Detailed Project Report for MSW Management for Kapu Town ... · Kapu generates about 10 TPD of...

District Urban Development Cell, Udupi.

Detailed Project Report

for MSW Management for Kapu Town

Municipal Council

March 2017

MaRS Planning & Engineering Services Private Limited601, Surmount, Opp. Iscon Mega Mall, S. G. Highway, Ahmedabad – 380015, Gujarat, India.

PROJECT SYNOPSIS

Synopsis of DPR on SWM for Kapu under Swachh Bharat Mission

ii

1. About town Kaup Town Panchayat will have Kaup, Mallaru and Uliyargoli gram panchayats with a total

population of 12,733 as 2001 and 21,877 as per 2011 census data. Kaup, pronounced as Kapu

in the local Tulu language, is a small village on the Western Coast National Highway 13 kms

south of the city of Udupi and 40 km north of Mangalore in southern Karnataka, India. It lies

on the way between Udupi and Mangalore beside National Highway 66 (previously NH-17).

Name of the Town Kapu comprising of Kapu, Mallaru and Uliyargoli gram

panchayats

Area (Sq.kms) 23.416

Population (2011) 21,887

Population (2016) 26,464

Households (2016) 4,814

No of Wards 19

Road Length (kms) 88

Hotels 15

Marriage halls 3

Meat stalls 5

Commercial establishments 500

2. Existing SWM in Kapu

2.1 Waste generation and collection estimate The total waste generation as per generator based assessment (sum of waste collected from

Households, Commercial establishments, Markets and street sweeping) 10.24 tons per day.

The normative estimate is 10.24 tons per day (Total Population * Per Capita waste). The

waste generation of 10.24 tons per day is adopted as a realistic waste generation. An average

of about 9.8 tons per day of waste is collected. The collection efficiency is about 80%.

2.2 Waste generation by generator type There are various sources of wastes from which waste is generated in Kapu town. About 5

major waste generators were identified for estimating the quantity of waste generated in the

town. The amount of waste generated is estimated as follows.


iii

Sl. No Waste Generators

No of Generators

Avg. waste /

day (Kgs)

Total waste (Kgs)

Total ( Tonnes)

1 Households 25,549 0.276 7,061 7.06

2 Commercial establishments 500 1.07 535 0.54

3 Marriage halls 3 250 750 0.75

4 Street sweeping waste 35 32.5 1,138 1.14

5 Drain Cleaning waste 38 20 760 0.76

10.24

2.3 Physical and Chemical properties of waste collected

Sl. no Components Unit Results

1 Physical characteristics

(i) Biodegradable

Paper/cardboard % 15.20

Organic Waste % 29.46

Wood % 6.28

(ii) Non-Biodegradable

Rubber & Leather % 5.08

Plastics % 31.02

Rags/Textiles % 9.50

Metals % 0.27

(iii) Inerts

Glass & Crockery % 1.09

Stone & Grits % 2.10

2 Chemical Characteristics

Bulk density gm/cc 0.29

pH 7.11

3 Proximate Analysis

Moisture % 43.14

Volatile % 32.16

Fixed carbon % 5.34

Ash content % 19.36

4 Ultimate Analysis(on Dry basis)

Carbon as C % 41.06

Hydrogen as H % 5.08

Oxygen as O % 27.17

Nitrogen as N % 0.19


iv

Sl. no Components Unit Results

Sulphur as S % 0.11

Phosphorus as P % 0.04

Potassium as K % 0.18

C/N ratio % 216.76:1

5 Heavy Metals

Arsenic as (As), Lead as (Pb), Cadmium as (Cd), Mercury as (Hg), mg/kg Not detected

Zinc as (Zn) mg/kg 0.72

Copper as (Cu) mg/kg 0.013

Nickel (Ni) mg/kg 0.015

Iron as (Fe) mg/kg 4.71

6 Gross calorific value Kcal/Kg 1190

2.3 Present system of waste management

2.3.1 Collection & Transportation It has observed that the town does not store the waste at source and instead dispose the

waste into the streets, open spaces, drains, as and when waste is generated. Segregation of

waste is not practiced. Most of the recyclable material is disposed of along with domestic and

trade waste. Therefore, recyclable waste is generally found mixed with garbage on the streets

and at the dumpsites.

There is no door to door collection facility in the town. The collection is carried out based on

demand. The waste collection activities are being carried out using mini-truck doing three

trips a day. The waste collected is transported directly to the temporary disposal site near the

highway in Kapu. There are no bins or waste storage depots in the town.

2.3.2 Processing and Disposal Kapu town does not have any processing and disposal facility and hence the waste collected

from Kapu town is disposed without any treatment in the disposal site near the highway in

Kapu.

The proposed waste disposal site for the Kapu TMC is located in the Yellur village which is

situated at a distance of10 kms from the TMC.


v

2.3.3 Bio- medical waste There are two primary health care centres and one hospital in Kapu. The bio-medical waste

is collected by private contractor and transported to “common bio medical waste treatment

facility” for processing and disposal. KTMC is not involved in collection, transportation or

disposal of bio-medical waste.

2.3.4 Cost of waste management The ULB is incurring an expenditure of Rs. 10 lakhs/year.

2.3.5 Total expenditure incurred on SWM and total revenue generated at present

i. Expenditure details

Sl. no Activities

Expenditure / year (Lakhs)

1 Door to door collection ( Salaries + maintenance charges)

10

2 Dry waste collection centre ( if exists)

3 Street sweeping & other cleaning activities ( salaries, fuel expenses, contract amount if any, vehicle maintenance)

4 Secondary collection & transportation including transfer stations ( Dumper placer, compactor, tractor placer salaries, fuel cost etc)

5 Processing cost at the landfill site

6 Disposal/landfilling

7 Leachate collection & treatment

8 Bio-mining/ capping

9 Others

Total 10

ii. Revenue details

Sl. no. Particulars

Amount (lakhs)

1 % of Property tax reserved towards SWM and cleaning activities --

2 SWM Cess collected annually in 2015-16 --

3 Sale of compost, recyclables, RDF etc in 2015-16 --

4 Components of Town planning Fee, advertisement tax, birth / death certificate fee etc towards SWM and cleaning activities

5 Fines and fees available for SWM cleaning activities in 2015-16 --

6 Others (SFC Grants)

Total


vi

3. Proposed Plan for Management of MSW

3.1 Collection & Transportation

• It is proposed to ban the littering of waste on the streets by introducing

segregation of waste at the source and storage of segregated waste i.e. wet,

dry and domestic hazardous waste at the source.

• The waste will be collected separately on a daily basis. The wet waste shall be

transported to processing facility and the dry waste shall be transported to the

dry waste collection centres.

• The system of door to door collection through containerized auto-tippers shall

be implemented in the city.

• The auto-tippers shall unload the waste into tipper trucks for transportation

to the processing facility.

• The vehicles deployed for collection of waste from street sweeping activities

will also collect the waste from markets and bulk generators.

The details of the vehicles and equipment recommended for Kapu are as below

Type of Vehicles Proposed

(DPR) Existing nos Nos. to be procured

Push carts 9 -- 9

Auto tippers / Mini tippers 6 -- 6

Tractor trailers -- -- --

Tipper trucks 2 1 1

Compactors -- -- --

Weighbridge 1 -- 1

Baling machines -- -- --

Pre-sorting trommel screen (200mm/100mm etc)

-- -- --

Screening machines (trommel / vibratory screens) 40mm/25mm/16mm/4mm

-- -- --

Front end loader with backhoe

-- -- --

Skid steer loader -- -- --

Others (Pl. specify) -- -- --

Compost Plant & Machinery (10 TPD)

1 -- 1


vii

3.2 Processing and Disposal

3.2.1 Technology Selection

Based on the above analysis it is recommended to have aerobic windrow composting based

waste management facility. This would be supported by the recycling of plastics and other

inorganics. This technology proposed is simple and easy to implement with potential to

meet the overall objectives of waste management elucidated above. This is cost effective.

3.2.2 Design requirement for Processing and disposal plan

Projected waste for Kapu townis 13 TPD for the design period 2020 (Five years period). Out

of total waste, the dry waste is directly transported to the dry waste collection centre and

street sweeping waste is disposed off in sanitary landfills.

Kapu generates about 10 TPD of waste and the projected waste 13 TPD for the design period

2020 (five years period). The processing facilities has a design capacity to cater to the waste

generated next five years i.e. 10 TPD. A landfill facility of 3,100 sqm has been proposed to

handle 20% of rejects for the subsequent five years.

Technological Options for MSW Processing in Different Categories

Sl. No Particulars Unit

Quantity

1 Design Year (Five years period) Year 2017 2022

Projected waste TPD 11.27 14.38

Wet waste TPD 7.34 9.37

Dry waste TPD 1.84 2.34

Street sweeping waste TPD 2.09 2.66

2 Plant Design Capacity

Windrow Composting Plant TPD 10

Sanitary landfill @ 20% (5 years) TPD 11

3.2.3 Construction and Demolition Waste

It is the responsibility of any generator of construction and demolition debris to employ

reasonable and practical means, including source reduction, reuse or recycling, in order to

prevent construction and demolition debris from being disposed finally in low lying areas.

The construction debris should be disposed off in low lying areas. The TMC shall identify the

dedicated low lying area/ location for dumping of construction debris. The existing tipper

vehicle in the TMC shall use for transportation of C & D waste.


viii

3.2.4 Capital cost for proposed MSWM

Capital Cost for Collection & Transportation Operations

Sl. No Particulars

Proposed (nos)

Available (nos)

Net (nos)

Unit Rate (Rs.)

Total (Rs. in lakhs)

1 Pushcarts 9 -- 9 13,700 1.23

2 Auto-Tippers 6 -- 6 520,000 31.20

3 Tipper 2 1 1 12,34,000 12.34

Total 44.89 Capital Cost for Processing Plant &Machinery

Sl. no Description Quantities Rate Total Cost (Rs. in lakhs)

1 Weigh bridge 1 6,20,000 6.20

2 Composting Plant & Machinery (10 )

1 60,00,000 60.00

3 Bailing machine 1 4,40,000 4.40

4 Vehicles

(i) Handcarts 4 13,700 0.55

(ii) Tractor Trailer 1 8,65,000 8.65

Total 79.80 Capital Cost for Civil Works proposed in the processing facility

Sl. no Description Quantities Rate

Total Cost (Rs. in lakhs)

1 Security Office 2.5 m x 2.5 m 33,280 2.08

2 Weighbridge Platform 12 m x 3 m 6,556 2.36

3 Compost Plant 35 m x 85 m 6,176 183.74

4 Workers Rest Room 3.6 m x 3 m 40,370 4.36

5 Toilet block 6.2 m x 3.5 m 28,111 6.10

6 Internal roads 600 m 7,160 64.44

7 Storm water drains 600 m 8,919 56.19

8 Under ground water sump 5 m x 4 m x 2.5

14,000 2.80

9 DG Room 10 m x 10 m 3,520 3.52

10 Compound wall 853 m 8,465 72.21

11 Sanitary Landfill 50 m x 61.5 m 4,490 138.07

12 Electrical (Internal & l)

1 lot 31.28

13 Gates 1 no 1.00

14 Plumbing and sanitary k

1 lot 5.00

15 Green belt 1 lot 5.00

16 Monitoring Bore wells 1 no 1.50

17 Fire fighting 1 lot 1.00 Total 580.65


ix

Summary of Capital Cost

Sl. no. Description

Total Estimated Amount(Rs. in

lakhs)

Contingency 3% (Rs. in

lakhs)

Grand Total (Rs. in lakhs)

1 Collection & Transportation 44.89 1.35 46.24

2 Processing Plant

Plant & Machinery 79.80 2.39 82.19

a Civil structures 183.74 5.51 189.25

b Sanitary Landfill 138.07 4.14 142.21

c Other infrastructure 258.84 7.77 266.61

Total 705.34 21.16 726.50

Financial Structuring of the project

Sl. no Government Project contribution source

Amount in (Rs. in lakhs)

% share by Govt. entity

1 Central SBM Grant 254.28 35.00%

2 State Grant towards its share in project 84.76 11.67%

3 Committed contribution by the TMC 500.00

Total 839.04

Surplus 112.53

3.2.5 Operation and Management (O & M) Cost for proposed MSWM

O & M Cost for Collection & Transportation Operations

Sl. No Particulars

No of Units

Unit Rate (Rs.)

Monthly Expenditure

(Rs. in lakhs)

Yearly Expenditure

(Rs. in lakhs)

1 Manpower

Workers 26 nos 19,391 504,166 60.50

Drivers 8 no 16,649 133,192 15.98

Supervisor 1 no 20,123 20,123 2.41

2 Fuel Cost

a Auto (6) 12 60 21,900 2.63

b Tipper (1) 6 60 11,406 1.37

c Tipper(1) 7 60 12,775 1.53

3 Maintenance/yr 10% 47,692 5.72

4 PP Equipments/yr 34 nos 5,000 1.70

5 Contingency 0.5% 3,824 0.46

Total 769,248 92.31


x

O & M Cost for Processing &Disposal Facility

Sl. No Particulars

No of Units

Unit Rate (Rs.)

Monthly Expenditure

(Rs. in lakhs)

Yearly Expenditure (Rs. in lakhs)

A Staff Salary/ Wages

1 Manager cum Supervisor 1 20,123 20,123 2.41 2 Workers – Tipping Floor 3 19,391 58,173 6.98 3 Drivers 1 16649 16,649 2.00 4 Security 1 19,391 19,391 2.33 B Power & Fuel charges 1 Power 50 units 7 10,646 1.28 3 Fuel 2 LPD 60 3,650 0.44 C Consumables Microbial Culture LS 5,000 0.60 Hose pipe, pots& shovel LS 0.10 HDPE bags LS 5,000 0.60 Water supply LS 5,000 0.60

D PP Equipments/yr 6 nos 5,000 0.30

E Administrative Charges LS 2,500 0.30

F O & M

Civil items 0.25% 7,258 0.87

Mechanical works 10% 66,498 7.98 G Contingency 1% 2,224 0.27 Total 224,612 27.05

Financing of O&M expenses

Sl. No Particulars (Rs. in lakhs / year) 1 Operational Expenditure proposed 119.36 2 Revenue from user charges 28.50 3 Revenue from sale of Compost 5.88 4 Revenue from sale of Recyclables 1.18 5 SFC Grants for Permanent PKs salaries 0.00 6 SFC untied-Grants for salaries for Contract workers (75%) 69.46 7 Total revenue proposed 105.02 8 Deficit (SWM) 14.35

Chief officer

Kapu TMC


xi

Anexure-1

Sl. No

DPR appraisal format

Particulars Details

1 Name of the City Kapu TMC

2 No. of Wards 19

3 Population (2011) 21,887

4 Present Population (2016) 26,464

5 Area 23.416 sq.kms

6 No. of households (2016) 4,814

7 No. of commercial establishments 500

8 Road length (A, B & C) in (Kms) 88 kms

9 Total Qty. of waste generated 10.24 TPD

a. Total quantity of wet waste 6.43 TPD

b. Total quantity of dry waste / recyclable waste 1.7 TPD

c. Total qty. of chicken & mutton waste 0.25 TPD

d. Total qty. of C&D waste < 500 kgs

e. Total qty. of street sweeping waste /silt 1.9 TPD

Sl. no

Financial aspects

Particulars Capital Cost

O & M Cost Civil

Components Vehicles &

Machineries

a Door-to-door collection & transportation -- 46.24 92.31

b Street sweeping & other cleaning activities and transportation -- - 0.00

c Dry waste collection centre / Decentralized waste management centre etc. -- -- --

d Secondary collection & transportation (including transfer station etc) -- -- --

e Waste Processing (Aerobic Composting (organic waste) RDF (Inorganic waste) Including civil works total capital cost)

455.86 82.19 27.05

f Waste disposal and Leachate treatment 142.21 -- --

Total Cost 598.07 128.43 119.36

Cost / ton 49.05 2,902


xii

Financial Structuring of the project

Sl. no Government Project contribution source

Amount in (Rs. in lakhs)

% share by Govt. entity

1 Central SBM Grant 254.28 35.00%

2 State Grant towards its share in project 84.76 11.67%

3 Committed contribution by the TMC 500.00

Total 839.04

Surplus 112.53

Design period- 5 years

Revenue (proposed)

Sl. No Particulars (Rs. in lakhs / year) 1 Operational Expenditure proposed 119.36 2 Revenue from user charges 28.50 3 Revenue from sale of Compost 5.88 4 Revenue from sale of Recyclables 1.18 5 SFC Grants for Permanent PKs salaries 0.00 6 SFC untied-Grants for salaries for Contract workers (75%) 69.46 7 Total revenue proposed 105.02 8 Deficit (SWM) 14.35

Chief Officer

Kapu TMC


xiii

Annexure-2

Ministry of Urban Development(CPHEEO)

Appraisal Format for Consideration of Projects for Solid Waste Management

1 Proposal Integrated SWM facility at Kapu

2 Name of State/UT Karnataka

3 Name of City Kapu TMC

4 Objectives The objective of this project is to identify the existing MSWM practices in Kapu in Udupi district, recognize deficiencies/gaps in the present system and propose a comprehensive plan for MSWM including segregation, collection, transportation and processing & scientific disposal of waste in compliance with the MSW Rules 2016.

5 Whether CDP is prepared No

6 Background Kaup Town Panchayat will have Kaup, Mallaru and Uliyargoli gram panchayats with a total population of 12,733 as 2001 and 21,877 as per 2011 census data. Kaup, pronounced as Kapu in the local Tulu language, is a small village on the Western Coast National Highway 13 kms south of the city of Udupi and 40 km north of Mangalore in southern Karnataka, India. It lies on the way between Udupi and Mangalore beside National Highway 66 (previously NH-17).

7 Present Status Collection efficiency < 50% Processing – none

8 Service level benchmark (as per annexure) before and after the project

9 Need of Project The collection efficiency is not up to 100% due to lack of vehicles and manpower. The municipality is mot processing the waste at this point of time. The TMC is looking forward to strengthen collection, transportation and processing of waste through this project.

10 Population

- As per 2011 census 21,877

- Base year 2016 26,464

- Design year 2022 31,956

- End year 2030 39,280


xiv

11 Solid Waste Generation

- Base year 10.24 TPD

- Design year 14.38 TPD

- End year 21.25 TPD

12 Project Components

i. No. of packages & details Single package

ii. BOQs ready Yes/No Yes

iii. Analysis rate ready Yes

13 Land required under project& status of land availability Available with TMC

14 Estimated cost (Proposed in Lakh Rupees) Rs. 726.50 lakhs

15 Timeline for Implementation 1 year

16 Funding pattern 35% from GOI, 11.67% from GOK and rest to be invested by TMC

17 Whether the project (or part of the project) has been taken up for funding earlier through any other scheme? If yes, please provide detail

No

18 Implementing Agency Kapu TMC

19 Annual O&M expenditure (Rs. Lakh)

-Existing : 2015-16 Rs. 10 lakhs

- Proposed (year 2016-17) Rs. 119.36 lakhs

20 Agency Responsible for O&M Kapu TMC

21 Charges for solid waste management

-Existing : 2015-16

- Proposed (2016-17)

22 Revenue generation (Rs. Lakh)

-Existing : SWM cess 2014-15 (2015-16 till October)

- Proposed (year 2016-17)

23 CPHEEO’s Technical comments :

24 SLSC Approval Detail

a. Approval date :

b. Approval letter No. :

c. SLSC approvals note available :


xv

d. State and ULB Share & budget

25 List anticipated hindrances in project implementation

26 Whether the project is recommended for Sanction (Y/N)

27 If not, please mention reasons and area for improving DPR

28 Estimated cost for consideration & approval (INR crore)

Service Level Benchmark Indicators –Solid Waste Management

Sl. no

Indicator

Unit Baseline

before project

Reliability of measurement

After project

Reliability of measurement

1 Household level coverage of SWM services

% 80 % High 100 % High

2 Efficiency of collection of municipal solid waste

% 70 % High 90 % High

3 Extent of segregation of municipal solid waste

% 15 % High 80 % High

4 Extent of municipal solid waste recovered

% 5 % High 80 % High

5 Extent of scientific disposal of solid waste

% 40 % High 100 % High

6 Efficiency in re-dressal of customer complaints

% 80 % Medium 90 % High

7 Cost recovery of SWM services

% 20 % High 50 % High

8 Efficiency of collection of Charges

% 30 % High 80 % High


xvi

Checklist

Sl. no Particulars Yes/No

1 Council resolution attached or not? Yes

2

NOC / Authorization given by KSPCB for landfill site along with permission from other statutory bodies such as airport authority (if applicable), Mines & Geology, Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) (for new landfill sites), NOC from Village Panchayath (if Applicable) attached or not?

Yes

3 Financial model for capital cost (Central share /State Share /ULB share etc) shown or not? Yes

4 Filled MoUD Pro-forma attached or not? Yes

5 Normative Standards / Service Level Benchmark considered or not? Yes

6 Layout plan / designs & drawings attached or not? Yes

7 Waste characterization & quantification done or not? Yes

Chief officer

Kapu TMC

DETAILED PROJECT REPORT

Detailed Project Report for MSW Management for Kapu Town Municipal Council -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

M/s MaRS Planning & Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd

i

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 1

1. 1 Background ................................................................................................................ 1

1. 2 Problems being faced by Urban Local Bodies........................................................... 1

1. 3 Efforts of the Government ......................................................................................... 3

1. 4 Need for the Project ................................................................................................... 6

1. 5 Methodology adopted for the Study .......................................................................... 7

1. 6 Structure of Report .................................................................................................. 13

2. PROJECT AREA PROFILE ............................................................... 16

2. 1 District Profile - Udupi ............................................................................................ 16

2. 2 Town Profile - Kapu ................................................................................................. 19

3. PRESENT SCENARIO OF SWM ....................................................... 23

3.1 Quantification of Waste ........................................................................................... 23

3.2 Characterization and Composition of MSW ............................................................ 25

3.3 Segregation of Waste at Source ............................................................................... 28

3.4 Collection and Transportation of Waste ................................................................. 28

3.5 Linkages with other MSW Management Schemes .................................................. 31

3.6 Proposed MSW Processing & Disposal Site ............................................................. 31

3.7 Legal Framework ..................................................................................................... 32

4. REVIEW OF TECHNOLOGIES ...................................................... 36

4. 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 36

4. 2 Recycling of Waste ................................................................................................... 36

4. 3 Processing of Organic fraction of Waste .................................................................. 36

4.3.1 Aerobic / Anaerobic Composting Technology ..................................................... 37

4.3.2 Vermi-Composting Technology ........................................................................... 41

4.3.3 Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) Processing Technology ............................................ 42

4.3.4 Bio-methanation .................................................................................................. 43

4. 4 Sanitary Landfill ...................................................................................................... 44

5. DESIGN CRITERIA FOR SWM ..................................................... 55

5. 1 Population Growth & Waste Generation Projections .............................................. 55

5. 2 Strategy adopted for Action Plan ............................................................................. 55

5. 3 Proposed Collection & Transportation Plan ............................................................ 57

5. 4 Proposed MSW Processing and Disposal Plan ........................................................ 59



ii

5. 5 Compatibility between existing and proposed system ............................................ 59

6. PROPOSED COLLECTION & TRANSPORTATION PLAN ............... 61

6. 1 Road / Street Sweeping ........................................................................................... 61

6. 2 Drain Cleaning ......................................................................................................... 65

6. 3 System of waste storage at Source ........................................................................... 66

6. 4 Collection and Transportation of waste ................................................................... 69

6. 5 Asset & Manpower Requirement ............................................................................. 71

7. PROPOSED PROCESSING & DISPOSAL PLAN ............................. 74

7. 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 74

7. 2 Compost Processing Plant ....................................................................................... 74

7. 3 E-Waste Management ............................................................................................ 80

7. 4 Construction and Demolition Waste Management ................................................ 81

7. 5 Bio-medical Waste Management ............................................................................. 81

7. 6 Sanitary Landfill Facility.......................................................................................... 82

7. 7 Proposed Infrastructure .......................................................................................... 84

8. PROJECT FINANCIALS ................................................................ 86

8. 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................86

8. 2 Capital Investment ...................................................................................................86

8. 3 Operational Expenditure ......................................................................................... 87

8. 5 Funding Pattern for Capital Investment ..................................................................89

8. 6 Funding Pattern for Operational Expenditure ...................................................... 90

9. OPERATING FRAMEWORK ......................................................... 93

9.1 Options for Project Implementation ....................................................................... 93

9.2 Option 1: Service delivery by ULB ........................................................................... 93

9.3 Option 2: Service delivery through Private Operator(s) .......................................... 93

10. LEGAL ASPECTS .......................................................................... 96

10.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 96

10.2 Proposed Legal Provisions ....................................................................................... 96

11. HEALTH ASPECTS..................................................................... 100

11.1 Low Cost Sanitation Program to prevent Open Defecation .................................. 100

11.2 Covering of Buildings under Construction ............................................................ 100

11.3 Cattle Nuisance ..................................................................................................... 100

11.4 Health Monitoring for Sanitary Workers .............................................................. 100



iii

11.5 Prevent Indiscriminate Use of Pesticides ............................................................. 101

12. ROLE OF STAKEHOLDERS ........................................................ 102

12.1 Role of the ULB ..................................................................................................... 102

12.2 Role of the Citizens ............................................................................................... 102

12.3 Role of the Private Operator ................................................................................. 102

13. INFORMATION, EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATION............. 103

13.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 103

13. 2 Approaches of IEC Plan ......................................................................................... 103

13.3 Awareness about Reduce, Reuse and Recycle Waste ............................................ 104

13.4 Awareness about segregation of waste at source ................................................... 105

13.5 Strategies for creating Awareness .......................................................................... 105



iv

List of Exhibits

Exhibit 1 : Approach and Methodology ......................................................................... 8

Exhibit 2 : Location Map of Kapu Town ...................................................................... 20

Exhibit 3 : Kapu TMC Map .......................................................................................... 21

Exhibit 4 : Brief Profile of Kapu Town ......................................................................... 22

Exhibit 5 : Average Per-capita generation of MSW in Indian Cities .......................... 23

Exhibit 6 : Quantification of MSW in Kapu Town (2015) .......................................... 25

Exhibit 7 : Physical Characteristics of MSW in Indian Cities ..................................... 26

Exhibit 8 : Chemical Characteristics of MSW in Indian Cities ................................... 26

Exhibit 9 : Physical & Chemical Characteristics of Waste .......................................... 27

Exhibit 10 : Primary Collection Vehicle ...................................................................... 28

Exhibit 11 : Existing Scenario of SWM ......................................................................... 29

Exhibit 12 : Road Length ............................................................................................. 29

Exhibit 13 : Primary collection routes in Kapu TMC ................................................... 30

Exhibit 14 : Assets available with the ULB .................................................................. 31

Exhibit 15 : Proposed MSW Disposal Site .................................................................. 32

Exhibit 16 : Sketch copy drawing of the proposed processing site .............................. 32

Exhibit 17 : Evaluation of Location as per CPHEEO Manual ..................................... 34

Exhibit 18 : SWM Service Level Benchmarks at a Glance ........................................... 35

Exhibit 19 : Specifications for Compost Quality ..........................................................40

Exhibit 20 : Population& Waste Projections ............................................................... 55

Exhibit 21 : Kapu Command Areas ............................................................................. 56

Exhibit 22 : Command Areas for Kapu Town (3 villages) ........................................... 56

Exhibit 23 : Proposed Collection & Transportation Plan ............................................ 57

Exhibit 24 : Proposed Processing &Disposal Plan ....................................................... 59

Exhibit 25 : Assumptions for Assets and manpower Requirement ............................ 71

Exhibit 26 : Assets Requirement ................................................................................. 72

Exhibit 27 : Manpower Requirement .......................................................................... 73

Exhibit 28 : Technology Options for Processing MSW .............................................. 74

Exhibit 29 : Area requirement for Compost Processing Plant ................................... 77

Exhibit 30 : Technical Specifications for Manual Sorting Conveyor ......................... 77

Exhibit 31 : Technical Specifications for Rotary Screening Machinery ..................... 78



v

Exhibit 32 : Mass Balance for Compost Processing Plant .......................................... 80

Exhibit 33 : Assumptions for area requirement for Sanitary Landfill ........................ 82

Exhibit 34 : Area requirement for Sanitary Landfill ................................................... 82

Exhibit 35 : Proposed Civil Infrastructure for Processing & Disposal Facility ........... 84

Exhibit 36 : Proposed Plant & Machinery for Processing & Disposal Facility ............ 84

Exhibit 37 : Area requirement for Processing & Disposal Facility .............................. 85

Exhibit 38 : Manpower requirement for Processing & Disposal Facility .................... 85

Exhibit 39 : Capital Investment for Collection & Transportation Operations ............ 86

Exhibit 40 : Capital Investment for Plant & Machinery .............................................. 86

Exhibit 41 : Capital Investment for Civil Works .......................................................... 87

Exhibit 42 : Operational Expenditure for Collection& Transportation Operations .. 88

Exhibit 43 : Operational Expenditure for Processing & Disposal Facility ................. 88

Exhibit 44 : Summary of Project Financials ................................................................ 89

Exhibit 45 : Funding Pattern for Capital Investment .................................................. 89

Exhibit 46 : Sources of Income of the ULB ..................................................................90

Exhibit 47 : Proposed User Charges for various Generators ....................................... 91

Exhibit 48 : Revenue from sale of Compost & Recyclables ......................................... 91

Exhibit 49 : Manpower Cost ......................................................................................... 91

Exhibit 50 : Funding for Operational Expenditure ..................................................... 92

Exhibit 51 : Comparative Analysis of risks .................................................................. 95

Exhibit 52 : IEC Modules used at Town Level ........................................................... 109



vi

List of Annexures

Annexure 1: Estimates for Civil & Electrical Works

Annexure 2: Survey to assess the Per capita Generation of Waste

Annexure 3: Physical & Characterization of Waste

Annexure 4: Soil Investigation Report

Annexure 5: Quotations



vii

Acronyms APM Arithmetic Progression Method

BOD Biological Oxygen Demand

CLF Compact Fluorescent Lamp

TP Town Municipal Council

COD Chemical Oxygen Demand

CPCB Central Pollution Control Board

CPHEEO Central Public Health and Environmental Engineering,

Organization

DMA Directorate of Municipal Administration

DPR Detailed Project Report

DUDC District Urban Development Cell

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

FCO Fertilizer Control Order

GCL Geo synthetic Clay Liner

GIS Geographical Information System

GIS Geographic Information System

GL Ground Level

GPM Geometric Progression Method

GPS Global Positioning System

GSM Global System Mobile

HDPE High Density Polyethylene

HF Horizontal Flow

HP Horse Power

IEC Information, Education and Communication

IIM Incremental Increase Method

IWMF Integrated Waste Management Facility

LEL Lower Explosive Limit

LS Lumpsum

MIS Management Information System

MLA Member of Legislative Assembly

MLC Member of Legislative Corporation

MP Member of Parliament



viii

MRF Material Recovery Facility

MSW Municipal Solid Waste

MSWM Municipal Solid Waste Management

NGO Non-Government Organisation

O&M Operation and Maintenance

PGF Planted Gravel Filter

Pk Pourakarmikas

PVC Poly Vinyl Chloride

RDF Refuse Derived Fuel

RFID Radio Frequency Identification

RWA Resident Welfare Association

SBM Swachh Bharat Mission

SBM-U Swachh Bharat Mission - Urban

SLF Sanitary Landfill

SWM Solid Waste Management

TP Town Panchayath

TPD Tons per day

TPH Tones per hour

ULB Urban Local Body

UNESCO United Nation Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation

VF Vertical Flow

WBM Water Bound Macadam



1

1. Introduction

1. 1 Background Solid waste is generated from a number of sources which include households

(kitchen and yard), commercial areas (shops, hotels and restaurants), industries (raw

material and packaging), institutions (schools, hospitals and offices), construction

and demolition sites, wild and domesticated animals (carcasses of dead animals,

manure), parks (fallen branches, leaves from trees), and streets (sand, silt, clay,

concrete, bricks, asphalt, residues from air deposition, and dust).

Municipal solid waste (MSW) includes waste from households, non-hazardous solid

waste from industrial, commercial and institutional establishments (excluding bio-

medical waste in present context), market waste, yard waste, agricultural wastes and

street sweepings. Industrial and community hazardous waste and infectious waste, is

not considered as MSW and should be collected and processed separately. MSW

(Management and Handling) Rules 2000 defines MSW as “commercial and

residential wastes generated in municipal or notified areas in either solid or semi-

solid form excluding industrial hazardous wastes but including treated bio-medical

wastes”. MSW management (MSWM) encompasses the functions of collection,

transfer & transportation, processing & recycling, and disposal of MSW.

1. 2 Problems being faced by Urban Local Bodies Land disposal of solid wastes is a common waste management practice and has been

practiced for centuries. Unscientific disposal of wastes causes an adverse impact on

all components of the environment and human health. One of the major

environmental concerns is release of methane gas, which has 21 times more global

warming potential than carbon dioxide. Improper management of waste contributes

to 6% of India’s methane emissions and is the third largest emitter of methane in

India. This is much higher than the global average of 3% methane emissions from

solid waste. It currently produces 16 million tons of CO2 equivalents per year and

this number is expected to rise to 20 million tons of CO2 equivalents by 2020.

Improper and unorganized disposal of waste in open areas and landfills have a

negative impact on the living conditions of human beings as well as the overall



2

environment. It results in spread of communicable and non-communicable diseases

among human beings and animals, thus affecting the welfare, livelihood and

economic productivity. In addition, it causes contamination of soil, surface water,

ground water and generation of toxic and green-house gases.

Population growth and rapid urbanization means bigger and denser cities and

increased MSW generation in each city. The problem of solid waste management

(SWM) in India, in combination with rapid urbanization, population growth and

unplanned development is worsening day by day.

India is the second largest nation in the world, with a population of 1.21 billion,

accounting for nearly 18% of world's human population, but it does not have enough

resources or adequate systems in place to treat its solid wastes. Its urban population

grew at a rate of 31.8% during the last decade to 377 million, which is greater than

the entire population of US, the third largest country in the world according to

population).

There has been significant increase in generation of solid wastes in India over last

few decades and reason is largely associated with population growth. Although

typical urban growth rate has been determined at around 2.5% annually, waste

generation is out pacing the urban population growth in Indian cities. The solid

waste generated in Indian cities has increased from 6 million tons in 1947 to 48

million tons in 1997 and is expected to increase to 300 million tons per annum by

2047.

India is facing a sharp contrast between its increasing urban population and

available services and resources. Waste management is one such service where India

has an enormous gap to fill. More than 25% of the waste generated is not collected at

all; 70% of the Indian cities lack adequate capacity to transport it and there are no

sanitary landfills to dispose of the waste. Proper disposal systems to address the

burgeoning amount of wastes are absent. The current waste management services

are inefficient, incur heavy expenditure and are so low as to be a potential threat to

the public health and environmental quality. Improper solid waste management

deteriorates public health, causes environmental pollution, accelerates natural

resources degradation, causes climate change and greatly impacts the quality of life



3

of citizens. MSW management is constrained by institutional weakness, lack of

proper funding, lack of proper management and operational systems, public apathy,

lack of municipal will to become financially self-sufficient through municipal

taxation, etc.

1. 3 Efforts of the Government In recent years, the Government of India has taken several initiatives to improve

existing SWM practices in the country. Some of the key initiatives and

recommendations are discussed below:

(i) Hon’ble Supreme Court of India Recommendations

In recent years, the current MSWM system in India has received considerable

attention from the Central and State Governments and local municipalities. Then

first initiative was taken by the Honorable Supreme Court of India in 1998, which

resulted in the formation of a Committee to study the current status of MSWM in

Indian cities. This Committee identified the deficiencies/gaps in the existing MSWM

system in the country and prepared the “Interim Report on SWM Practices in Class I

Cities”. Class I are cities with a population ranging between one lakh to ten lakhs

(1,00,000 – 10,00,000).

(ii) Municipal Solid Waste Management Rules

As a second initiative, the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF),

Government of India, published “Municipal Solid Waste (Management and

Handling) Rules 2000” (MSW Rules 2000). These rules were developed in

conformance with Sections 3, 6 and 25 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 and

aim at standardization and enforcement of SWM practices in the urban sector. They

dictate that, “Every municipal authority shall, within the territorial area of the

municipality, be responsible for the implementation of the provisions of these rules

and infrastructure development for collection, storage segregation, transportation,

processing and disposal of municipal solid wastes”. In addition, “the CPCB shall

coordinate with State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) and Pollution Control

Committees (PCCs) in the matters of MSW disposal and its management and

handling”.



4

(iii) Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission

The Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) is the third

notable initiative undertaken by Government of India. JNNURM provides funding

for urban infrastructure development in 63 cities and towns of the country. This

mission was initiated in 2006 and is slated to continue until 2011.

(iv) Urban Infrastructure Development Scheme for Small and

Medium Towns

The primary objective of this scheme is to improve the urban infrastructure in towns

and cities in a planned manner and to promote public–private partnership (PPP) in

infrastructure development. This scheme was introduced in the year 2005-06 and

will continue for seven years. This scheme is applicable to all cities/towns as per

2001 census, except the cities/towns covered under the JNNURM. One of the

components of this scheme is to renew the old sewerage and solid waste disposal

systems in inner (old) areas.

(v) Swachh Bharat Mission

Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM) was launched on 2nd of October, 2014 with a vision to

achieve a clean India as a tribute to the father of the nation, Mahatma Gandhi, on his

150th birth anniversary, in 2019. SBM is being implemented by the Ministry of

Urban Development (MoUD) and by the Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation

(MoDWS) for urban and rural areas with a given set of guidelines for improved

sanitary services and capacity building initiatives.

MSWM a major component of the SBM (urban)-“refers to a systematic process that

comprises of waste segregation and storage at source, primary collection, secondary

storage, transportation, secondary segregation, resource recovery, processing,

treatment, and final disposal of solid waste.”

Under the provisions of MSWM, the local bodies are to prepare Detailed Project

Reports in consultation with the state government based on the identified needs of

the City Sanitation Plans. Provision also mentions clustering of smaller cities for

attracting Private investment. The DPRs should be prepared in lines with Govt. of

India’s goals outlined in the NUSP 2008, SWM rules, advisories, CPHEEO manuals

(including cost recovery mechanisms), O & M practices and Service-level Benchmark



5

advisories released by MoUD and Manual on Municipal Solid Waste Management,

2000.

States will contribute a minimum of 25% funds for SWM projects to match 75%

Central Share (10% in the case of North East States and special category states). 80%

of the urban population to be covered by SWM services (allowing for a 2% increase

year on year) covering all statutory towns. 1 Central government Grant / VGF may

also be used to promote projects of waste to energy.

(vi) Fourteen Finance Commission Recommendations

Constituted by the President of India, under Article 280 of the constitution, the

Finance Commission is to recommend on distribution of central tax revenues

between the Union and the States. Supporting Local bodies through grant,

subsequent to the passage of the 73rd and 74th constitutional amendments was first

time announced in the 10th Finance Commission for providing basic services at the

grassroots level and strengthening decentralization.

The 13th Finance Commission has recommended two categories of Grants to Local

Bodies namely (1) General Basic Grant and (2) General Performance Grant. The

Basic Grants will be released on furnishing the Utilization Certificates for the last

releases and the General Performance Grant will be released on fulfillment of nine

conditions by the State Government, as stipulated in para 10.16.1 of the report of the

13th Finance Commission by March of a particular financial year.

Further, in 2009, MoUD initiated Service Level Benchmarking (SLB) with respect to

basic municipal services including solid waste management. SLB has been

introduced in 30 states and across 1700 ULBs.

Performance-related funds under the 13th Finance Commission have been linked to

improvements in SLBs including SWM. The 13th Finance Commission also

recommends that of all grants to be given to the ULBs, 50% should be for SWM

(2010- 2015). Moreover, the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy has funded five

Waste-to-Energy plants for utilization of MSW.



6

The 14th Finance Commission has recommend distribution of grants to the States

using 2011 population data. The grant to each state will be divided into two, a grant

to duly constituted gram panchayats and a grant to duly constituted municipalities,

on the basis of urban and rural population of that state using the data of census 2011.

The ratio of basic to performance grant is 90:10 with respect to panchayats and

80:20 in the case of municipalities. The total grants recommended by the

commission are Rs 2,87,436crore for a five-year period from April 1, 2015 to March

31, 2020. Of this, Rs 2,00,292.20crore will be given to panchayats and Rs 87,143.80

crore to municipalities. The transfers for financial year 2015-16 will be Rs 29,988

crore.

(vii) National Green Tribunal Recommendations

CPCB has framed and notified the “Action Plan for Management of Municipal Solid

Waste (MSW)” in compliance with the National Green Tribunal order dated 5th Feb-

2015 in the matter of OA No. 199 of 2014. The Action Plan emphasizes on

strengthening the planning exercise at national, state as well as city level by

improvising through the waste management value chain. In addition to that, The

Plan suggested the concept of regional cluster approach as well as technology options

on the basis of quantum of MSW generation.

1. 4 Need for the Project As per the 74th Constitutional Amendment, provision of solid waste services - waste

collection, transfer, recycling, resource recovery and disposal, is recognized as a key

service to be managed and delivered by Urban Local Bodies (ULBs). Also the

Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000 (MSW Rules)

imposes an obligation on all municipalities in India to adopt suitable processes for

scientific collection, management, processing and disposal of MSW.

Solid waste management is a major task of the local governments, typically

accounting for a sizeable portion of the municipal budget - about 20% to 50%. Most

ULBs spend nearly 60%-70% of their total overall budgetary allocation on collection,

another 20%-30% on transportation, and often less than 10% on the treatment and

final disposal of MSW. Despite this huge expenditure, ULBs are still grappling with

the challenge of preventing environmental degradation due to the unsystematic and



7

unscientific method of solid waste management.

Most of the ULBs in the state are collecting waste and disposing the waste at

dumping sites without any processing. Moreover, proper waste management in the

cities are hampered by the following problems:

• Increasing quantity and volume of solid waste

• Inadequate infrastructure for proper collection and transportation of waste

• Lack of adequate and appropriate facilities for MSW processing and disposal

• Limited access to land

• Increasing cost of solid waste collection and disposal.

Most cities and towns lack systematization of procedures relating to waste collection,

segregation, storage and transportation, and absence of scientific processing and

disposal of waste. As a consequence, ULBs are unable to achieve the desired level of

service level performance in terms of efficiency and satisfaction and thereby comply

with the MSW Rules.

As a part of the Swachha Bharat Mission, District Urban Development Cell, Udupi

intends to enhance the existing Solid waste management system and thus improve

the health and living standards of its residents in Kapu. The purpose of this project is

to identify the existing MSWM practices in Kapu in Udupi district, recognize

deficiencies/gaps in the present system and propose a comprehensive plan for

MSWM including segregation, collection, transportation and processing & scientific

disposal of waste in compliance with the MSW Rules 2000.

1. 5 Methodology adopted for the Study This DPR proposes a comprehensive SWM management and implementation plan

for the town. In order to address each of the problems associated with the current

SWM system, a series of steps shall be adopted, which are summarized in Exhibit 1.



8

Exhibit 1 : Approach and Methodology

Step 1: Problem Identification

Identification of problems in the town would involve meeting the various

stakeholders in the ULB, and gaining an understanding of the town from

administrators of the area. Tentative facts that emerge from such discussion are

• Waste management awareness level in the towns

• Transportation situation

• Status of sewerage and drainage system

• Source of wastes – slaughter houses, residential areas, bio medical waste

• Existing waste management system



9

• Estimates of household and bulk generators in the ULBs

• Major markets, bus stops and depots, transit centres

• Estimates of floating population

These would give the consultants basic idea about the functioning 0f the towns in

terms of solid waste, public toilets and other related infrastructure.

Step 2: Primary and secondary data collection

The main objective of the baseline study is to understand the existing solid waste

system as accurately as possible, analyze system deficiencies in the context of MSW

Rules, 2000 and utilize that information for further planning, implementation and

monitoring processes. Local conditions shall be considered while assessing the

inadequacy of existing service and planning for the future with due consideration of

local demography, physical location, growth objectives of the ULB as well as social

and environmental conditions. From previous experiences, we know that to

understand the problems of the ULB as well as the public, both primary and

secondary data collection is required. The major source of secondary data for this

project would be the ULB and other government and non-government organizations.

Detailed information for assessing the adequacy of municipal solid waste

management services may not be readily available with the ULB. Therefore, efforts

were made to collect secondary data from previous surveys and studies undertaken

for other purposes. Some essential information shall be collected from field level

supervisors. Primary data shall be collected only when authentic secondary data is

unavailable. Primary data shall be collected through conducting surveys and

measurements at the point of generation, using data collection formats.

Data collection

Secondary data would be collected after discussions with ULB officials to understand

the present practice of waste management and disposal system in the ULBs. Detailed

questionnaires would be prepared to collect information in a streamlined and

organized fashion at macro level. In this regard, the following preliminary

information would be collected to help in framing the methodology for primary data

collection.



10

• Map of the town with municipal limits and ward wise map

• Census Details – Year 2011, 2001, 1991, 1981, 1971, 1961, 1951

• Total number of households in ULB

• List of markets, hospitals, nursing homes, hotels, industries,

Abattoirs, slaughter houses in ULB

• Existing assets and manpower with ULB

Based on the evaluation of available secondary data and the outcome of discussions

with the ULB our strategy and approach to complete each and every stage of the

project shall be framed.

Quantification and Composition of MSW

The quantity and composition of MSW generated in the ULB is essential for

determining collection, processing and disposal options that could be adopted. They

are dependent on the population, demographic details, principal activities in the

city/ town, income levels and lifestyle of the community. It has been well established

that waste generation of an area is proportional to average income of the people of

that area. It is also observed that generation of organic, plastic and paper waste is

high in high income areas.

The Characterization studies carried out by NEERI in the year 1996 indicate that

MSW contains large organic fraction (30-40%), ash and fine earth (30-40%), paper

(3-6%) along with plastic glass and metal (each less than 1%), calorific value of refuse

ranges between 800-1000 kcal/kg and C/N ratio ranges between 20 and 30.Study

revealed that quantum of waste generation varies between 0.2-0.4 kg/capita/day in

the urban centers and it goes up to 0.5 kg/capita/day in metropolitan cities.

Estimation of Per capita waste generation details

For the purpose of estimating the per capita waste generated in the ULBs,

representative samples from each ULB shall be collected from households of low,

mid and higher income and commercial establishments.

The waste generators shall be advised to deposit all the waste generated in the bags

distributed to them and hand over the bag to the waste collector on the subsequent



11

day. The waste shall be weighed after collection and the weights recorded. The

average amount of waste disposed by a specific class of generators shall be estimated

by averaging data from several samples collected at multiple representative locations

within the ULB jurisdiction. These quantities shall then be extrapolated to the entire

ULB to assess the per capita waste generation.

Sampling for Waste Quantification

The waste quantification and characterization studies would be conducted for

samples collected from the open dumpsites of the city from where waste is dumped

by different sections of the society. This would be followed by waste quantification

and waste characterization (physical) by quartering method. The sample shall be

analyzed in the laboratory for its chemical characteristics.

Determining Waste Composition

The quartering and coining method is one of the best techniques for determining the

physical composition and characteristic of municipal waste. The sample is reduced to

a more manageable size as the actual classification is carried out by hand. The

Quartering and Coining sampling procedure is described below:

• Manageable quantity of MSW mixed from outside and inside of the waste pile,

sourced from random entities in an identified sampling location is collected

and mixed thoroughly.

• The sample is placed as a uniform heap and the heap is divided into four

portions using straight lines perpendicular to each other.

• Waste from opposing corners of the divided heap is removed to leave half of

the original sample. The remaining portions are again thoroughly mixed and

the quartering process is repeated until a desired size is obtained (10 kg of

waste can be handled/ segregated efficiently).

• The last remaining opposing fractions of waste shall be mixed and analyzed

for identifying physical and chemical properties of the waste.

• Chemical analysis of the sample shall be performed in a laboratory accredited

by the Ministry of Environment & Forests (MoEF).



12

Step 3 Data Collation and Analysis

The waste quantity and characterization details gathered during primary survey

would be compiled and analyzed. Estimating future waste generation quantities and

composition is critical for developing a MSW management Plan. Planning horizons

for solid waste processing/treatment/disposal projects typically extend to 20-30

years, depending on the nature of the facility.

The MSW management plan shall be designed for the following design periods(time-

frame):

(i) Short-term plan : 1 years

(ii) Mid-term plan : 2-5 years

(iii) Long-term plan : 6-10 years

Population Growth Projections

The census 2011 population figures would be used to calculate population projection

for each ward. The Projections would be done using the methods recommended in

CPHEEO Manual.

Arithmetical Increase Method: This method is generally applicable to large and old

cities. In this method the average increase of population per decade is calculated

from the past records and added to the present population to find out population in

the next decade. This method gives a low value and is suitable for well settled and

established communities.

Incremental Increase Method: In this method the increment in arithmetical increase

is determined from the past decades and the average of that increment is added to

the average increase. This method increases the figures obtained by the arithmetical

increase method.

Geometrical Increase Method: In this method percentage increase is assumed to be

the rate of growth and the average of the percentage increase is used to find out

future increment in population. This method gives much higher value and is mostly

applicable for growing towns and cities having vast scope for expansion.



13

Waste Generation Projections

Waste generation figures would be also calculated on the basis of these projected

figures and the per capita waste generation figures.

An assessment states that the per capita waste generation is increasing by about

1.3%per year. With an urban growth rate of 3-3.5% per annum, the annual increase

in waste quantities may be considered at 5 % per annum. Impacts of increasing ULB

jurisdiction should also be considered while assessing future waste generation rates.

Step 4: Gap analysis

The assessment of the information on the current status of waste management in the

ULB vis- a- vis the requirements of existing regulation, policies and guidelines and

identified SLBs will result in an identification of key shortfalls in achieving the

desired level of services and shall form the basis for preparing a plan to improve the

MSWM system. Gaps in the existing waste management system would be identified

with reference to the MSW Rules 2000, the information provided by the ULB

officials and the existing scenario as per the results of the primary survey.

Step 5: Evaluation & Proposal, Detailed engineering, BOQ

and Cost estimates

Based on the outcomes of the primary and secondary data collection and the

corresponding analysis of gap and requirement analysis results, discussions with the

stakeholders, ULB, and the best judgments made by the consultant experts,

alternatives would be considered and evaluated and a most suitable MSW

management model would be developed for implementation. Further, detailed

engineering, BOQ, cost and estimates for this plan would be developed and

considered for producing a finance model. Guidelines laid out by the Swachh Bharat

Mission would be used for the same.

1. 6 Structure of Report This Detailed Project Report (DPR) is for setting up a modern municipal solid waste

management project for the Town of Kapu in Udupi District. The DPR is organized

in thirteen chapters and the details are briefed below:



14

Chapter 1: Introduction

This chapter elaborates the background of waste management in India, the need for

the Project and the methodology adopted for the study.

Chapter 2: Project Area Profile

This chapter provides an understanding of the district and town profile.

Chapter 3: Present Scenario of SWM

This chapter provides details of current scenario in the town including quantification

& characterization of the waste, existing collection and transportation system and the

present processing and disposal methods adopted by the ULB.

Chapter 4: Review of Technologies

This chapter details out the technical details of the various technologies available for

processing the waste.

Chapter 5: Design Criteria

This chapter provides the design basis for the project including population growth

and waste generation projections, the strategy to be adopted and the proposed plan

for collection, transportation, processing and disposal of waste.

Chapter 6: Proposed Collection & Transportation Plan

This chapter elaborates the proposed collection and transportation plan for the town

and also provides details of the assets and manpower requirement.

Chapter 7: Proposed Processing & Disposal Plan

This chapter details out the various technologies proposed for processing the waste

and the details for the sanitary landfill facility. The plant & machinery and civil

infrastructure, manpower and area requirement for the processing and disposal

facility is provided in this chapter.

Chapter 8: Project Financials

This chapter provides the details of the capital cost and the operation and

maintenance cost for implementing the project including the funding pattern for the

project.



15

Chapter 9: Operating Framework

This chapter describes the framework for implementing the project.

Chapter 10: Legal Aspects

This chapter lists out legal provisions to be implemented by the ULBs to ensure

robust waste management system.

Chapter 11: Health Aspects

This chapter addresses the health and other related issues arising from waste

management activities.

Chapter 12: Role of Stakeholders

This chapter elaborates the roles and responsibilities of the various stakeholders of

the project.

Chapter 13: Information, Education & Communication (IEC)

This chapter provides strategies to be adopted for creating public awareness in terms

of MSW segregation at source level and 3R concept. Also provides Information

education, communication and awareness programmes.



16

2. Project Area Profile

2. 1 District Profile - Udupi

Background

Udupi district in the Karnataka state of India was carved out as a separate district

from the erstwhile Dakshina Kannada district on 25 August 1997. The three

northern taluks, Udupi, Kundapur and Karkala, were bifurcated from Dakshina

Kannada District to form Udupi district.

History

It is widely believed that the name of Udupi was derived from its Tulu name Odipu.

The Tulu name in turn is associated with a temple at Malpe, devoted to

Vadabhandeshwara. Another story is that the name Udupi came from the

combination of the Sanskrit words Udu and Pa, which mean "stars" and "lord."

According to legend, the moon's light was once reduced due to a curse by King

Daksha, whose 27 daughters (the 27 stars, according to Hindu astrology) were

married to the moon. The moon prayed to Lord Shiva to get back its original shine.

Lord Shiva was pleased with the moon's prayer and restored its shine. Legend says

that the moon and his wives made their prayer at the Chandramouleeshwara temple

at Udupi, creating a linga that can be seen even today. According to this story,

therefore, Udupi means the land of the "lord of the stars," the moon.

Geography

Udupi district is surrounded by Uttara Kannada district in north, Dakshina Kannada

district in southern direction. Shivamogga district borders on north east side

and Chikkamagaluru district on east. Arabian Sea is on west of Udupi district. Land

nearer to sea is plain with small hills and paddy fields, coconut gardens etc. Land

bordering the Western Ghats in the east is covered with forests and hilly terrain; the

forests are very thick in some parts and Someshwara Wildlife Sanctuary is located

near Hebri and Someshwara and Mukambika Wild Life sanctuary is established

near Kollur. Kudremukh national park begins 16 km away from Karkala near Mala.

The area surrounding Kollur is also thickly forested and villages are located in

between forest area. Some parts of Kundapur taluk and Karkala taluk are looking

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karnataka�https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India�https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taluk�https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Udupi�https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kundapur�https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karkala�https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakshina_Kannada�https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakshina_Kannada�https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakshina_Kannada�https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uttara_Kannada�https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shivamogga_district�https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chikkamagaluru_district�https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabian_sea�https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Someshwara_Wildlife_Sanctuary�https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mukambika_Wild_Life_sanctuary&action=edit&redlink=1�https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kollur,_Udupi_district�https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kudremukh_national_park�https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kollur,_Udupi_district�



17

like Malenadu both in appearance covered with forests and greenery as well as in

culture also. The district is harbouring rare species of flora and fauna. Tiger, King

Cobra, deer, bison are some of the wild life seen in the district. Flora includes rose

wood, teak wood, some of rare plants and fungus.

Demographics

According to the 2011 census Udupi district has a population of 1,177,908, roughly

equal to the US state of Rhode Island. This gives it a ranking of 403rd in India (out of

a total of 640). The district has a population density of 304 inhabitants per square

kilometre (790/sq mi). Its population growth rate over the decade 2001-2011 was

5.9%. Udupi has a sex ratio of 1093 females for every 1000 males. The average

literacy rate was 83%, higher than the national average of 59.5%.

Climate

The climate of the district shares the wider climatic pattern of the other West Coast

districts of India. It is characterized by excessive humidity(78%) during the greater

part of the year. There are four seasons viz.,

• Four wet months of June, July, August and September, when the district

encounters strong winds, high humidity, heavy showers and a slight fall in

temperature.

• Two warm and damp months of October and November when south west

monsoon is retreating.

• Three cool months of December, January and February when generally dry

conditions prevail and

• Three hot months of March, April and May which is the period of rising

temperature. Climate in the district is generally equable. However, it is

colder in the interior than in the coast

Agriculture

Agriculture is the main stay of the district. Out of the total geographical area of 3.56

lakh hectare (ha), the area under forest is one lakh ha. (28 percent), area under

cultivation, 0.99 lakh ha. (27 percent) and fallow land, 0.13 ha (4 percent).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malenadu�https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_census_of_India�https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_India�https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhode_Island�https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Districts_of_India�https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_planning_in_India�https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_ratio�https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_India�



18

The remaining 45 percent of the land is either not available for cultivation or

uncultivable. The district is not having any major and medium irrigation projects.

Main crops grown are paddy, pulses and oilseeds. Paddy accounts for nearly 80

percent of the cropped area, followed by pulses (14 percent). Sugarcane, which was

grown once in about 2000 ha, is now abandoned with the break-down of Brahmavar

sugar factory. The district has substantial acreage under plantation crops such as

coconut, cashew-nut, arecanut and rubber. Other horticultural crops grown in the

district include mango, sapota, banana, pineapple and vegetables. The Most of

farmers in the district are small and marginal farmers with land holding less than

2ha. The average size of land holding works out to 0.83ha.

Industry

Udupi district has large and medium scale industrial units. They include cashew-nut

processing units, rice mills, coconut powder units, fish canning and processing units,

fish meal and fish oil units, fish net manufacturing units, printing units, granite

units, readymade garment units, auto parts and units of block manufacturing etc.

The district has three industrial estates and about 7500 registered small scale units

employing persons, mainly in automobiles, chemicals, electrical and electronics,

ferrous and non-ferrous, food and intoxicants, leather, mechanical engineering,

paper and printing, textiles, wood and others. The traditional industries like tiles and

beedi are losing importance. The minerals and ores that are available in the district

include silica, calcium, ordinary sand, laterite and granites.

The district has 98 kms long coastal belt, which provides good scope for fisheries in

Udupi and Kundapura taluks. Since the district has heavy rain fall, number of

tributaries and backwaters provide good scope for inland fishery.

Tourism

Udupi district is known for its temples, beaches and Udupi restaurants. It is also

considered the cultural and spiritual capital of Karnataka. The pilgrim places include

famous Krishna temple of Udupi set up by Madhwacharya in 13th century with eight

Muths and Kollur Mukambika temple located at the foothills of Kodachadri set up in

eighth century by Adi Shankaracharya. Bound by lush green mountains on the east

and palm fringed beaches on the west, the district has numerous tourist spots of

great scenic beauty in its entire expanse. Malpe, Kaup and Thrasi Maravanthe



19

beaches are well known. St. Mary’s Island close to Malpe has unique basalt rock

formations and natural beauty. The Western Ghat Mountains offer places of tourist

attraction. Historical places include Barkur, Udyavar and Karkala. The district is also

famous for its various fairs and festivals and folk dances like Yakshagana - a fabulous

costumed musical dance drama, Boothakolas and Kambla, a buffalo race.

Transportation

The Udupi district has two national highways passing through, one is NH-17 (now

renamed as NH 66) and another is NH-13. The NH-17 (now renamed as NH-66)

which moves in north and south direction connects Udupi with cities like Mangaluru,

Karwar, Murudeshwara, Kochi, Madgaon, Goa, Ratnagiri and Mumbai. The NH-13

connects district with Shimoga, Bijapura, Solapur, Chitradurga and Hospet. The

district has network of bituminised roads connecting dist

Detailed Project Report for MSW Management for Kapu Town ... · Kapu generates about 10 TPD of...

Documents

Transcript of Detailed Project Report for MSW Management for Kapu Town ... · Kapu generates about 10 TPD of...