.

B) Organizations

The organization of the harmful substance and waste management department is as shown in Figure 7.2.2.

Figure 7.2.2 Organization of Harmful Substance and Waste Management Department

of Ministry of Environment

Notification and Transboundary WasteRecommendation

Infrastructure Servicesand Non Institution

Hazardous & ToxicSubstance Management

Verification of Hazardous & ToxicSubstance and Waste Management

Management and ContarminationRecovery of B3 Waste

Solid Waste Management

Evaluation and Follow-up Stockpilling and Dumping Agro Industry

Division for Division for

Monitoring Transportation and Processing Manufacture Recycling and Solid Waste Utilization

Division for Division for Division for

Registration and Notification Collection and Notification Energy, Mining and Oil & Gas Solid Waste Restrictions

Division for Division for Division for Division for

Division for Division for Division for Division for

Assistant Deputy of Assistant Deputy of Assistant Deputy of Assistant Deputy of

Deputy Minister ofHazardous and Toxic Substance, Hazardous

and Toxic Waste and Solid Waste Management

(Source: Ministry of Environment)

(3) Agency for the Assessment and Application of Technology (BPPT)

This conducts research and study of recycling of waste in environmental technology research laboratories,

etc.

(4) Major organizations related to PPP system

The public private partnership (PPP) system for infrastructure improvement in Indonesia is specified by the

“President Order related to Infrastructure Improvement PPP (No. 67/2005)” and its amendment (No.

13/2010). Table 7.2.1 shows the roles of the major organizations related to the PPP system.

Table 7.2.1 Roles of Major PPP-Related Organizations

Major related

organizations Roles related to PPP system

Ministry of Finance Governmental supports to the businesses and promotion of governmental

warranty

198

Major related

organizations Roles related to PPP system

National Development

Planning Agency

（BAPPENAS）

Making PPP-related plans and publishing the PPP books (disclosing promising

businesses)

Integrating PPP-related plans with national development plans

Enhancing the capabilities of related subjects

Investment Adjustment

Agency

（BKPM）

Providing information related to ready-to-offer businesses

Making attractive market programs

Offering approvals needed to enforce the PPP businesses

Establishing PPP enforcing companies through one-top services

(Source: “Notes on Enforcement of Cooperative System of Ministry of Finance, National Development

Planning Agency (BAPPENAS) and Investment Adjustment Agency (BKPM)”.

http://www.bappenas.go.id/print/2727/mou-menteri-ppnkepala-bappenas-menteri-keuangan-dan-kepala-bk

pm-/)

199

Chapter 8

Technical Advantages of Japanese companies

201

8.1 Opportunities of participation for Japanese companies (investment,

supply of material, operation management of facility) 8.1.1 Operating body

This project is on the premises that it would be realized as a PPP project that is proposed by the private

company. It is planned that the operating body will be ARAX Corporation, which is the joint proposer of

this study. As ARAX Corporation does not have the experience of operating overseas, and as it will not be

qualified as project proposer, it is planned that ARAX Corporation will form a consortium with a local

Japanese company and that the consortium will bid for the project.

However, in principle, ARAX Corporation will be the operating body who will bear the risks associated

with this project. In order to proceed with the project, a joint development company will be formed with a

local company formed order to purchase the land required for the project. Further, the construction and

management of the facility will be done by a Special Purpose Company (SPC). Further, a separate

company, under the SPC will be formed that will carry out facility operation and transportation of waste

from Jakarta to the project site.

8.1.2 Regarding injection of capital

The amount of capital for the SPC has not yet been decided but it is expected that the amount should be

enough to cover the start-up cost and 10% of the initial investment cost.

It is planned that ARAX Corporation along with the local subsidiary of ARAX Corporation, local Japanese

company and local Indonesian company will be injecting capital into the SPC. ARAX Corporation, who

will bear the largest risk, will have over 50% of the shares. In order to increase the chances of success of

the company, ARAX Corporation considers that the initial construction investment should be made as

small as possible. Including engineering company and construction company as investors may result in

increase of project cost and hence ARAX Corporation intends to secure a large capital contribution ratio.

It is intended that investment will be accepted from Japanese engineering firms, Japanese trading

companies, local companies and others. These companies will take a lesser burden of risk and hence will

be more willing to invest.

The members participating in this study does not include a trading company, but their participation can be

expected in the investment phase when the framework of the project has been decided.

202

Participation of notable Indonesian companies is essential from the viewpoint of business environment in

Indonesia. No particular companies are named in this report, but it is expected that their involvement can

be achieved, which will also promote the alleviation of business risk.

8.1.3 Regarding the supply of equipments

Supply of equipments relating to construction of landfills and facilities and equipment regarding MBT

will be the responsibility of the entity that is contracted for theconstruction of this project. Civil works and

construction of the plant will be contracted to Japanese general contractors and local entities of Japanese

environmental engineering companies who also have the capability to supply such equipments.

8.1.4 Operation management of the facility

The operating body is a company that has the experience of waste treatment business in Japan and also has

the capability to operate and manage landfills. The lack of experience of operation and management of

intermediate treatment facility like MBT can be achieved from an affiliate company (that operates a waste

treatment facility) of the engineering company that is proposed to carry out the construction of the plant.

8.2 Superiority of Japanese companies during the implementation of

the project (technological side, economic side) 8.2.1 Technological superiority

The technological standard of Japan regarding landfills and intermediate treatment facilities is of a very

high level. Japan’s capability of system design and workmanship of landfill construction and general

engineering capabilities, design and workmanship technology of intermediate treatment facilities is very

superior. Japan’s general construction companies and environmental engineering firms have the know-how

in these areas. This fact is well known among developed countries and also the developing ones.

Although Japanese companies are superior in terms of quality and stable operation compared to other

companies, they tend to be very expensive and hence not favorable in economic terms. Hence, it is

important to provide a price range acceptable to the local country without sacrificing quality.

For example, proposals on methods of construction and structure, cost reduction in terms of technology

and reduction of work time is always being proposed. Japanese companies are also involved in VE and CD

related investigations.

203

The biggest risk for the operating body is the risk of completion of the facility. To counter this, Japanese

construction companies will be involved in the project planning during the planning phase and

subsequently as the operating body.

The role of Japanese construction companies in securing the initial cost and timely completion of the

construction which will help optimize the project expense is very important.

8.2.2 Economic superiority

Economic superiority is achieved with the ability to supply treatment facility that is cost competitive. As

this project will be carried out with a private operating body, it will be necessary to reduce the initial

investment to the lowest amount possible. Hence, even if the supply of equipments is done from Japanese

companies, it will be important to cut down cost from the viewpoint of business feasibility. Japanese

companies that cannot catch up with cost reduction measures, even if they are superior technologically,

cannot survive in the global market. This business will be promoted as a solution business and hence will

have to give high priority to providing service, but at the same time in prioritizing price. This factor will be

taken into consideration when moving on with the project and hence it will be important to provide a level

of service that is second to none.

The second economic superiority lies in the procurement of fund. If the initial investment is large, it will be

difficult to procure funding from within Indonesia. In fact, procurement of a large amount of year for more

than 5 years is almost impossible. Hence, by using the fund schemes of Japan to the maximum, it will be

possible to get a long term-low interest investment which makes it economically superior.

One important issue is the risk associate with exchange rates. If the operating body can take that risk, then

there will be no risk premium and there will be no requirement to bear a large interest. However, in

currency crisis time like those during devaluation, it will no longer be possible to pay-back loans and the

possibility of the business going bankrupt will become reality.

Further, it is desirable to include the participation of Japanese trading companies in this project. They not

only are knowledgeable on measures to currency exchange risk but also have the capability of fund

procurement and possess knowledge about public listing of companies and issuing bonds. Japanese trading

companies have a lot of experience of operating in Indonesia and their knowledge can be utilized.

In a way, this project has nonprice competition characteristics. It seems nearly impossible that Jakarta

provincial government will be able to secure a landfill within the province. Even if all the waste is

incinerated in Jakarta, 900 t of ash/d will have to be disposed off to other provinces. It also seems nearly

impossible to secure a landfill through competitive tendering. In such a scenario, it is possible to secure a

landfill project through the proposal-based PPP project. Setting of an appropriate rate for waste intake is a

prerequisite which will also impact the stability and economic characteristics of the project.

204

8.3 Measures required to promote order intakes by Japanese

companies In order for Japanese companies to win orders relating to this project, it is necessary to take the following

measures.

1. Strongly support the penetration to BOT projects under PPP scheme through JICA’s preliminary

study.

2. Even when PPP scheme is used, the possibility of winning a bid when it becomes a competitive

tender is largely reduced. Hence, as far as possible, support the induction of companies towards a

proposal-type PPP projects which gives them priority to contracts.

3. Even if the investment and loan of JICA is utilized, financing through local financial institutions

to reduce currency exchange risk (two step financing) adds a risk premium resulting in a very

high interest rate which will make the funding unusable. Utilizing the currency exchange risk

insurance offered by NEXI should be considered as an option.

4. Currency exchange risk can arise even when using funding from JBIC, but it can be alleviated by

using trade insurance.

205

Chapter 9

Financial Outlook

207

9.1 Fund source and funding procurement plan The planned investment for construction of the project is show below.

Table 9.1.1 Planned Construction Cost

Item 2013

(1,000 yens/y)

2014

(1,000 yens/y)

2015

(1,000 yens/y) Total

Invest-

ment

Land procurement *1 516,000 0 0 516,000

Preparation 0 20,000 0 20,000

Landfill 0

1,000 9,128,000 9,129,000Intermediate and leachate

treatment facility

0

Total 516,000 21,000 9,128,000 9,665,000

Funding

source

JICA investment and loan 0 0 6,390,000 6,390,000

Financial institution 0 0 1,825,200 1,825,200

JBIC finance 0 0 0 0

Self-funding 516,000 21,000 912,800 1,449,800

Total 516,000 21,000 9,128,000 9,665,000

*1: Under the scope of financial and economic analysis of this project


The projected total investment is 9.665 billion yen. Land procurement is expected to be done using the

private fund of the development company to be jointly formed by the operating body. The total necessary

investment for investments such as construction of facilities costs, excluding cost for land acquisition, is

9.149 billion yen. Out of this sum, 10% is expected to be self-funded while 70% will be financed by

investment and loan from JICA and the remaining 20% (2.4 billion yen) will be financed from Japanese

commercial banks and the Development Bank of Japan.

9.2 Feasibility of fund procurement It is assumed that this project will use a PPP scheme between JICA and Jakarta. Hence, it is evaluated that

it is possible to obtain 70% of the initial investment through JICA investment and loan. One issue that

needs consideration is how to tackle the issue of foreign exchange risk. Since it is impossible for JICA to

bear the risk arising from fluctuation of currency rate, the only remaining options are for either the business

operator to take the risk or to use financial institutions of Indonesia and ask them to bear the foreign

exchange risk. In case of the latter, an elevated premium interest rate to cover the risk can be expected

208

which will result in the loss of the advantage that was available from the low interest loan.

Other options include procurement of funds from Japanese banks, Development Bank of Japan and if

possible, Indonesian financial institutions. With Indonesian financial institutions, if the business operator

has land assets, it would be possible to get finance equivalent to about 3 times the price of the land.

9.3 Cash flow analysis. The project term will be 20 years. With regard to financing, as shown in 9.1, out of 9.665 billion yens for

initial investment, 70% would be financed by JICA investment loans (5 years of moratorium, repayment

period of 15 years, interest rate of 1.5%), 20% by long-term loans from the commercial banks (10 years of

repayment, interest rate of 5%) and the remaining 10% will be self-funded. All means of financing will be

payable in equal installments of interest and principal. In addition, contingency will be 10% of annual cost.

The cash flow is shown in Table 9.3.1. FIRR and EIRR has also been calculated. As a result of cash flow

analysis, in Case 1, there was no shortage of cash flow. In addition, FIRR was 12.2% and EIRR excluding

expenditure and revenue from operation was 6.68%, which both exceeded the long-term interest rate of

government bond of Indonesia (6.215%).

209

Tabl

e 9.

3.1

Proj

ect C

ash

Flow

(Sou

rce:

Pre

pare

d by

the

auth

ors o

f thi

s rep

ort)

Yea

r20

1320

1420

1520

1620

1720

1820

1920

2020

2120

2220

2320

2420

2520

2620

2720

2820

2920

3020

3120

3220

3320

3420

35To

tal

Proj

ect y

ear

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1516

1718

1920

2122

23C

apita

l exp

ense

land

acq

uisi

tion

516,

000

516,

000

SPC

esta

blis

hmen

t cos

t1,

000

1,00

0D

etai

l Des

ign

cost

50,0

0050

,000

Supe

rvisi

ng c

ost

178,

000

178,

000

Civi

l eng

inee

ring

cons

truct

ion

cost

1,90

0,00

01,

900,

000

Mat

eria

l and

mac

hine

ry c

ost

7,00

0,00

07,

000,

000

Com

mer

cial

ize c

ost 　

(Incl

udin

g EI

A）

20,0

0020

,000

Inst

rum

enta

tion

& C

ablin

g, P

ipin

g0

Frei

ght (

15%

of J

apan

ese

Supp

ly)

0

Phys

ical

Con

tinge

ncy

0En

gine

erin

g (1

5%)

0VA

T0

Sub-

tota

l51

6,00

021

,000

9,12

8,00

09,

665,

000

Inte

rest

dur

ing

the

cons

truct

ion

0

Tota

l51

6,00

021

,000

9,12

8,00

00

09,

665,

000

Tipp

ing

fee

889,

907

889,

907

889,

907

889,

907

889,

907

889,

907

889,

907

889,

907

889,

907

889,

907

889,

907

889,

907

889,

907

889,

907

889,

907

889,

907

889,

907

889,

907

889,

907

889,

907

17,7

98,1

30

Han

d so

rting

recy

clab

le m

ater

ial s

ellin

g36

0,04

336

0,04

336

0,04

336

0,04

336

0,04

336

0,04

336

0,04

336

0,04

336

0,04

336

0,04

336

0,04

336

0,04

336

0,04

336

0,04

336

0,04

336

0,04

336

0,04

336

0,04

336

0,04

336

0,04

37,

200,

866

RDF

selli

ng50

6,25

550

6,25

550

6,25

550

6,25

550

6,25

550

6,25

550

6,25

550

6,25

550

6,25

550

6,25

550

6,25

550

6,25

550

6,25

550

6,25

550

6,25

550

6,25

550

6,25

550

6,25

550

6,25

550

6,25

510

,125

,100

Com

post

sel

ing

40,8

0740

,807

40,8

0740

,807

40,8

0740

,807

40,8

0740

,807

40,8

0740

,807

40,8

0740

,807

40,8

0740

,807

40,8

0740

,807

40,8

0740

,807

40,8

0740

,807

816,

140 0

Tota

l Inc

ome

1,79

7,01

21,

797,

012

1,79

7,01

21,

797,

012

1,79

7,01

21,

797,

012

1,79

7,01

21,

797,

012

1,79

7,01

21,

797,

012

1,79

7,01

21,

797,

012

1,79

7,01

21,

797,

012

1,79

7,01

21,

797,

012

1,79

7,01

21,

797,

012

1,79

7,01

21,

797,

012

35,9

40,2

36

Ope

ratin

g ex

pens

esM

anpo

wer

cos

t44

1,97

044

1,97

044

1,97

044

1,97

044

1,97

044

1,97

044

1,97

044

1,97

044

1,97

044

1,97

044

1,97

044

1,97

044

1,97

044

1,97

044

1,97

044

1,97

044

1,97

044

1,97

044

1,97

044

1,97

08,

839,

400

Cons

umab

les

0M

aint

enan

ce c

ost

5,22

95,

229

5,22

95,

229

5,22

95,

229

5,22

95,

229

5,22

95,

229

5,22

95,

229

5,22

95,

229

5,22

95,

229

5,22

95,

229

5,22

95,

229

104,

580

Util

ity c

ost

37,1

0137

,101

37,1

0137

,101

37,1

0137

,101

37,1

0137

,101

37,1

0137

,101

37,1

0137

,101

37,1

0137

,101

37,1

0137

,101

37,1

0137

,101

37,1

0137

,101

742,

020

O&

M c

ost o

f Int

erm

edia

te a

nd le

acha

te tr

eatm

ent

210,

000

210,

000

210,

000

210,

000

210,

000

210,

000

210,

000

210,

000

210,

000

210,

000

210,

000

210,

000

210,

000

210,

000

210,

000

210,

000

210,

000

210,

000

210,

000

210,

000

4,20

0,00

0In

tere

st p

aym

ent f

or JI

CA L

oan

95,8

5095

,850

95,8

5095

,850

95,8

5095

,850

89,4

6083

,070

76,6

8070

,290

63,9

0057

,510

51,1

2044

,730

38,3

4031

,950

25,5

6019

,170

12,7

806,

390

1,24

6,05

0

Inte

rest

pay

men

t for

priv

ate

long

term

loan

91,2

6091

,260

91,2

6091

,260

91,2

6082

,134

73,0

0863

,882

54,7

5645

,630

36,5

0427

,378

18,2

529,

126

00

00

00

866,

970

Inte

rest

pay

men

t for

sho

rt-te

rm lo

an0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0D

epre

ciat

ion

456,

000

456,

000

456,

000

456,

000

456,

000

456,

000

456,

000

456,

000

456,

000

456,

000

456,

000

456,

000

456,

000

456,

000

456,

000

456,

000

456,

000

456,

000

456,

000

456,

000

9,12

0,00

0

Cont

inge

ncy

88,1

4188

,141

88,1

4188

,141

88,1

4187

,228

85,6

7784

,125

82,5

7481

,022

79,4

7077

,919

76,3

6774

,816

73,2

6472

,625

71,9

8671

,347

70,7

0870

,069

1,59

9,90

2To

tal o

pera

ting

expe

nses

1,42

5,55

11,

425,

551

1,42

5,55

11,

425,

551

1,42

5,55

11,

415,

512

1,39

8,44

51,

381,

377

1,36

4,31

01,

347,

242

1,33

0,17

41,

313,

107

1,29

6,03

91,

278,

972

1,26

1,90

41,

254,

875

1,24

7,84

61,

240,

817

1,23

3,78

81,

226,

759

26,7

18,9

22

(

excl

udin

g de

prec

iatio

n)96

9,55

196

9,55

196

9,55

196

9,55

196

9,55

195

9,51

294

2,44

592

5,37

790

8,31

089

1,24

287

4,17

485

7,10

784

0,03

982

2,97

280

5,90

479

8,87

579

1,84

678

4,81

777

7,78

877

0,75

917

,598

,922

Prof

it be

fore

tax(

inco

me-

OM

exp

ense

s)37

1,46

137

1,46

137

1,46

137

1,46

137

1,46

138

1,50

039

8,56

741

5,63

543

2,70

244

9,77

046

6,83

848

3,90

550

0,97

351

8,04

053

5,10

854

2,13

754

9,16

655

6,19

556

3,22

457

0,25

39,

221,

314

Corp

orat

e in

com

e ta

x92

,865

92,8

6592

,865

92,8

6592

,865

95,3

7599

,642

103,

909

108,

175

112,

442

116,

709

120,

976

125,

243

129,

510

133,

777

135,

534

137,

291

139,

049

140,

806

142,

563

2,30

5,32

9Pr

ofit

afte

r ta

x27

8,59

627

8,59

627

8,59

627

8,59

627

8,59

628

6,12

529

8,92

531

1,72

632

4,52

633

7,32

735

0,12

836

2,92

937

5,73

038

8,53

040

1,33

140

6,60

341

1,87

441

7,14

642

2,41

842

7,69

06,

915,

986

Rec

over

y(re

venu

e/O

M c

ost)t

ax e

xmpt

ed62

.43%

62.4

3%62

.43%

62.4

3%62

.43%

62.8

7%63

.64%

64.4

2%65

.23%

66.0

5%66

.90%

67.7

7%68

.66%

69.5

8%70

.52%

70.9

2%71

.32%

71.7

2%41

.03%

41.2

7%R

ecov

ery(

reve

nue/

OM

cos

t)with

tax

Rec

over

y(re

venu

e/O

M c

ost e

xclu

ding

dep

reci

atio

n)91

.79%

91.7

9%91

.79%

91.7

9%91

.79%

92.7

5%94

.43%

96.1

7%97

.97%

99.8

5%10

1.80

%10

3.83

%10

5.94

%10

8.13

%11

0.42

%11

1.39

%11

2.38

%11

3.39

%87

.40%

86.6

1%R

ecov

ery(

reve

nue/

OM

incl

udin

g re

duct

ion

reve

nue)

185.

34%

185.

34%

185.

34%

185.

34%

185.

34%

187.

28%

190.

68%

194.

19%

197.

84%

201.

63%

205.

57%

209.

66%

213.

92%

218.

36%

222.

98%

224.

94%

226.

94%

228.

97%

231.

04%

233.

15%

Repa

ymen

t for

JICA

loan

00

042

6,00

042

6,00

042

6,00

042

6,00

042

6,00

042

6,00

042

6,00

042

6,00

042

6,00

042

6,00

042

6,00

042

6,00

042

6,00

042

6,00

042

6,00

06,

390,

000

Repa

ymen

t for

priv

ate

long

-term

loan

00

182,

520

182,

520

182,

520

182,

520

182,

520

182,

520

182,

520

182,

520

182,

520

182,

520

00

00

00

1,82

5,20

0Re

paym

ent f

or p

rivat

e sh

ort-t

erm

loan

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

Bala

nce

at th

e fis

cal y

ear e

nd73

4,59

673

4,59

673

4,59

673

4,59

655

2,07

613

3,60

514

6,40

515

9,20

617

2,00

618

4,80

719

7,60

821

0,40

922

3,21

023

6,01

043

1,33

143

6,60

344

1,87

444

7,14

645

2,41

845

7,69

07,

820,

786

Bala

nce

brou

ght f

orw

ard

734,

596

1,46

9,19

12,

203,

787

2,93

8,38

23,

490,

458

3,62

4,06

33,

770,

468

3,92

9,67

44,

101,

680

4,28

6,48

84,

484,

096

4,69

4,50

54,

917,

714

5,15

3,72

45,

585,

055

6,02

1,65

86,

463,

532

6,91

0,67

87,

363,

096

7,82

0,78

6

Fund

rai

sing

Ow

ned

capi

tal

516,

000

21,0

0091

2,80

01,

449,

800

Subi

sidy

0JI

CA G

rant

0JI

CA lo

an6,

390,

000

6,39

0,00

0Pr

ivat

e lo

ng-te

rm lo

an1,

825,

200

1,82

5,20

0Pr

ivat

e sh

ort-t

erm

loan

0

Loan

bal

ance

at t

he fi

scal

yea

r en

dJI

CA lo

an6,

390,

000

6,39

0,00

06,

390,

000

6,39

0,00

06,

390,

000

6,39

0,00

05,

964,

000

5,53

8,00

05,

112,

000

4,68

6,00

04,

260,

000

3,83

4,00

03,

408,

000

2,98

2,00

02,

556,

000

2,13

0,00

01,

704,

000

1,27

8,00

085

2,00

042

6,00

00

Priv

ate

long

-term

loan

1,82

5,20

01,

825,

200

1,82

5,20

01,

825,

200

1,82

5,20

01,

642,

680

1,46

0,16

01,

277,

640

1,09

5,12

091

2,60

073

0,08

054

7,56

036

5,04

018

2,52

00

00

00

00

Priv

ate

shor

t-ter

m lo

an0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

210

As sensibility analysis, cash flow and FIRR was calculated when the tipping fee declines from 189,000Rp/t

(1,625.4 yen/t) to 149,000 Rp/t (1,284 yen/t). In this case, FIRR is as shown below. In this case also, there is no

shortage of cash flow.

Table 9.3.2 Sensibility analysis (decline of tipping fee)

Tipping fee CASE 1 FIRR B/C NPV Cash Flow

Current revenue 12.2% 1.24 5.8 billion yen No shortage

When tipping fee decreases 9.87% 1.11 3.6 billion yen No shortage


Further, as another sensibility analysis, cash flow, FIRR, NPV and B/C was calculated when the RDF selling price

decline from 375Rp/kg (3.2yen/kg) to 150Rp/kg (1.3yen/kg). In CASE 1, there is no shortage of cash flow as


Table 9.3.3 Sensibility analysis (decline of RDF selling price)

Tipping fee CASE 1

FIRR B/C NPV Cash Flow

Current revenue 12.2% 1.24 5.8 billion yen No shortage

When tipping fee decreases 8.9% 1.03 2.3 billion yen No shortage


211

Chapter 10

Action Plan and Issues

213

10.1 Activities towards realization of the project

10.1.1 Preparation for acquiring land required for the project

Jakarta provincial government has purchased 96 ha of land at Ciangir of Tangerang Regency and in 2009

agreed on a MOU with Tangerang Regency to examine the details concerning he construction of an

intermediate treatment facility and a landfill site. However, Tangerang Regency later converted the

designation of the land use of the proposed area to “residential area”, which meant that a landfill could not

be constructed in that area. As a result, Jakarta is facing difficulties in finding an alternative land for

purchase. Meanwhile, Tangerang Regency has expressed that it can provide the area in Jatiwaringin as an

alternative site. With the support of the governor of Tangerang Regeny, ARAX Corporation is preparing to

purchase the land for the realization of this project.

10.1.2 Scheme on business structure and formation of a consortium of the operating body

In addition to preparations to acquire land as explained above, a consortium among relevant parties is

planned to be formulated as shown in Figure 10.1.1.

Under this scheme, Japanese and Indonesian investors will establish a local joint concern, which will

purchase the land for the project and enter into a contract of land lease with Jakarta As a prerequisite, it

would be necessary that the MOU between Jakarta and Tangerang Regency on constructing the treatment

and disposal facility at Ciangir be amended. After the amendment, the local enterprisesand the local joint

concern would establish a special-purpose company (SPC) and implement the BOT project on waste

management ordered by Jakarta.

Figure 10.1.1 Image of business structure and formation of consortium

(Source: Prepared by the Authors of this Report)

SPC(Special Purpose Company)

Japanese side investor

ARAX etc.

Tangerang county

Local joint concern

DKI Jakarta MOU

MSWprocessing service

A 20-year contractas BOT project

Tipping fee

Support

Landowners

Land sales contract

Indonesian side investor

Investment

Investment

Lease contract

PLN Recycling agency

Electricity sales contract

Valuable resource sales contract

Investment

214

10.2 Activities of Indonesian governmental agencies and

implementing bodies towards the realization of the project Current M/P on waste management of Jakarta is based on expansion, changes in treatment method, and

construction of facilities in three areas within Jakarta and two outside Jakarta. As shown in Table 3.1.5

(shown again as Table 10.1.1), in Sunter, the existing transfer station facility would no longer function and

instead a new intermediate treatment facility would be constructed. Regarding Cakung Cilincing, a private

entity contracted by Jakarta is conducting composting of wastes. In Marunda, as though there are plans to

construct new intermediate treatment facilities, there has not been any action in the last few years.

However, as already noted in Chapter 3 (3.1.2), only implementing the above measures will not stop the

increasing pressure on Bantar Gebang final disposal site and concerns for environmental impact and traffic

congestion will not be solved. Therefore, a final disposal site to the West side of Jakarta is urgently needed.

At the same time, there is not sufficient land that can be secured in Jakarta for construction of a new final

disposal site. Under this situation, Tangerang Regency is expressing that it is ready to provide land in Jati

Waringin area for construction of a new final disposal site and is assisting ARAX Corporation in

preparation of land acquisition.

Table 10.1.1 Waste Treatment Related Facilities in Jakarta

Cakung Cilincing Sunter Marunda Bantar Gebang(Future plan)

Tangerang Regency

Location Jakarta Jakarta Jakarta Bekasi, West Java

Tangerang Regency

Area 7.5ha 3.5ha 12ha 110.3ha Approximately 100ha

Land ownership Privately owned Government owned Privately owned Government

owned ---

Current conditions

Intermediate treatment facilities

Accept 400~500 t/d

Sorting and composting

Tipping fee: 149,000 Rp/t

Transfer station with compacting equipment Maximum

capacity: 6,000m3/d, 1,500 t/d

Volume compacting effect: ½

Currently no activities are conducted onsite (the landowner is searching for investors)

Compost Final

disposal Methane gas

collection and power generation

None

215

Cakung Cilincing Sunter Marunda Bantar Gebang(Future plan)

Tangerang Regency

Future plans and prospects

Upgrade by 2013 as follows: Accept

1,000~1,300 t/d Technology:

MBT (anaerobic digestion technology from Denmark)

The tipping fee is expected to rise to 189,000 Rp/t.

Currently undergoing actual design geared to expansion

Alter as follows: Accept 1,000 t/d Technology: Build

Waste-to-Energy (incineration) facilities

Project method: BOT

The tipping fee is expected to be 400,000 Rp/t.

As of January 2012, preparations are being made for national competitive bidding.

Capacity: 2,000 t/d

Technology: Waste-to-Energy (incineration)

Additional installation of MBT and methane fermentation facilities to the above facilities

Accept 3,000 t/d

Accept 1,500 t/d


10.3 State of presence of legal and financial restrictions in Indonesia 10.3.1 Governmental bodies related to regulation of waste treatment and environmental protection

The governmental bodies related to the development of facility at Jati Waringin of Tangerang Regency are


Table 10.3.1 Governmental bodies related to the project

Governmental body Current situation Relationship with the Project

1 Jakarta Cleansing Department

Facing difficulties in planning the treatment of waste in short/mid term (financial difficulties and difficulties in securing land for landfill site)

Ordering entity of the project Formulate ordinances related to

environment and waste Hold information on waste

treatment on a short/mid term basis

2 Jati Waringin, Tangerang Regency

Providing support to ARAX Corporation for preparation of land acquisition

Formulate regulations and ordinances relating to environment

Hold information on future plans on land use, regional environment, and waste management

3 Ministry of Environment（KLH）

The Department for Environmental Pollution Assessment is responsible for household waste; The Department for Control and Regulation is responsible for hazardous waste.

Hold information on Environment related laws (especially on AMDAL), Laws related to waste treatment,

216

The responsibility for household waste has been transferred to the local governments due to decentralization,

KLH is the main authorization entity for regarding hazardous waste issues

4 Ministry of Public Works (KPU)

The Department for Residential Environment is promoting business relating to collection and disposal of waste.

Hold information on regulations, technical assistance, economical support and regarding waste treatment in the region

Hold information related to technical guidelines on waste treatment

5 Agency for the Assessment and Application of Technology

Research on the reuse of waste sludge is being carried out.

Holds information on appropriate treatment technologies


10.3.2 Governmental bodies relating to the promotion of PPP business

3 bodies as shown in Table 10.3.2 are responsible for the promotion of PPP infrastructure projects. The

Ministry of Finance is the main authority in the PPP network, and the BAPPENAS is the overall

coordinating body for PPP issues in general.

Table 10.3.2 Responsibility of Major Governmental Bodies on PPP

Govennmental

bodies Responsibilities relating to PPP

Ministry of

Finance

- Control budget relating to infrastructure

- Promote governmental support and state guarantee to projects

BAPPENAS

- Provide overall coordination regarding PPP related plans and publish the

PPP book

- Support integration of National Development Plan with plans relating to

PPP

- ・Build capacity of related bodies

Investment

Coordinating

Board

（BKPM）

- Provide information on ready-to-offer business projects

- Formulate attractive market program

- Issue permissions necessary for implementation of PPP projects

- Support establishment of PPP implementing as one-stop service

(Source: Memorandum on strengthening of cooperation system

by Finance ministry, BAPPENAS, BKPM)

BAPPENAS, related governmental entity, and the Ministry of Finance formulate a network for efficient

promotion of PPP regarding infrastructure projects.

217

Figure 10.3.3 PPP Network

(Source: Prepared by the Authors of this report, based on Hitotsubashi University, Report on Short-Term

Overseas Survey in Indonesia, JICA 2010)

In order for Indonesia to further prosper in terms of economic development, (foreign direct investment

‘FDI) is going to be very important. However, infrastructure development in Indonesia is lagging behind

other ASEAN countries. One of the main reasons is that Indonesian government lacks the financial

resources for the development of these facilities.

As shown in Figure 10.3.1, as opposed to 1,429 trillion Rp that is required for infrastructure development

in the 5 years period (2010–2014), funding that can be made available by the Indonesian government is

only 451 trillion Rp. Currently, the deficit is being supplemented not by foreign debt but by actions

towards PPP.

・Prepare PPP plans・Coordinate PPP network

・Set direct governmental support fund ・Formulate F/S・Formulate budget ・Decide on application of

PPP in projects

BAPPENAS

Ministry of Finance GovernmentalAgency in-Charge

PPP NETWORK

218

Figure 10.3.3 Current Situation regarding Budget for Infrastructure in Indonesia

(Source: Prepared by the Authors of this report, based on Hitotsubashi University, Report on Short-Term

Overseas Survey in Indonesia, JICA 2010)

10.3.3 Indonesia’s PPP infrastructure projects

(1) PPP Book

Every year, the Indonesian government discloses information on infrastructure PPP projects for which it

expects tender from foreign companies in a document called the PPP Book. In the list for 2011, 79 projects

are listed under the categories of “Ready to Offer Projects”, “Priority projects”, and “Potential Projects.

The total investment is approximately 534 hundred million dollars (Figure 10.3.2).

At present, PPP projects listed on the PPP-Book include Transportation ministry projects (airport, ports,

rail infrastructure, coal rail, urban traffic), Ministry of public works related projects (toll roads, water

supply and sewer, waste etc) and the owners are the government controlled electricity corporation (PLN)

and the respective governments.

Different project owners exist for the various projects listed in the PPP Book. For instance, the Ministry of

Transport is the owner projects regarding airport, ports, railways, coal railways, and urban transport.

Ministry of Public Works is the owner of projects on toll ways, water and sewage, and wastes. Other than

National Governmental bodies, entities such as governmental electric companies and local governments

are also owners of certain projects. Enterprises that wish to bid usually discuss with the project owner the

background, objective, and contents of the project.

In order to handle all the listed projects, organizations are being established to support ministries and local

government as well as financing mechanisms to support the finance of private entities. In regards to land

TOTAL: 1,429 trillion Rp

Deficit of budget (69%)

978 trillion Rp

Governmental budget (31%)

451 trillion Rp

Required budget for infrastructure development from 2010 to 2014

procurement, ministries and local gove

land before the competitive bidding of t

However, taking into consideration th

reality, regulations are currently being

time for an appropriate price which de

Figure 1

(Source: Ministry of National dev

219

ernmental bodies that implement PPP projects need

the project.

he fact that agreement on land purchasing may not be

g modified so that the land can be bought after a certa

etermined by a third party.

10.3.2 Extract of the PPP-Book 2011

velopment Planning /National Development Planning

d to procure the

reached in

ain period of

g Agency)

220

Currently, there are two projects listed under “Ready for Offer” category regarding solid waste and

sanitation. The comprehensive list of projects regarding waste and sanitation in the PPP Book can be

found in Table 10.3.3.

Table 10.3.3 Projects related to Waste and Sanitation in the PPP-Book

Potential Project: Solid and Waste Sanitation

1 Padang Solid Waste Management, West Sumatora

2 Cimahi Solid Waste Management, West Java

3 Solid Waste Management Improvement Project for Urban Climate Change

4 Solid Waste Management Improvement Project for CDM program

Priority Project: Solid Waste and Sanitation

1 Solid Waste final and Treatment －Bogor and Depok Area，West Jawa

2 Solid Waste final and Treatment －Bogor and Depok Area －Greater Bandong Area，

West Java

Ready for Offer Project: Solid Waste and Sanitation

1 Solid Waste Management Improvement Facility, West Jawa

2 Solid Waste Final Disposal and Treatment Facility －Purti Cempomojosongo，Surakarta

Municipal, Central Java

(Source: PPP Book 2011)

(2) Methods to bid for PPP projects

For all the infrastructure PPP projects, BAPPENAS acts as a supervisor and is responsible for disclosure

as competitive tender projects to companies within and outside Indonesia. Infrastructure related PPP

projects are open to an international bidding. All the infrastructure PPP projects are required to be put

under competitive bidding under Indonesia’s regulations.

There are two types of infrastructure PPP projects: a) Projects proposed by the project owner such as ministries or local governments; and

b) Projects proposed by private companies

The former is referred to as “solicited” projects. Regarding these projects, competitive bidding is carried out according to a set of procedures, and the bidding company prepares a proposal document

in order to participate in the bid.

The latter is referred to as “unsolicited” projects. With these projects, the proposing company carries out

a pre-feasibility study or a feasibility study, prepares a proposal accordingly to its results and proposes it

to the ministry or the local government. Thus, companies can conduct feasibility with their own funds,

prepare proposals, and request ministries and local governments to implement those projects even if

221

such projects are not included in documents such as Master Plans prepared by ministries or local

governments.

In this case, competitive bidding according to international standards is carried out. However, the

company that has carried out the pre-feasibility study and has submitted a proposal enjoys the following

advantages.

(1) The company will be given extra evaluation points

(2) The company will be under similar evaluation conditions as the top bidder. For instance, the

company would be able to propose a price that matches the price of the lowest bidder.

(3) If the company does not win the bid, the cost for pre-feasibility study will be reimbursed

10.3.4 Financial and economic feasibility

Jakarta provincial government will be the ordering entity for this project. It is a common practice for the

ordering entity to purchase the land for its project. However, for this project, the operating entity will be

purchasing the land and hence the financial and economic feasibility of Jakarta to purchase the land would

not be examined. Project cost was be calculated by considering the construction cost and O/M cost.

Balance calculation was done by considering the tipping fee that the facility would receive, the pay-back

conditions of the loan, foreign exchange rates, and inflation rate for a 20 year period in order to calculate

the .Internal rate of return (IRR).

One important issue is how much the Jakarta Cleansing Department would be able to actually pay as

treatment cost. It should be highlighted that the Cleansing Department is knowledgeable of various

treatment methods and related costs indicated in the SAPROF (2007) report conducted by JBIC. The

Cleansing Department is also utilizing the results of SAPROF study for its waste management planning.

Taking this situation into consideration, it can be assumed that the Cleansing Department would be able to

pay the tipping fee for a waste management system that is proposed in the SAPROF report.

Furthermore, as Jakarta has the experience of utilizing yen loans and also the experience of contracting out

projects to private companies, it can be evaluated that it has adequate capacity to manage and implement

the project.

10.3.5 Risks concerning infrastructure projects

The risks associated with infrastructure projects can be summarized as in Table 10.3.4. However, taking

into account the situation regarding waste management in Jakarta, it is believed that risks can be

minimized through cooperation with Japanese affiliated companies in the project implementation.

222

Table 10.3.4 Risk Associated with Infrastructure Projects


Risk related to

construction

Risk that the project does not achieve the expected capacity or function

Conduct an extensive feasibility study to evaluate the associated risks

Risk associated

with procurement

of raw materials

Risk that raw materials and equipments that satisfies the required standards

cannot be procured

Procure raw materials and equipments from Japanese companies

present in Indonesia

Risk related to

providing of

service and

bargaining

Risk that there would be unexpected stagnation of transaction volume;

Risk that products would not circulate in the market.

Conduct adequate waste management planning

Environmental

risk

Risk that the project results adverse environmental and social impacts in the

host country

Study carefully the required countermeasures in the feasibility study


10.4 Need for further analysis 10.4.1 Analysis of the introduction potential of transportation system

As explained in Chapter 3, location of the treatment and disposal facility in the eastern part of Jakarta itself

results in the improvement of transportation efficiency in this region. Further, by allotting a transfer station,

efficiency is expected to increase further. It will be effective to investigate the effective usage of the

pre-existing transfer station facilities at Sunter which is expected to be abolished due to the introduction of

an incinerator.

10.4.2 Possibility of increase in demand of RDF

It is expected that RDF produced from the proposed project will be used as a fuel source at cement plants

but it is beneficial to study any possibilities of increase in demand. Survey will be carried out to study the

potential of the usage at thermal power station located in the northern coastal region of Tangerang regency.

10.4.3 Demand for the treatment of waste other than Municipal waste from Jakarta

It is necessary to investigate the possibility of expanding the target wastes that the facility would treat and

dispose. This includes investigation of demand for waste treatment from Tangerang, South Tangerang and

investigation of demand and technical feasibility regarding treatment and disposal of MSW.

10.4.4 Possibilities for RDF power generation

223

In the future, there are possibilities that RDF power generation facilities would be constructed. If this is to

realize, a large sum of money would have to be procured for the construction cost (out of scope of financial

and economic analysis). The realization of such facilities would be promoted only after the operations

prove to be sustainable and financially sound. On the premises that benefits are gained through the project

cash flow, small-scale independent power plants may be established utilizing combustible residues that are

generated in the treatment process. In this case, it would be indispensable to carefully carry out the

feasibility study and to identify the future prospects of the business taking into account the purchasing

price of the electricity by the electricity company to determine the feasibility of the project.