Fs Tangsel.pdf
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Fs Tangsel.pdf as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 48,089
- Pages: 329
Feasibility Studdy on integrated d municipal sollid waste managemen nt system in So outh Tangerang City
Report (Final Draa ft)
December 2015
Feasibility Studdy on integrated muunicipal soolid waste managem ment system m in South T Tangerangg City
F ibilityy Stuudy & Bassic Designn Feasi Repport ((Finaal Dr aft)
Deceember 2015
SO OUTH H TAN NGER RANG G CIT TY
Table of Contents Chapter 1 Project Summar y 1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Purpose and Objective ..................................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Targets .............................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.4 Types of Feasibility Study................................................................................................ 1-2 1.5 Scope ................................................................................................................................ 1-2 1.6 Systematics of Reporting ................................................................................................. 1-2
Chapter 2 Planning Ar ea Descr iption 2.1 Planning Area ................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.1 Regional Physical Condition .................................................................................. 2-1 2.1.1.1 Administrative Boundaries ........................................................................... 2-1 2.1.1.2 Geographical Location ................................................................................. 2-2 2.1.1.3 Hydrology ..................................................................................................... 2-2 2.1.1.4 Topography ................................................................................................... 2-3 2.1.1.5 Climatography .............................................................................................. 2-3 2.1.1.6 Physiography ................................................................................................ 2-4 2.1.2 Development and Spatial Policies ........................................................................ 2-10 2.1.2.1 Goals of Regional Development................................................................. 2-10 2.1.2.2 Strategy of Regional Development............................................................. 2-10 2.1.2.3 Direction of Spatial Management............................................................. 2-10 2.1.2.4 Strategies of Spatial Management ...............................................................2-11 2.1.2.5 Direction of Spatial Management ............................................................... 2-12 2.2 Existing Condition of Solid Waste Management ........................................................... 2-12 2.2.1 Sources of Waste .................................................................................................. 2-12 2.2.2 Generation, Composition and Characteristic waste ............................................. 2-13 2.2.2.1 The amount of waste generation ................................................................. 2-13 2.2.2.2 Waste composition and characteristics ....................................................... 2-14
2.2.3 Solid Waste Management ..................................................................................... 2-16 2.2.3.1 Regulation................................................................................................... 2-17 2.2.3.2 Institution .................................................................................................... 2-18 2.2.3.3 Finance ....................................................................................................... 2-21 2.2.3.4 Roles of Society .......................................................................................... 2-22 2.2.3.5 Technical and Operational Aspects ............................................................. 2-24
Chapter 3 Planning Cr iter ia 3.1 Technical Feasibility Criteria ........................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.1 Feasibility Criteria .................................................................................................. 3-1 3.1.2 Technical Content ................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Economic and Financial Feasibility Criteria.................................................................... 3-2 3.2.1 Norms of Economic and Financial Feasibility ....................................................... 3-2 3.2.2 Economic and Financial Calculation Criteria ........................................................ 3-2 3.3 Environmental Studies Criteria ........................................................................................ 3-3 3.3.1 Norms of Environmental Feasibility ...................................................................... 3-3 3.3.2 Technical Standards of Environmental Impact Analysis ........................................ 3-4 3.4 Social Studies Criteria...................................................................................................... 3-4 3.5 Legal Studies Criteria ...................................................................................................... 3-5 3.6 Institutional Studies Criteria ............................................................................................ 3-5
Chapter 4 Collection of data & Site Sur vey 4.1 Survey and Assessment of Study and Service Areas ....................................................... 4-1 4.1.1 Regional Spatial Plan (RTRW) .............................................................................. 4-1 4.1.2 Development Areas ................................................................................................ 4-1 4.2 Survey and Assessment of Sources of Waste Quantities, Composition and Characteristics ................................................................................................................................................ 4-2 4.2.1 Survey of waste sources ......................................................................................... 4-2 4.2.2 Survey of Waste Quantities .................................................................................... 4-2 4.2.3 Survey of Waste composition ................................................................................. 4-4 4.2.3.1 Survey Summary .......................................................................................... 4-4
4.2.3.2 Survey Results .............................................................................................. 4-7 4.2.4 Survey of Waste Characteristics ........................................................................... 4-19 4.3 Assessment and survey of Demography and Urban Planning ....................................... 4-21 4.3.1 Total of Population ............................................................................................... 4-21 4.3.2 Population Density ............................................................................................... 4-21 4.3.3 Distribution of the Population .............................................................................. 4-21 4.3.4 Land Use Planning ............................................................................................... 4-22 4.4 Assessment and survey of the needs for waste Infrastructure and Facilities ................. 4-22 4.5 Measurement .................................................................................................................. 4-23 4.5.1 Soil/Ground Investigation .................................................................................... 4-23 4.5.1.1 Survey Summary ........................................................................................ 4-23 4.5.1.2 Findings ...................................................................................................... 4-25 4.5.2 Status survey ........................................................................................................ 4-43 4.5.2.1 Purpose ....................................................................................................... 4-43 4.5.2.2 Survey overview ......................................................................................... 4-43 4.5.2.3 Findings ...................................................................................................... 4-43
Chapter 5 Feasibility Study and Planning of Waste Management System Development 5.1 Technical and Operational Plan ....................................................................................... 5-1 5.1.1 Waste Sorting/Storage ............................................................................................ 5-1 5.1.1.1 Waste Sorting ................................................................................................ 5-1 5.1.1.2 Storage .......................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1.2 Collection/Transportation ....................................................................................... 5-4 5.1.2.1 Amount of Waste to Collect .......................................................................... 5-4 5.1.2.2 How to Collect .............................................................................................. 5-4 5.1.2.3 Review of Transportation System................................................................. 5-6 5.1.3 Processing............................................................................................................... 5-8 5.1.3.1 Suggesting an Alternative ............................................................................. 5-8 5.1.3.2 Selecting Waste Treatment Method ............................................................ 5-10 5.1.4 Final Processing ................................................................................................... 5-13 5.1.5 Estimating Demand for Waste Infrastructure and Facility ................................... 5-15
5.1.5.1 Estimated Population .................................................................................. 5-15 5.1.5.2 Waste Generation ........................................................................................ 5-16 5.1.5.3 Estimation of Waste Collection .................................................................. 5-16 5.1.5.4 Estimating Facility Capacity ...................................................................... 5-18 5.1.6 Basic Design ......................................................................................................... 5-20 5.1.6.1 Transfer Depot ............................................................................................ 5-20 5.1.6.2 Facility Layout Plan.................................................................................... 5-45 5.1.6.3 Incinerator ................................................................................................... 5-50 5.1.6.4 Sanitary Landfill ......................................................................................... 5-88 5.2 Economical and Financial Feasibility Study.................................................................5-117 5.2.1 Estimated Cost of Investment ............................................................................. 5-117 5.2.1.1 Transfer Depot ...........................................................................................5-117 5.2.1.2 Incinerator .................................................................................................. 5-117 5.2.1.3 Landfill Facility ......................................................................................... 5-118 5.2.2 Estimated Cost of Operation and Maintenance ...................................................5-119 5.2.2.1 Transfer depot ............................................................................................5-119 5.2.2.2 Incinerator ................................................................................................. 5-128 5.2.2.3 Landfill Facility ........................................................................................ 5-131 5.2.3. Types of Economic Benefits of Waste Projects ................................................. 5-133 5.2.3.1 Benefits of Intangible Projects ................................................................. 5-133 5.2.3.2 Benefits of Tangible Projects .................................................................... 5-133 5.2.3.3 Benefits Estimated .................................................................................... 5-134 5.2.4 Projected Income of Waste Collection Fee ........................................................ 5-135 5.2.5 Study on Economic Feasibility .......................................................................... 5-136 5.2.5.1 Analysis Conditions .................................................................................. 5-136 5.2.5.2 Calculation of Payback Period ................................................................. 5-138 5.2.5.3 Calculation of Financial Net Present Value (FNPV) ................................ 5-139 5.2.5.4 Calculation of Financial Internal Rate of Return (FIRR))........................ 5-139 5.2.6 Financial Feasibility ........................................................................................... 5-140 5.2.6.1 Overview .................................................................................................. 5-140 5.2.6.2 Review Conditions ................................................................................... 5-140 5.2.6.3 Analysis Method ....................................................................................... 5-142
5.2.6.4 Financial Feasibility Study Result ............................................................ 5-143 5.3 Environmental Studies ................................................................................................. 5-145 5.3.1 Documents of Environmental Studies ................................................................ 5-145 5.3.2 Projects Which Need Environmental Studies .................................................... 5-149 5.3.3 Criteria of Environmental Studies on Waste Projects ........................................ 5-150 5.4 Social Studies ............................................................................................................... 5-152 5.5 Legal Studies ................................................................................................................ 5-157 5.6 Institutional Studies ..................................................................................................... 5-160 5.6.1 Organizational Structure, Main Duties and Functions ....................................... 5-160 5.6.1.1 Department Secretary ............................................................................... 5-160 5.6.1.2 Cleanliness Division ................................................................................. 5-160 5.6.1.3 UPTD ........................................................................................................ 5-161 5.6.1.4 SATPOL PP .............................................................................................. 5-161 5.6.2 Human Resources ............................................................................................... 5-161 5.6.2.1 Office staffs (Cleanliness unit) ................................................................. 5-162 5.6.2.2 Field Staffs ................................................................................................ 5-162
Chapter 6 Implementation of Plan 6.1 Components of Activities................................................................................................. 6-1 6.2 Phases of Implementation ................................................................................................ 6-1 6.2.1 Short-term Goals (2016-2017) ............................................................................... 6-1 6.2.2 Mid-term Goals (2018-2019) ................................................................................. 6-2 6.2.3 Long-term Goals (2020-2025) ............................................................................... 6-2 6.3 Implementation Schedule................................................................................................. 6-2 6.3.1 Technical aspect ..................................................................................................... 6-2 6.3.1.1 Collection/Transportation ............................................................................. 6-2 6.3.1.2 Incinerator ..................................................................................................... 6-3 6.3.1.3 Landfill ......................................................................................................... 6-3 6.3.2 Legal aspect ............................................................................................................ 6-3 6.3.3 Institutional aspect.................................................................................................. 6-3 6.3.4 Social involvement aspect ...................................................................................... 6-3
6.3.5 Financial aspect ...................................................................................................... 6-4
Chapter 7 Conclusions and Recommendations 7.1 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 7-1 7.2 Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 7-3 7.2.1 Technical aspect ..................................................................................................... 7-3 7.2.2 Institutional Studies ................................................................................................ 7-3 7.2.3 Regulatory aspect ................................................................................................... 7-3 7.2.4 Community involvement aspect ............................................................................. 7-4 7.2.5 Financial aspect ...................................................................................................... 7-4
■ Appendix 1. Drawings 2. Economic Analysis 3. Environmental Test 4. Socioeconomic Environmental Study 5. Soil Survey 6. Topographical Survey
List of tables [Table 2.1.1-1] South Tangerang Administrative Districts [Table 2.1.1-2] Data of temperature, humidity, rainfall, number of raining days [Table 2.1.2.4-1] The amount of waste in South Tangerang City [Table 2.1.2.4-2] Solid waste facilities needed in South Tangerang city [Table 2.2.2.1-1] Amount of waste generation in South Tangerang [Table 2.2.2.1-2] Results of waste generation sources in the survey [Table 2.2.2.2-1] The composition of the waste [Table 2.2.2.2-2] The composition and characteristics of waste [Table 2.2.2.2-3] Composition of waste [Table 2.2.3.2-1] South Tangerang DKPP Configuration personnel [Table 2.2.3.2-1] South Tangerang DKPP Configuration personnel (cont) [Table 2.2.3.3-1] DKPP budget (in 2012 ~2013) [Table 2.2.3.4-1] South Tangerang TPS3R [Table 2.2.3.4-1] South Tangerang TPS3R (cont) [Table 2.2.3.4-1] South Tangerang TPS3R (cont) [Table 2.2.3.5.3-1] Waste transportation systems [Table 4.2.2-1] Amount of waste generation in South Tangerang [Table 4.2.2-2] Results of waste generation sources in the survey [Table 4.2.3.1-1] Waste characteristics survey sampling points (residential area) [Table 4.2.3.1-2] Waste characteristics survey sampling Points (non-residential area) [Table 4.2.3.2-1] Participants’ income survey [Table 4.2.3.2-2] Education level of residents [Table 4.2.3.2-3] Waste collection types [Table 4.2.3.2.3-1] Waste generation sources in each area [Table 4.2.3.2.3-2] Waste generation depending on the income level [Table 4.2.3.2.3-3] Waste generation sources in non-residential area [Table 4.2.3.2.3-4] Composition of waste [Table 4.2.3.2.3-5] Ternary analysis result of the waste [Table 4.2.3.2.3-6] Elemental analysis of the waste [Table 4.2.3.2.3-7] Results of analysis of the waste heating value [Table 4.2.3.2.3-8] Heavy metals analysis of the solid waste [Table 4.2.4-1] The composition of the waste [Table 4.2.4-2] The composition and characteristics of waste [Table 4.2.4-3] Composition of waste [Table 4.3.3-1] Population and population density in South Tangerang [Table 4.4-1] Required Waste treatment facility in South Tangerang [Table 4.5.1-1] Survey topic· [Table 4.5.1-2] Survey positions [Table 4.5.1-3] Strata configuration [Table 4.5.1-4] The results of groundwater measurements [Table 4.5.1-5] Laboratory test results [Table 4.5.1-6] Compaction and CBR tests [Table 4.5.2–1] Reference point position [Table 4.5.2–2] Reference point calculation results [Table 4.5.2-3] GPS processing results [Table 5.1.1.1-1] Waste Containers and Uses [Table 5.1.2.1-1] Amount of Waste to Be Collected by DKPP
[Table 5.1.2.1-1] Future Demand for TPS [Table 5.1.2.1-2] Demand for TPS /3R in the Future [Table 5.1.2.3-1] Review of Transportation System [Table 5.1.2.3-2] Garage and Transfer Depots Installation Plan [Table 5.1.2.3-3] Number of Garbage Trucks Required When Transfer Depots Are Operational (unit: vehicle) [Table 5.1.3.2–1] Estimating Waste Treatment by Case [Table 5.1.3.2 – 2] Economic Efficiency by Case [Table 5.1.4 – 1] Features of Sanitary Landfill with Unsanitary Landfill in Comparison [Table 5.1.5.1-1] South Tangerang City’s Population Forecast [Table 5.1.5.2-1] Future Waste Generation (ton/day) [Table 5.1.5.3-1] Present DKPP’s Waste Collection Service [Table 5.1.5.3-2] Waste Collection Service by Private Sector (2012) [Table 5.1.5.3-3] Waste Collection Service Expansion Plan [Table 5.1.5.3-4] Waste Control Targets [Table 5.1.5.3-5] DKPP’s Waste Collection by District [Table 5.1.5.4-1] Estimation of Incinerator Facility Capacity [Table 5.1.5.4-2] Scale of Landfill Facility [Table 5.1.6.1-1] South Tangerang City’s Future Waste Generation Collectable by DKPP [Table 5.1.6.1-2] Waste Collection and Transport Vehicles Required for Transfer Depot by Facility Capacity [Table 5.1.6.1-3] Staffs Required for Operating Transfer Depot by Facility Capacity [Table 5.1.6.1-4] Summary of Transfer Depot Functional Areas [Table 5.1.6.1-5] Equipment list of Transfer Depot [Table 5.1.6.1-6] Summary Of Transfer Depot Staff & Requirement [Table 5.1.6.1-7] Estimation of Sump Pit Capacity by Facility Capacity [Table 5.1.6.1-8] Calculation of Cleaning Water Generation by Facility Capacity [Table 5.1.6.1-9] Estimation of Septic Tank Capacity by Facility Capacity [Table 5.1.6.1-10] Construction Cost [Table 5.1.6.1-11] Operation Cost [Table 5.1.6.2-1] Plan for Land Use in Expansion Section [Table 5.1.6.2-2] Internal Soil Composition [Table 5.1.6.3-1] Chemical Composition, Three Components, and Density of Target Waste [Table 5.1.6.3-2] Air Pollutant Emission Standard [Table 5.1.6.3-3] Effluent Quality Standard [Table 5.1.6.3-4] Comparing and Selecting Treatment System [Table 5.1.6.3-4] (Continued) Comparing and Selecting Treatment System [Table 5.1.6.3-5] Comparing and Selecting Treatment Technology [Table 5.1.6.3-6] Design Overview [Table 5.1.6.3-7] Key System Design Criteria [Table 5.1.6.3-8] Comparative Review of Waste Crusher and Feeder [Table 5.1.6.3-9] List of Equipment (Example) [Table 5.1.6.3-10] Comparative Review of Combustion Method [Table 5.1.6.3-11] List of Components (Example) [Table 5.1.6.3-12] Comparative Review of Waste Heat Utilization Methods [Table 5.1.6.3-13] Comparative Review of Cooling Method [Table 5.1.6.3-15] Comparative Review of Combustion Gas Treatment Processes [Table 5.1.6.3-16] List of Components (Example) [Table 5.1.6.3-17] Comparative Review of Internal Control Systems for Incinerator
[Table 5.1.6.3-18] List of Components (Example) [Table 5.1.6.3-19] Comparative Review of Bottom Ash Discharge System [Table 5.1.6.3-20] Comparative Review of Fly Ash Discharge Systems [Table 5.1.6.3-21] List of Components (Example) [Table 5.1.6.3-22] Comparative Review of Deionizer Systems [Table 5.1.6.3-23] Comparative Review of Water Supply Method [Table 5.1.6.3-24] List of Components (Example) [Table 5.1.6.3-26] List of Systems (Example) [Table 5.1.6.3-25] Wastewater Generation [Table 5.1.6.3-26] Operation and Management Organization Scheme [Table 5.1.6.3-27] Details of Project Cost (unit: 1 mil. KWN) [Table 5.1.6.3-28] Summary of operation cost (390TPD) [Table 5.1.6.4-1] Landfill Facility Scale (2020-2025) [Table 5.1.6.4-2] Sanitary Landfill Development Plan [Table 5.1.6.4-4] Comparing Liner Materials for Domestic Waste Landfill [Table 5.1.6.4-5] Comparing Liner Materials for Waste Landfill for Type 2(fly ash) [Table 5.1.6.4-6] Leachate Collection/Drain Layer Installation Standard [Table 5.1.6.4-7] Standard Coefficient of Runoff by Land Use [Table 5.1.6.4-8] General Property of Landfill Gas (0℃, 1atm) [Table 5.1.6.4-9] Waste Classification by Decomposition Rate [Table 5.1.6.4-10] Landfill Gas Generation Forecast [ZONE 1 - ZONE 3] [Table 5.1.6.4-11] Landfill Gas Generation Forecast [ZONE 3] [Table 5.1.6.4-12] General Equipment Plan Based on Waste Amount [Table 5.1.6.4-13] Equipment Procurement Plan [Table 5.1.6.4-14] Operation and Management Items [Table 5.1.6.4-15] Landfill Construction Cost [Table 5.1.6.4-16] Annual Landfill Operation Cost [Table 5.2.1.1-1] Details of Transfer Depot Investment Cost [Table 5.2.1.2-1] Details of Investment Cost for Incinerator [Table 5.2.2.2-1] Summary of operation cost (200TPD) [Table 5.2.2.2-2] Summary of operation cost (150TPD) [Table 5.2.2.2-3] Summary of operation cost (50TPD) [Table 5.2.2.2-1] Summary of operation cost (790TPD) [Table 5.2.2.3-1] Annual Landfill Operation Cost [Table 5.2.4-1] Waste Collection Fee per Short-term Target Year [Table 5.2.4-2] Waste Collection Fee per Mid-term Target Year [Table 5.2.4-3] Waste Collection Fee per Long-term Target Year [Table 5.2.5.2–1] Payback Period [Table 5.2.5.3 –1] Calculation of NPV by Discount Rate (unit: Million Rp) [Table 5.2.5.3 –1] IRR Variation with Cost/Benefit [Table 5.2.6.2.2-1] Yearly Investment Plan [Table 5.2.6.2.2-2] Estimation of Operation Cost [Table 5.5.2.2 – 1] Yearly DKPP Personnel Plan (Cleanliness Unit) [Table 5.5.2.2 – 1] DKPP Field Staff Recruitment Plan [Table 6.1-1] Facility Plan for Target Years [Table 7.1-1] Analysis of Economic Feasibility [Table 7.1-2] Analysis of Financial Feasibility
List of figur es [Figure 2.2.3-1] Flow chart of waste treatment [Figure 2.2.3.2-1] Organization chart of South Tangerang, DKPP [Figure 2.2.3.5.4-1] Flow of composting process [Figure 2.2.3.5.4-2] ITF (Composting facility) [Figure 2.2.3.5.5-1] The status of landfill operation [Figure 2.2.3.5.5-2] Cipeucang landfill development plan [Figure 2.2.3.5.3-3] South Tangerang TPS3R Location [Figure 3.3-1] Cipeucang Landfill and Extension Site Location [Figure 4.1.2-1] Area of TPA Development [Figure 4.2.3.2-1] Waste storage way replied from respondent of residential area [Figure 4.2.3.2-2] Waste collection frequency [Figure 4.2.3.2-3] Waste collection system of non-residential area [Figure 4.2.3.2-4] Waste disposal in residential area [Figure 4.2.3.2-5] Waste transportation system in residential area [Figure 4.2.3.2-6] Waste transportation frequency in non-residential area [Figure 4.2.3.2-7] Waste management system in residential area [Figure 4.2.3.2-8] types of waste classified by respondents [Figure 4.2.3.2-9] Classified waste disposal [Figure 4.2.3.2-10] Types of recyclable waste from respondents [Figure 4.2.3.2-11] Processing of recyclable waste [Figure 4.2.3.2-12] Organic Waste Management [Figure 4.2.3.2-13] Whether waste classification performance of the respondents [Figure 4.2.3.2-14] How to charging waste collection fee [Figure 4.2.3.2-15] Respondents' opinions about the waste collection fee [Figure 4.2.3.2-16] Waste collection fee types in non-residential area [Figure 4.2.3.2-17] Waste service satisfaction in residential area [Figure 4.2.3.2-18] Waste service satisfaction in non-residential [Figure 4.5.2-1] TPA Cipeucang Serpong survey map [Figure 5.1.1.2–1] Waste Containers [Figure 5.1.3.2–1] Material Balance in Waste Treatment [Figure 5.1.4-1] Concept of Sanitary Landfill [Figure 5.1.4-2] Classification of Landfills by Topography [Figure 5.1.5.1-1] South Tangerang City’s Population Forecast [Figure 5.1.6.1-1] Transfer Depot Based on Direct Discharge System (Example) [Figure 5.1.6.1-2] Transfer Depot Workflow [Figure 5.1.6.1-3] Transfer Depot Layout (200 TPD) [Figure 5.1.6.1-4] Transfer Depot Transshipment Building Layout (200 TPD) [Figure 5.1.6.1-5] Transfer Depot Transshipment Building Profile Section (200 TPD) [Figure 5.1.6.1-6] Transfer Depot Maintenance Building Layout (200 TPD) [Figure 5.1.6.1-7] Transfer Depot Maintenance Building Profile/Cross Section (200TPD) 150ton/day layout [Figure 5.1.6.1-8] Transfer Depot Layout (150 TPD) [Figure 5.1.6.1-9] Transfer Depot Transshipment Building Layout (150 TPD) [Figure 5.1.6.1-10] Transfer Depot Transshipment Building Profile Section (150 TPD) [Figure 5.1.6.1-11] Transfer Depot Maintenance Building Layout (150 TPD) [Figure 5.1.6.1-12] Transfer Depot Maintenance Building Profile/Cross Section (150 TPD)
[Figure 5.1.6.1-13] Transfer Depot Layout (50 TPD) [Figure 5.1.6.1-14] Transfer Depot Transshipment Building Layout (50 TPD) [Figure 5.1.6.1-15] Transfer Depot Transshipment Building Profile Section (50 TPD) [Figure 5.1.6.1-16] Transfer Depot Maintenance Building Layout (50 TPD) [Figure 5.1.6.1-17] Transfer Depot Maintenance Building Profile/Cross Section (50 TPD) [Figure 5.1.6.2-1] Cipeucang Landfill Development Plan in Spatial Planning (RT/RW) [Figure 5.1.6.2 –2] Location of Project Site [Figure 5.1.6.2 –3] Project Site Photos [Figure 5.1.6.2-4] Plan View [Figure 5.1.6.2-5] Section View [Figure 5.1.6.3-1] Treatment Process Overview [Figure 5.1.6.3-2] Storage and Supply System Diagram (Example) [Figure 5.1.6.3-3] Incinerator System Diagram (Example) [Figure 5.1.6.3-4] Combustion Gas Cooling System Diagram (Example) [Figure 5.1.6.3-5] Combustion Gas Treatment System Diagram (Example) [Figure 5.1.6.3-6] Air Supply/Exhaust System Diagram (Example) [Figure 5.1.6.3-7] Reprocessing System Diagram (Example) [Figure 5.1.6.3-8] Water Supply/Drain System Diagram (Example) [Figure 5.1.6.3-9] Auxiliary Systems Diagram (Example) [Table 5.1.6.3-25] Deodorization Systems in Comparison [Figure 5.1.6.3-9] Overall Treatment System Diagram [Figure 5.1.6.3-10] Mass Balance [Figure 5.1.6.3-11] Heat Balance [Figure 5.1.6.3-12] Boiler Steam Balance [Figure 5.1.6.3-13] Air Pollutant Prevention System Diagram (Example) [Figure 5.1.6.3-14] SNCR System Diagram (Example) [Figure 5.1.6.3-15] Acid Gas Treatment System Diagram (Example) [Figure 5.1.6.3-16] System Diagram (Example) [Figure 5.1.6.3-17] Wastewater Treatment System Diagram (Example) [Figure 5.1.6.3-18] Odor Prevention Plan Overview (Example) [Figure 5.1.6.3-19] 790 ton Incineration Facility Layout (Example) [Figure 5.1.6.3-20] Traffic Line Plan (Example) [Figure 5.1.6.3-21] Operation Team Staffs by Working Hour (Example) [Figure 5.1.6.4-1] Concept of Landfill Structure [Figure 5.1.6.4-2] Concept of Soil Covering [Figure 5.1.6.4-4] Domestic Waste Landfill Liner Section [Figure 5.1.6.4-5] Waste Landfill for Type 2 (fly ash) Leachate Liner Section [Figure 5.1.6.4-6] Leachate Main Line [Figure 5.1.6.4-7] Vertical Leachate Drain Sump [Figure 5.1.6.4-8] Installation Plan for Leachate Drainway [Figure 5.1.6.4-9] Rainfall Intensity (mm/hr) for 60-min duration by Pearson-Ⅲ [Figure 5.1.6.4-10] Installation Plan for Rainwater Drainage [Figure 5.1.6.4-11] Landfill Gas Trap Installation Plan [Figure 5.1.6.4-12] Concept of Leachate Recirculation System [Figure 5.1.6.4-13] Example: Leachate Recirculation System Installation [Figure 5.1.6.4-14] Example: Measuring System Operation [Figure 5.1.6.4-15] Example: Wheel-washing Facility Operation
[Figure 5.1.6.4-16] Groundwater Test Well in Detail [Figure 5.1.6.4-17] Landfill Workflow [Figure 5.1.6.4-18] Perimeter Slope Finish Plan [Figure 5.1.6.4-19] Landfill Operation and Management Organization [Figure 5.3.1 – 1] Place of Residence [Figure 5.3.1 – 2] Traffic Condition [Figure 5.3.1 – 3] Flood Occurrence [Figure 5.3.1 – 4] Community Service Activities [Figure 5.3.1 – 5] Community Service Frequency [Figure 5.3.1 – 6] Waste Bank Existence [Figure 5.3.1 – 7] Household Solid Waste Disposal [Figure 5.3.1 – 8] Solid Waste Sorting [Figure 5.3.1 – 9] Residence distance from Cipeucang TPA [Figure 5.4 – 1] Education Level [Figure 5.4 – 2] Length of Residence [Figure 5.4 – 3] The number of family member [Figure 5.4 – 4] Income Level [Figure 5.4 – 5] Frequent Diseases in Family [Figure 5.4 – 6] Source of information about TPA expansion [Figure 5.4 – 7] Opinion on TPA expansion Plan [Figure 5.4 – 8] Impact of TPA expansion for the surrounding community [Figure 5.4 – 9] People’s expectation on TPA expansion plan [Figure 5.4 – 10] Respondents who knew government’s responsibility on managing solid waste [Figure 5.5.3-1] Construction of cultural space in waste treatment facility [Figure 5.5.5-1] Waste energy recovery target and major process [Figure 5.5.1 – 1] DKPP Organization Diagram [Figure 5.6.1.2 – 2] Cleanliness Division Organization Diagram [Figure 5.6.1.3 – 1] UPTD Organization Diagram
Abbr eviation 3R
Reduce, Reuse & Recycle
AMDAL
Analisis Mengenai Dampak Lingkungan (Environment Impact Assessment)
ANDAL
Analisis Dampak Lingkungan, (Environmental Impact Assessment Study)
APBD
Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Daerah or Regional Budget
APBN
Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Negara or State Budget
B3 waste
Hazardous and Toxic Waste
BAPPEDA
Regional Government Planning and Development Agency
BAPPENAS Ministry of National Planning and Development Bio-SRF
Biomass-solid refuse fuel
B/C
Benefit/cost
CDM
Clean Development Mechanism
CSP
Collection service population
CSR
Corporate Social Responsibility
DED
Detailed Engineering Design
DKP
Dinas Kebersihan dan Pertamanan or Sanitation & Parks Agency
DKPP
Dinas Kebersihan Pertamanan dan Pemakaman or the Sanitation, Parks & Cemeteries Agency Propinsi Daerah Khusus Ibukota Jakarta (Special Provincial District of Capital of Jakarta) Economic development cooperation fund
DKI Jakarta EDCF FS
Feasibility Study
GDP
Gross domestic product
HDPE
High Density Polyethylene
HE
Heavy Equipment
ICB
International Competitive Bidding
IDR
Indonesian Rupiah
IndII
Indonesia Infrastructure Initiative
ITF
Intermediate Treatment Facility
JICA
Japan International Cooperation Agency
KSNP-SPP
National Policy And Strategy For Waste Management System Development
LHV
Lower heating value
M
Million/Mega
MBT
Mechanical Biological Treatment
M/P
Master Plan
MPW
Ministry of Public Works
NIMBY
Not In My Back Yard
ODA
Official development assistance
PPP
Public Private Partnership
SNI
Indonesian National Standard
SNS
Social network service
SPA
Stasiun Peralihan Antara or Transfer Station - Minimum area 20,000 m2 and 500 TPA
SWM
Solid Waste Management
TPA
Tempat Pemrosesan Akir or Final SW Processing/ Disposal Site
TPS
Tempat Penampungan Sementara or Temporary Waste Collection Point/Site
TPS-3R Rp
Tempat Pengolahan Sampah Dengan Prinsip 3R or Temporary Waste Collection Point/Site – 3R Principle Rupiah
RPIJM
Medium term plan investment program
RT/RW
RT (Rukun Tetangga) / RW (Rukun Warga), Spartial plan
WTE
Waste to Energy
Feasibility Study on Integrated Municipal Solid Waste Management System In South Tangerang City
Chapter 1 Project Summary 1.1 Background 1.2 Purpose and Objective 1.3 Target 1.4 Types of Feasibility Study 1.5 Scope 1.6 Systematics of Reporting
Chapter 1 Project Summary 1.1 Background South Tangerang City is located in the south of Jakarta, the capital of Indonesia, and witnesses radical increase in waste generation due to fast economic growth and population inflow while it experiences deepening environmental pollution due to lack of waste management infrastructure and illegal dumping of waste which is damaging the nature and the living environment. The study has found that, as of 2013, of all municipal waste discharge (765 ton/day, estimated) 466 tons of waste, except the 299 ton/day collected/recycled by DKPP and private developers, are being illegally dumped. Although the waste collected by DKPP is being ended in the Cipeucang Landfill, difficulties in securing the landfill site and unsanitary landfill call for the waste-to-energy transition. Therefore, the city is placed in a difficult situation where it have to prepare an integrated waste management system that can efficiently collect and safely process the municipal waste so as to provide waste collection service to the entire city South Tangerang by the last year 2019 specified in the National Mid-term Development Plan (RPJMN, 2015-2019).
1.2 Purpose and Objective South Tangerang City is placed right behind the capital of Indonesia, Jakarta, which expects gradual increase in various types of waste following its enhanced living standard and population growth due to urbanization but witnesses wide spread illegal waste dumping throughout the city due to lack of waste management fundamentals. Therefore, the purpose of this study lies in performing a feasibility study and basic designing of waste discharge/storage, collection/transport, and interim and final treatment facility construction which are required to prevent environmental pollution by household waste and improve living environment of the city and health of the citizen.
1.3 Targets This feasibility study targets the household waste collected by DKPP of all the municipal
1-1
waste generated from South Tangerang City and builds a detailed plan to ensure safe disposal of household waste in the years from 2016 to 2025 as specified in the Master Plan.
1.4 Types of Feasibility Study This feasibility study intends to prepare a feasibility study and a basic design that are required for efficient transport and disposal of the household waste collected by DKPP in South Tangerang City.
1.5 Scope This feasibility study covers South Tangerang City which is located at the east of Banten Province and consists of 7 Districts, of which the administrative boundary lies between 106°38′-106°47′east longitude and 06′13′30″-06°22′30″south latitude. The total area of the city is 147.19 ㎢. The scope of work is confined to waste management planning, and the scope of activity includes the following: - Collection and arrangement of basic data and materials related to the project - Analysis of current waste management in the project area - Estimation of the facility demand for collection, transport, and treatment of solid waste; and basic designing of key facilities - Study of economic/financial feasibility - Study of legal, social, institutional aspects - Project implementation plan
1.6 Systematics of Reporting Chapter 1 Introduction - This chapter describes the background, purpose and objective, scope, and systematics of reporting of this project. Chapter 2 General Overview of the Planning Areas - This chapter describes general overview of the project areas, spatial plan, population, socioeconomic status, city infrastructure, current waste management, etc. Chapter 3 Planning Criteria 1-2
- This chapter describes planning criteria of technology, economy and finance, environment, community participation, legality, institution, etc. Chapter 4 Survey and Data Collection - This chapter describes target area’s characteristics of waste generation, population and urban planning, and site survey results. Chapter 5 Plan Analysis of the Feasibility of Developing the Waste Management System - This chapter describes not only the technical aspects of the waste facility and infrastructure development but also economic and financial feasibility, environment, community participation, law, and institution, etc. Chapter 6 Plan of Implementation - This chapter describes the implementation plan and the implementation schedule. Chapter 7 Conclusions and Recommendations - This chapter describes conclusions and recommendations of the waste management system.
1-3
Feasiblility Study on integrated municipal solid waste management system in South Tangerang
Chapter 2 Planning Area Description
2.1 Planning Area 2.2 Existing Condition of Solid Waste Management
Chapter 2 Planning Area Description 2.1 Planning Area In this time, planning area is targeted for the entire city of South Tangerang of its seven districts, aimed at establishing the Feasible study of integrated solid waste treatment system for waste management and treatment arising from the applicable area. We provide the basic data to establish the improvement through identifying relevant sites problems, as well as the status of current waste management system.
2.1.1 Regional Physical Condition 2.1.1.1 Administrative Boundaries Administrative district of South Tangerang City has 54 villages, consisting of seven districts, and the total area of 147.19㎢. [Table 2.1.1-1] South Tangerang Administrative Districts
No
Width (㎢)
Total District
Village
Population (2012)
1
24.04
Serpong
Buaran, Ciater, Rawa Mekar Jaya, Rawa Bunta, Serpong, Cienggang, Lengkong Gudang, Lengkong Gudang Timur, Lengkong Wetan
151,899
2
17.84
Serpong Utara
Lengkong Karya, Jelupang, Pondok Jagung, Pondok Jagung Timur, Pakulonan, Paku Alam, Pakr Jaga
142,328
3
18.38
Ciputat
Srua, Jombang, Sawah Baru, Sarua Indah, Sawah, Ciputat, Cipayung
207,885
4
15.43
Ciputat Pisangan, Cireundeu, Cempaka Putih, Pondok Timur Ranji, Rengas, Rempoa
190,415
5
Pondok Benda, Pondok Barat, Pamulang 26.82 Pamulang Timur, Pondok Cabe Udik, Pondok Cabe Ilir, Kedaung, Bambu Aqus, Benda Baru
308,272
2-1
No
Width (㎢)
Total District
Village
Population (2012)
6
29.88
Pondok Aren
Perigi Baru, Pondok Kacang Barat, Pondok Kacang Timur, Perigi Lama, Pondok Pucung, Pondok Jaya, Pondok Aren, Jurang Mangu Barat, Jurang Mangu Timur, Pondok Karya, Pondok Betung
331,644
7
14.80
Setu
Kranggan, Muncul, Setu, Babakan, Bakti Jaya, Kademangan
72,727
7
54
1,405,170
Total 147.19
2.1.1.2 Geographical Location South Tangerang is located at the east of the Banten province, the east longitude of 106 ° 38 '~ 106 ° 47', south latitude of 06'13'30 "~ 06 ° 22'30". It also located at adjacent to the Jakarta in the north, South Tangerang in the east, and a buffer zone, DKI Jakarta in south. One of this area is connected the main Banten and west Java, and the other connected the Banten province and Jakarta. City boundary is shown as follows; - Northern boundary: Tangerang city and DKI Jakarta - Eastern boundary: Depok city and DKI Jakarta - Southern boundary: Bogor Regency and Depok city - Western boundary: Tangerang Regency
2.1.1.3 Hydrology Surface water comes through in some areas of rivers such as Cisadane, Angke, and Pesanggrahan. The minimum average flow per month from SWS Cisadane-Ciliwung is 2,551 ㎥/s measured at Cidurian River in 1995, the maximum is 115.315 ㎥/s measured at Cisadane river from 1991 to 1998. 2-2
Total discharge flow of Ciputat is 210L /s. There are water shortage from March to November, a glut of water from December to February. Groundwater, which is mainly used to the main road of industry and factory, is discharged into the range between 3 and 10L / sec/㎢ from Tangerang administrative district including South Tangerang. Most people are using groundwater which are digged by 5 ~ 10m in depth.
2.1.1.4 Topography The most of South Tangerang area is flat relatively. It has rugged land in the part of District Ciputat Timur, and between District Setu and District Pamulang. South Tangerang is 25 meters above sea level.
2.1.1.5 Climatography For weather conditions of temperature, relative humidity, rainfall, number of rainy days in 2009, we investigated those elements based on Stasiun Geofisika Klas I Tangerang, details are listed in table 2.1.1-2. Temperature range is between 26.6 ℃ ~ 28.5 ℃, the lowest temperature arises in February, the highest in September, and the average temperature is 27.7 ℃.
Relative humidity range is between 72-84%, the lowest humidity arises in September, the highest in January and February, and average humidity is 79%. Rainfall range per month is 15mm ~ 377mm, the lowest rainfall in August, and the highest rainfall in January. The average rainfall is 166mm. The number of raining days is 1 to 28, the minimum raining days arose in August, maximum raining days in February; the average number of rainy days is 12 days.
2-3
[Table 2.1.1-2] Data of temperature, humidity, rainfall, number of raining days Month
Average Relative Humidity temperature (℃) (%)
Rainfall (mm)
Number of raining days (day)
1
26.7
84
377
19
2
26.6
84
253
28
3
27.5
81
211
14
4
27.9
82
305
14
5
27.8
82
197
13
6
27.9
79
129
8
7
27.3
75
21
4
8
27.7
75
15
1
9
28.5
72
18
3
10
28.4
74
34
6
11
27.9
79
247
18
12
27.8
81
188
13
Average
27.7
79
166
12
Source) South Tangerang White Paper, 2010 (KOTA TANGERANG SELATAN DALAM ANGKA 2010)
2.1.1.6 Physiography The geological conditions of South Tangerang consist of generally clay, silt, sand, gravel, rock, and alluvial rock configurations. These soils let earthwork operations straightforward and can resist erosion. Geological conditions in South Tangerang are suitable for an urban construction. Depending on the distribution of soil type, there are the red and red-brown latosol soils and are suitable for agriculture / farm.
2-4
[Figure 2.1 1.1-1] Adm ministrativee Map of So outh Tangeerang
2-5
[Figu ure 2.1.1-2] Geographyy of South Tangerangg 2-6
[Figure 2.1.1-3] Hyydrology map of Soutth Tangeranng 2-7
[Figure 2.1.1-4] Top pographic map of Sou uth Tangeraang 2-8
[Figuree 2.1.1-5] G Geologic ma a p of South h Tangeranng
2-9
2.1.2 Development and Spatial Policies 2.1.2.1 Goals of Regional Development Taking into account the national strategic areas and provincial strategic areas in the city area. City Strategic Area can coincide with national strategic areas and / or provincial strategic areas, but must have different interest / specialty and there should be a clear distribution of authority. It can be an area that has a strategic value in terms of economic interests which is an agglomeration of economic activities that have:
2.1.2.2 Strategy of Regional Development City Strategic Area is part of the city of which the spatial arrangement is prioritized because it has a very important influence on economic, social, cultural and / or the environment. City Strategic Area is defined by the following criteria. -The fast-growing economic potential -Leading sectors that can drive economic growth -Potential to export -Network for supporting infrastructure and facilities of economic activity -The priority of improving the social and cultural
2.1.2.3 Direction of Spatial Management Promote the reduction of waste is carried out through the establishment of waste reduction targets in stages within a specified period, the application of environmentally friendly technologies, activities of re-using and recycling and facilitate the marketing of recycled products; Optimizing the utilization of final processing Cipeucang with a minimum area of 10 acres with appropriate technological innovations and environmentally sound; Hold a temporary shelter (TPS) integrated in every village; The content of hazardous and toxic (B3) with the technology and processing methods in accordance with the laws and regulations applicable; Develop the concept of Municipal Solid Waste Landfill pengurugan system uses a layered 2-10
clean (sanitary landfill).
2.1.2.4 Strategies of Spatial Management Until 2031 waste management needs in South Tangerang City reached 9.2 million liters per day, or 9,145 m³ per day. Waste facility planned / to be developed in South Tangerang City is a combination of several types of facilities, namely: garbage carts, TPS in the form of containers, open trucks and dump trucks. Each of these facilities has the capacity and capacity as detailed below.
-Capacity wheelie bin = 1 m³ / unit, service capacity 15% -Capacity TPS (container) = 10 m³ / unit, service capacity 85% -Truck Capacity open = 7 m³ / unit, service capacity 50% -Dump Truck Capacity = 6 m³ / unit, service capacity 50%
The amount of waste in South Tangerang City is listed in Table 2.1.2.4-1 Solid waste facilities needed in South Tangerang City are listed in Table 2.1.2.4-2. [Table 2.1.2.4-1] The amount of waste in South Tangerang City No
Criteria
1
Population
2
Number of KK
2011
2015
1,303,569 1,672,437 260,714
334,487
Division 2020
2025
2031
2,157,598
2,800,315
3,658,207
431,520
560,063
731,641
Waste generated Domestic(m³/ y)
2,444,192 3,135,819
4,045,496
5,250,592
6,859,139
1,045,273
1,348,499
1,750,197
2,286,380
3,258,923 4,181,092
Non-domestic(m³/ y) 814,731 3
Total(m³/ y)
5,393,994
7,000,789
9,145,518
Reduce(25%)(m³/ y) 814,731
1,045,273
1,348,499
1,750,197
2,286,380
Reuse(25%)(m³/ y) 814,731
1,045,273
1,348,499
1,750,197
2,286,380
Recycle(50%)(m³/ y) 1,629,461 2,090,546
2,696,997
3,500,394
4,572,759
2-11
[Table 2.1.2.4-2] Solid waste facilities needed in South Tangerang city No 1
Criteria
2011
Domestic waste (m³/ y) 2,444,192
2015
Division 2020
3,135,819
4,045,496
2025
2031
5,250,592 6,859,139
2
Cart(EA)
367
470
607
788
1029
3
TPS(EA)
208
267
344
446
583
4
Open truck(EA)
175
224
289
375
490
5
Dump truck(EA)
204
261
337
438
572
2.1.2.5 Direction of Spatial Management Promote the reduction of waste is carried out through the establishment of waste reduction targets in stages within a specified period, the application of environmentally friendly technologies, activities of re-using and recycling and facilitate the marketing of recycled products; Optimizing the utilization of final processing Cipeucang with a minimum area of 10 acres with appropriate technological innovations and environmentally sound; Hold a temporary shelter (TPS) integrated in every village; The content of hazardous and toxic (B3) with the technology and processing methods in accordance with the laws and regulations applicable; Develop the concept of Municipal Solid Waste Landfill pengurugan system uses a layered clean (sanitary landfill).
2.2 Existing Condition of Solid Waste Management 2.2.1 Sources of Waste Waste sources are a number of types, can be classified as follows; a. Residential area: general house, apartment house b. Commercial areas: Commercial areas are generally divided into commercial, entertainment 2-12
venues as well as markets, shops, hotels and restaurants and others. c. Public facilities: urban infrastructure and public facilities are used for the common good, divided into offices, school, gym, museums, parks, roads, canals, rivers, places of worship, etc. d. School e. Hospital f. Market: Traditional and modern markets g. Industrial Park: light industrial complex
2.2.2 Generation, Composition and Characteristic waste 2.2.2.1 The amount of waste generation a. Existing data Waste generation sources at small cities in Indonesia is 2.75 ~ 3.25 L / person / day, average 3.00 L / person / day based on of SNI S-04-1991-01. According to data from South Tangerang DKPP, disposal quantities that occur 1740㎥ / day in South Tangerang in 2013 has been estimated to be 27.6% in 481㎥ / day.
The amount of waste generation in South Tangerang by the master plan of Cipeucang landfill (2012) is 3.02 L / person / day, and 2.75 L / person / day according to population of South Tangerang Pictures (in 2012). Amount of waste generation, collection rate, and feed rate in South Tangerang is shown in the following [Table 2.2.2.1-1] [Table 2.2.2.1-1] Amount of waste generation in South Tangerang No
Contents
Total (㎥/day)
1
Amount of waste generation
1,740
2
Amount of waste collection
481
3
Disposal volume transported in landfill
323
4
Disposal volume transported TPS 3R
138
Source) South Tangerang, DKPP, 2013 2-13
b. This time of survey The basic unit of waste conducted waste characteristic survey during this time of research was applied to forecasting waste generation sources when establishing the master plan. Sampling was performed by dividing into residential and non-residential area, analyzed sample of residential area at 238 points and non-residential facilities at 88 points. In waste generation sources it appeared to 0.56kg / person / day (4.57L / person / day), which is 1.62 to 1.78 times higher than the value of existing research literature. [Table 2.2.2.1-2] Results of waste generation sources in the survey No
Content
Result
1
Survey target
2
Waste generation sources
residential areas of 238 points, non-residential area of 88 points 0.56 kg / person /day - Dry season: 0.60kg /person/day, Rainy: 0.51kg /person / day 4.89 L /person /day - Dry season: 4.57L / person/day, Rainy: 5.35L /person/day
2.2.2.2 Waste composition and characteristics a. Existing data Compositions of food waste, leaves, natural decomposition which are generated from household are majority of organic waste. In addition, organic waste for 51%, inorganic waste for 35%, and the residue for 14% are consisting of household waste. Table 2.2.2.2-1 shows the composition of the waste in South Tangerang.
[Table 2.2.2.2-1] The composition of the waste No
Waste composition
Percentages (%)
1 Organic 2 Mineral 3 The residue Total Source) South Tangerang, Cipeucang landfill master plan
51 35 14 100
Organic waste accounting for 51% of the total composition can be used as compost material; inorganic waste such as vinyl, plastic, textile, leather, etc. can be recycled. 2-14
Cipeucang landfill waste master plan and the composition of South Tangerang surveyed by ITF feasibility study is as Table 2.2.2.2-2 as follows; [Table 2.2.2.2-2] The composition and characteristics of waste No
Percentage (%) Data1 Data 2
Waste characteristics
1
Organic
49
2
Recyclable plastic
13
72.82
3
Non recyclable plastic
4
4
Paper
11
5
Metal
4
0.11
6
Glass
4
0.45
7
Textile
4
1.9
8
hazard waste
8
0
9
Woods/bamboo
-
9.63
9.63 3.65
10
Leather
-
0.06
11
Styrofoam
-
0.05
12
Rock/mineral
-
0
13
Rubber
-
0.07
14
Tissue/ Diaper
-
1.93
15
Residue
3
-
100
100
Total
Source) Data1: South Tangerang, Cipeucang landfill master plan Data2: ITF feasibility study b. This time of survey Samples were collected and analyzed from the residential and in non-residential areas (dry, wet season) in 2 times, and the results of this analysis are shown in Table 2.2.2.2-3. In this time of survey, it found the results are similar to the existing research literature.
2-15
[Table 2.2.2.2-3] Composition of waste (Unit: %) Residential area
Non-residential area
No.
Items
Dry
Rainy
Dry
Rainy
1
Organic
44.67
51.0
42.09
47.16
2
Plastic
7.16
8.0
5.0
7.02
3
Plastic bottle
5.11
4.0
6.45
8.65
4
Residue
12.42
12.0
16.45
11.86
5
Paper
12.59
9.0
12.3
15.4
6
Diaper/tampon
6.41
9.0
5.77
3.36
7
Styrofoam
1.87
2.0
1.52
1.46
8
Textile
2.62
2.0
1.29
1.31
9
Glass
2.27
1.0
1.69
2.04
10
Can
1.18
1.0
1.17
1.26
11
Metal
0.28
0.0
0.16
0.11
12
Woods/bamboo
1.10
1.0
3.52
0.09
13
Rock/mineral
1.78
0.0
-
-
14
Rubber/leather
0.55
0.0
0.78
0.24
2.2.3 Solid Waste Management Waste collected from South Tangerang is transported to TPS/ TPS3R as collected after RT (Rukun Tetangga) / RW (Rukun Warga) administrative units in the municipal waste, and collected to load by the Armroll truck and transport to landfills. Bring system and sources in the collection, then transported to the landfill directly Door have been made as to Door system My valuables waste (e. g. plastic, paper, cans, etc.) in the discharge stage collected by Waste Bank system, which is introduced to recycle, being implemented in RT / RW administrative units, but local communities’ participation is low. In some areas communities have been provided their efforts to reduce landfill by composting, and to recover valuables by installing the TPS 3R. 2-16
Overalll flow chart of waste management m system is shown in Fig gure 2.2.3-11. [Figu ure 2.2.3-1]] Flow charrt of waste treatment
2.2.3.1 Regulatioon Waste A Act of Indonnesia on sollid waste maanagement is based on Republic oof Indonesiaa, No. 18. (2008). The folllowing are Indonesia Government G t Regulationns The Reppublic of Inndonesia Go overnment R Regulation No. N 74/2001on the mannagement of o risks and toxxic materialss related to the t impact ((AMDAL) analysis afffected to envvironment, 2-17
including hazardous waste The Republic of Indonesia Government Regulation No. 81/2012 on the management of household solid waste and similar waste. The following are Minister Regulation Public Works of the Republic of Indonesia Minister Regulation No. 03 / PRT / M / 2013on the implementation of infrastructure and facilities for the waste management, household solid waste and similar waste. Public Works of the Republic of Indonesia Minister Regulation No. 19 / PRT / M / 2012 on the guidelines for the planning plant around landfills. Public Works of the Republic of Indonesia Minister Regulation No. 21 / PRT / M / 2006 on national policy and strategy development of waste management systems (KSNP-SPP). Energy Minister regulations No. 19/2013 on the purchasing power of the PT Perusahaan Listrik Negara Persero (national power unit)from municipal solid waste-based power plants Regional Regulations - Regulation No. 3/2013 regarding South Tangerang solid waste management
2.2.3.2 Institution South Tangerang was enacted No.07 in 2009 for clean and livable city and created a DKPP, which is a government organization in charge of parks, cemetery, roads, waste management and disposal. Waste management is in charge of Cleanliness Division and detailed DKPP chart is shown in Figure 2.2.3.2-1 below.
2-18
[Figgure 2.2.3.2 2-1] Organiization chaart of South h Tangeranng, DKPP
Source)) South Tanngerang DKPP, 2013 2-19
Configuration Personnel of South Tangerang DKPP is made up of 550 field staff employees, 43 management personnel. Detailed construction and man-power are listed in Table 2.2.3.2-1 below. [Table 2.2.3.2-1] South Tangerang DKPP Configuration personnel No
Classification
Number of people
1
Class Ⅳ
6
2
Class Ⅲ
15
3
Class Ⅱ
8
4
Class Ⅰ
14
Sub-total
Remark
Management personnel
43
Source) South Tangerang, 2015 [Table 2.2.3.2-1] South Tangerang DKPP Configuration personnel (cont) No
Classification
Number of people
1
Supervisor
54
2
Foreman
10
3
Driver
70
4
Driver Assistant (Co-Driver)
141
5
Collector
25
6
Crew
225
7
Heavy Equipment Driver
2
8
Diver Assistant
1 1
9
ITF Operator
10
ITF Security
2
11
TPA Field staff
9
12
ITF Field staff
10
Sub-total
550
Source) South Tangerang, 2015 2-20
Remark
Field staff
2.2.3.3 Finance Financing for waste management in South Tangerang has received the funding from the APBD. The budget of South Tangerang in 2012 was Rp1,985,000,000,000, and Rp 1,777,000,000,000 in 2013. DKPP budget was Rp 52,522,462,598 in 2012, Rp 63,589,090,000 in 2013. The amount of DKPP budget was 2.65% in 2012 and 3.58% in 2013 compared to the total budget of South Tangerang. Cleaning budget among DKPP is as low as 1.11% in 2012 and 1.74% in 2013 compared to total budget. DKPP in 2012, 2013 budget details are shown in Table 2.2.3.3-1. [Table 2.2.3.3-1] DKPP budget (in 2012 ~2013) No.
Waste composition
2012 (Rp)
2013 (Rp)
1
South Tangerang budget
1,985,000,000,000
1,777,000,000,000
2
DKPP (cleaning, parks, cemetery management) Budget
52,522,462,598
63,589,090,000
1) The Director General
19,222,581,402
5,202,432,600
2) General Road Lighting
4,521,413,176
19,167,682,600
3) Cemetery management
2,650,000,000
1,648,000,000
4) Parks
4,121,333,700
6,644,061,500
5) Clean
22,007,134,320
30,926,913,300
(1) Waste management infrastructure and facilities (2) Improvement of waste treatment technology (3) socialization (4) Improvement of operating waste
13,717,322,320
2,211,850,300
978,191,000
20,898,725,000
515,996,000
727,903,000
5,999,520,000
6,739,135,300
796,375,000
349,300,000
(5) community participation in waste management (6) Waste Management Policy Source) South Tangerang DKPP 2-21
2.2.3.4 Roles of Society Communities in South Tangerang enforced a small TPS3R programs in order to improve the quality of life in the communities and its families, but community overall is lacking the communities’ participation for waste management. (Roles of Society) TPS3R in South Tangerang spread rapidly to four in 2010, eight in 2011, fourteen in 2012, fourteen in 2013, and 40 units total and a footprint of TPS 3R were classified 3 types of 325 ㎡, 350㎡ and 500㎡. Location of TPS3R is shown in Figure 2.2.3.4-1, TPS3R status and specifications are listed in Table 2.2.3.4-1 also. [Table 2.2.3.4-1] South Tangerang TPS3R No
Location
Manager
Area (㎡)
Year established
1
Perumahan Griya Serpong, Kademangan
JUMADI/JUMARI
500
2010
2
Perumahan Vila Pamulang Mas
H. TARMIZI
500
2010
3
Vila Pamulang Mas
JODI SATYA
500
2010
4
Kelurahan Serua
ANWAR
500
2010
Kp. Sarimulya Kelurahan Setu
MARTA MARDJUKI
5
500
2011
6
H. DIANA Reni Jaya Kelurahan Pamulang Barat MARTAWIDJAYA
500
2011
7
RW 17 Jombang Kelurahan Jombang AMSIR/MARSIN Ciputat
500
2011
2-22
[Table 2.2.3.4-1] South Tangerang TPS3R (cont) No
Location
Manager
Area (㎡)
Year established
8
Komp. Maharta pak. Kacang Timur
BPK ISNANTO
500
2011
9
Komp. Deplu Pdk. Karya Pdk. Aren
BPK SANDIMIN
500
2011
10
Pondok Betung Pdk. Aren
SRI HARMOYO
500
2011
11
Pamulang Permai RW 12
HIKMAT WINANGUN
500
2011
12
Benda Baru
TAMIR/KATMO
500
2011
13
Jl. Jembar Jaya RT 02/05 Kp. Cilalung Kelurahan Jombang Kec. Ciputat
MUHAMMAD HATTA
350
2012
14
RW 05 Kelurahan Pamulang Barat Kec. Pamulang (Jl. Lestari Ketapang RT 07)
YUSUF
350
2012
15
Pasar Jengkol Kp. Curug Ds. Babakan Kec. Setu
KIMUNG
350
2012
16
RW 06 Kelurahan Pamulang Barat Kec. Pamulang
DIAN
350
2012
17
Jl. Ceger Raya Kav. IWAPI Jurang Mangu Barat Kec. Pondok Aren
NURSALIM
350
2012
18
Jl. H. Echo Cempaka Putih, Kec. Ciputat Timur
IBU DWI
350
2012
19
Rw 09 Jombang
KIKI
350
2012
20
Jl. Mujahidin RT 03/05 Kelurahan Perigi Baru Kec. Pondok Aren
H LI’AN
350
2012
21
Jl. Gadung Raya RT 04/03 Kelurahan Pondok Ranji Kec. Ciputat Timur
350
2012
22
Jl. Menjangan Raya RT 01/04 Kelurahan Pondok Ranji Kec. Ciputat Timur
BUDI MARHAENI BUDI MARHAENI
350
2012
23
Komplek Griya Permata Pamulang, Kelurahan Bhakti Jaya Kec. Setu
YANUAR
350
2012
24
Komplek Batan Indah, Setu
MISPAN
350
2012
25
RW 12 Kelurahan Pondok Benda Kec. Pamulang
ALEX
350
2012
26
Kelurahan Perigi Lama Kec. Pondok Aren
TASLIM
350
2012
2-23
[Table 2.2.3.4-1] South Tangerang TPS3R (cont) Location
Manager
27
RT 07/RW02 Kelurahan Sawah Baru (Jl. Cendrawasih V)
THAMRIN
325
2013
28
RW.04 Lengkong Gudang Timur
H ARIEF
325
2013
29
RW.07 Kelurahan Ciater
ROHMAN
325
2013
30
RW.01 Kelurahan Rawa Buntu
ENDANG ISKANDAR
325
2013
31
RW.03 Lengkong Gudang Timur
SABAR/NIMAN
325
2013
32
RW.04 Kelurahan Bambu Apus
TATA
325
2013
33
RW.09 Kelurahan Pondok Aren
KATIYO/MARTIN
325
2013
34
RT 03 RW.01 Kelurahan Ciputat
IBU ANAH/SINGGIH
325
2013
35
Vila Pamulang Mas 06 Kelurahan Bambu Apus
IMAM AULIA
325
2013
36
Perumahan Puri Sentosa Kel Kademangan
ISNANIAR
325
2013
37
RW.09 Kelurahan Pondok Ranji
BAHRUDIN
325
2013
38
RW.05 Perumahan Amarapura Kelurahan Kademagan
DJOKO/EDI
325
2013
39
RW.01 Kelurahan Pondok Kacang Timur
JON ARTAM
325
2013
RW.08 Kelurahan Pondok Aren
ABDULLAH/ TOBOR
325
2013
40
Area (㎡)
Year established
No
Source) South Tangerang DKPP, 2013
2.2.3.5 Technical and Operational Aspects In aspect of operational technologies, it includes the stages of final waste generation to final processing in the waste management system. Operations are conducted each course engaged, not solely progressed. Waste management operating system procedure is as follows; a. Waste sorting / storage 2-24
b. Waste collectionn c. Wastee transportaation d. Waste treatment e. Finall disposal
[Figgure 2.2.3.55-1] Waste Management Type 2.2.3.5..1 Waste Soorting / Storage Waste sorting s and storage is th he process ccarried out before b the collection c annd transporttation Waste sorting s is acchieved befo ore waste diischarge at each e home, but that thee current waaste sorting is not nearlly done. Waste bins b are usedd to preventt unauthorizzed dumpin ng of waste that t hurts thhe health, hy ygiene and aesthetically ennvironmentt. Private storage conntainers and d a commonn storage conntainer are classified c inn accordancce with waste collection. Individuual containeers such as a plastic bag, masonry cement, strructures, andd small cap pacity steel caase, and com mmonly plasstic & steel forms are used. u 2-25
The binns of fixed concrete c form using in pprivate hom mes have pro oblems to taake longer than t other foorms of binss when colleecting, so ddifferent types of bins su uch as a sim mple plastic or plastic bbag are subjject to chan nge. [Tablee 2.2.3.5-1] The type oof waste con ntainers in South Tanngerang Th he user / Classs Material Capaccity Installaation locatiion
Indiviidual homes
Brick k, Cement
10~20L
C Common Park R Roadside
Plasttics, Iron
30L~100L
C Common R Roadside Aparttment housee Shops
Co ontainer
500L~5,,000L
KEC. PONDOK P A AREN(2014.3 3)
KEC. PONDOK P A AREN(2014.3 3)
KE EC. CIPUTA AT(2014.3)
2.2.3.5..2 Collectioon Waste collection c iss being carriied out by thhe DKPP orr Private (Plastica Jayaa, Graha Ray ya, BSD, N Natural silk, Puri Serpon ng, Serpongg area). DKPP use u Amroll trucks (35) and Pickupp Truck (28)),and private is using a dump truck k as waste collection eqquipment. Accord ing to the fiindings of DKPP D in 20 13 year, DK KPP collecteed about *1 8.6% (323㎥ ㎥/ day) of the tootal generatted quantitiees discardedd from the generated g to otal waste (11,740㎥ / day) to the landdfill, which seems to reequire expannsion of thee collection personnel aand equipmeent to reach thhe minimum m service lev vel of 100% % in 2019. Waste collection c m methods in South S Tangeerang are lissted in Tablee 2.2.3.5.2-11 below. 2-26
[Tablle 2.2.3.5.2--1] Waste ccollection methods m in South Tan gerang Diivision
Direct Individual (Doorr-to-Door)
Unndirect Inddividual (Brinng System)
Waste Co ollection Ov verview
-Waste collection c vvehicle mov ve and transp port directlyy to landfilll as waste diischargers ddischarge waste. w - Applieed to cleaninng Bintaro Jaya, J Grahaa Raya, BSD D, Alam Suttera Residen ntia, Serpongg Paradise, Sutopo-BSD road, Cipputat roads, industriaal, commerccial areas, residential r areas a and roaad.
- Most applied a and collected manner m in So outh Tangerrang. - Waste dischargerss discharge waste into container c / a fixed emp pty space, waste w transpportation vehhicle collects it and trannsports to each e landfill in a certain period of tiime.
Directt/ Undirect Com mmunal
- After collecting c thhe co-wastee bins, wastee disposal uuse a cart mo oving to TPS, and transport to landfill by b using thee transport ttruck. - Applieed to Ciputaat Market, Cimanggis C Market, M andd Jombang Market M
R Road Sw weeping -South Tangerang T w waste collecction schem me - Cleaneers clean thee road, and carry the co ollected wasste to placess such as wastee collection containers that transpo orting to lanndfill.
2-27
2.2.3.5..3 Transporrtation This woork includess the steps of o transportiing from thee waste gen neration souurces, TPS, TPS3R T to landffills. Waste transportatioon systems are generallly divided into the follo owing threee methods significcantly, as shown in Figu ure 2.2.3.5.33-1.
[Figuree 2.2.3.5.3-1 1] Classificaation of thee waste tran nsportationn system Details of waste traansportation n systems arre listed in Table T 2.2.3..5.3-1 below w. [Table 2.2.3.5.3-1] 2 Waste tran nsportation n systems No..
Overview w
①
Wasste source ⇒ Waste coollection ⇒ Collecting g at Intermeediate collecction facilitties (TPS3R R) ⇒ Recycclable itemss selected ⇒ The residuee transport ⇒ TPA Afterr collection vehicles duumping andd sorting of waste, w the re residue trannsport back to t the TPA that is the difference d with w intermeediate co ollection faccilities (Traansfer statio on).
②
W Waste sourcces ⇒ Wastte collection n ⇒ Transp port ⇒ TPA A Door-to-dooor in South h Tangerang g.
③
Wastee sources ⇒ TPS ⇒ Transport T ⇒ TPA Certainn areas such h as roadsiddes designatted TPS tran nsport to TPPA after the pphase differrence Unddirect Indiv vidual (Brinng System), Undirect Communal, R Road Swe eping applicable.
Waste ccontainer traansporting method m is liisted in Table 2.2.3.5.3-2 below.
2-28
Reemarks
[Table 2.2 2.3.5.3-2] C ontainer trransportatiion schemee D Division
Oveerview
F Features Container nnumber: 1 / Branch While com ming back affter landfill, waaste storage containers are absencee.
Container methodds
A longer trransportatio on time Container nnumber: 1 / + 1 points Alternaative methodds
Waste storaage contain ners always exisst A longer trransportatio on time Container nnumber: 1 / Branch Waste storaage contain ners always exisst
Coontainer Keeping methodss
Short transsportation time Compressioon truck (sp pecially equipped vvehicles) req quired.
Waste collection c annd transporttation in Soouth Tangeraang is divided into DKP KPP service area a and private coverage seervice area. The sharingg ratio of waste w collectting service in South Tangeraang is expeccted to be th he basic uniit of Privatee 25.6%, DK KPP 13.3% estimated at a the current time based on 2013. Waste transportatioon of DKPP P waste treattment areass is made by y Arm Roll. There are a total of five woorkers for thhe Arm Roll and three w workers for Pick-up in a team whille operating g. Diivision
[Table 2.2.3.5.3-3] 2 Field Emp ployee Com mposition Driver Driver A Assistant Collector Crew w
To otal
AR RM Roll
1
1
-
3
5
Piickup
1
1
1
-
3
Source)) South Tanngerang DKPP, 2014 DKPP iis almost in charge of collection c & transportattion in the current c colleection systeems, so DKPP iinitial vehiccle travel tim me and vehiicle operatinng distance was up to 11,300km due to 2-29
being inntroduced thhese collecttion vehicles from garaage with chaarge in colleection vehiccles of DKPP. Waste transportatioon vehicles holdings annd transporttation vehicles in Southh Tangerang g are listed inn the Table 2.2.3.5.3-4, 2 Figure 2.2..3.5.3-2 below. [Taable 2.2.3.5..3-4] The sttatus of waaste transpoortation veh hicle in Souuth Tangerrang Diivision Arm Rolll (Includin ng Dump) Picck-up Tottal Ponddok Aren
6
4
Ciputtat Timur
4
3
10 0 7
Ciputat
12
5
17 7
Serpoong Utara
5
3
8
Pam mulang
3
9
12 2 4
S Setu
1
3
Seerpong
4
1
5
T Total
35
28
63 3
Source)) South Tanngerang DKPP, 2014
Arm Roll R
Piick-up
KEC. PAM MULANG (DKPP, 2014.3)
KEC. PPAMULANG G (DKPPP, 2014.3)
Dum mp
Loader L
KEC. PAM MULANG (DKPP, 2014.3)
KEC. PPAMULANG G (DKPPP, 2014.3)
[Figure 2.2.3.5.3-2]] The type of waste transportatio on vehicle iin DKPP The sttatus and moodel year off waste trannsportation vehicles v in South S Tangeerang are listed in the Table 2.2.3.5.3-5 below. 2-30
[Table 2.2.3.5.3-5] The status and model year of waste transportation vehicle Vehicle Condition Type of Vehicle Total Brand Age
Division
Armroll Truck
4
Armroll Truck Loader
2010 2011
2009
2012
Mitsubishi
5
5
Isuzu
5
1
Barata
5
Armroll Truck
2
Toyota Dyna
4
Pick-up
7
Daihatsu Grand Max
4 3
Pick-up
7
Daihatsu Grand Max
Armroll Truck
18
Isuzu NKR71 E2-2
2
Skit Loader
1
Bobcat Type S185 KSerise
4
Excavator
1
Armroll Truck
5
Hino Dutro 130HD
4 1
Dump Truck
1
Hino Dutro 130HD
1
Pick-up
15
Mitsubishi COLT T100
1
2013
Total
67
Source) South Tangerang DKPP, 2014
2-31
2.2.3.5..4 Intermed diate processing (ITF)) Waste treatment means m the red duction of w waste, treatm ment processs for reuse before final disposaal such as coomposting, recycling, r ssorting, incineration of waste and sso on. Recycliing during intermediatee processingg has been made m at the discharge ssource, Tran nsfer Depo annd the TPA.. South T Tangerang currently c hass one compoosting of orrganic wastee recycling and materiaal recoverry of recycliing has been n made on a small scale in TPS3R R. A compossting facility y is in one placce operatingg in the Pub blic Works D Dept. (MPW W), but doess not yet runn due to issu ues on licensinng problemss. There hav ve equippedd machineriees such as grading, g the grinder, etcc, requiredd for the com mposting prrocess, and compostingg process flow is shown wn in the Fig gure 2.2.3.5.4-1 below.
[Figu ure 2.2.3.5.44-1] Flow of o composting process On the other hand, in the case of Indones ia, the comp posting faciility is operaating in the most private because of the budget problem annd a regular production and sale off compost producttion does noot occur.
KEC. PON NDOK ARE EN(2014.4) [Figure 2.2.3.5..4-2] ITF (C Composting facility) 2-32
2.2.3.5..5 Final Proocessing The finaal processinng of South Tangerang is made in Cipeucang landfill, whhich operatees from 2012 inn DKPP, andd is currently operationnal scale of landfill l facilities are ass follows; - Landffill capacity: 120,000㎥ ㎥ - Landffill area: 1.772ha (in dev velopment pplan, the enttire landfill area are 11..22ha) Survey results of Cipeucang C laandfill (TPA A) operationns shows that landfill ccover soil is difficultt to obtain and a rarely performs. p Thhe current ZONA Z 1 is being b buriedd (1.72ha), but b the expiratiion date is found f to be not much leeft. In addition, the leacchate after a five-separrated tank is being b dischharged into the t Cisdanee river.
Cipeucanng landfill entrance e
Landfill L staatus
Gas emission e faccility
Leach hate treatmeent plant
Reecycling maaterial selecction facilityy
Landfill expanded e sitte (ZONE 2) 2
KEC. SERANG( Cipucang Landfill, L 201 14. 11) [Figuree 2.2.3.5.5-11] The status of landffill operatioon 2-33
Cipeucaang landfill (TPA) is pllanning to Z Zone 1 ~ Zo one 5 to land dfill sites byy the masterr plan project,, now Zone 1 is almost completed,, and the lanndfill expan nsion projecct currently underw way Zone 2 areas. a If the landfill in Z Zone 2 areaa is expandeed, possiblee landfill is consideered by 20177. On the other hand, to reliably handle the generation of waste in the long run un to the easst site, which is generatedd the Arboreetum groundds, be conveerted into state-of-the-aart waste manageement system m that is em mbedded onnly by installing a wastee-energy plaant residuess (incinerration, gasiffication, etc.). Therefoore, the instaallation of a waste-to-eenergy facility is urgentt to minimizze landfill area, a and wattermarked residues r that occurs afteer intermeddiate processsing needs tto be promo oted and processsed in landfiill of a widee area in Bannten consid dering South h Tangerangg where is difficult d for landdfill site avaailable to secure due to the urbanizzation. Cipeucaang landfill developmeent plan is shhown in Fig gure 2.2.3.5 5.5-2.
[Figure 2.2.3.5.5-2] C Cipeucang landfill dev velopment plan
2-34
[Figure 2.2.3.5.3-3] South Tan ngerang TP PS3R Locattion
2-35
Feasibility study Plan on integrated municipal solid waste management system in South Tangerang city
Chapter 3 Planning Criteria 3.1 Technical Feasibility Criteria 3.2 Economic and Financial Feasibility Criteria 3.3 Environmental Studies Criteria 3.4 Social Studies Criteria 3.5 Legal Studies Criteria 3.6 Institutional Studies Criteria
3-0
Chapter 3 Planning Criteria 3.1 Technical Feasibility Criteria 3.1.1 Feasibility Criteria Transfer Depot should be planned in detail to present facility and operation plans based on the waste collection by district and to be used as a standard model. Selection of the incinerator system should consider whether the system is applicable to various types of household waste, is technically proven by lots of practical application, or has accumulated advanced operating skills. In addition, the study should plan a large scale incinerator to ensure ease and economy of operation and maintenance and should examine how to systematize the incinerator facility to raise its operational availability. The incinerator’s capacity should be at least 200 ton/day at the minimum, considering DKPP’s current waste collection, with a planned capacity at 790 ton/day in 2020 when the facility will be introduced. The landfill construction should be made separately by the general waste and the designated waste. The cutoff layer of the designated waste landfill that is designed to process fly ash emitted from the incinerator should meet Korean standards and have a structure to cut off rainwater inflow to the inside of the landfill. The incinerator and landfill installation site should be planned to be located east of the existing landfill site (zone 1) and the facilities’ layout should consider a buffer zone (50m wide) near the Cisadang river. The boundary of the project site should be fenced to control access from outside, and be equipped with: a measuring system to weigh the waste transport vehicles and fine the exact amount of waste collection; and a wheel-washing system to keep the road clean and prevent bad smelling. In addition to these, a groundwater monitoring well installation should be planned around the landfill.
3.1.2 Technical Content The technical content should reflect the methods of waste discharge, collection/transport, processing, and final disposal, and the result of demand estimation discussed in the Master Plan, and contains the basic designs of the Transfer Depot, incinerator, and landfill facilities, as detailed below: 3-1
- Waste sorting/storage - Collection/transportation - Processing - Final disposal - Waste infrastructure and facility demand forecast - Basic design (Transfer Depot, incinerator, and landfill facilities)
3.2 Economic and Financial Feasibility Criteria 3.2.1 Norms of Economic and Financial Feasibility Calculation should present detailed investment cost and operation cost for the Transfer Depot, incinerator, and landfill facilities. Calculation of the investment cost should classify it into the costs of land purchase, detailed engineering design/supervision, construction, and equipment purchase, and calculation of the operation cost should classify it into the costs of labor, general administrative expenses, facility maintenance, electricity, fuel, service water, and chemicals. Calculation of the economic benefit of the waste treatment facility should divide it into the direct benefit and the indirect benefit as of the year 2020 when the incinerator launches. Calculation of the waste disposal fee should be presented for the planned term (2016-2025) specified by the Master Plan, based on the fee collected in 2014.
3.2.2 Economic and Financial Calculation Criteria The criteria of economic feasibility study are as follows: - The reference year for all studies is January 1 2016, the construction period is 4 years, and the operation period is 20 years considering the durability of the facility. - Do not consider the indirect benefit that is hard to translate into monetary value, and assume the government subsidy is 0%. - Calculate and present the net present value (NPV), the internal rate of return (IRR), and the pay back period for each rate of the government subsidy (80%, 60%, 40%, and 0%). - Analyze the net present value (NPV) along the changing discount rate and present the economic internal rate of return (EIRR).
3-2
- Calculate and present the variations in the net present value (NPV), B/C ratio, and IRR when the project cost, operation cost, and benefit changes. The criteria of the financial feasibility study are as follows: - The reference year for all studies is January 1 2016, the construction period is 4 years, and the operation period is 20 years considering the durability of the facility. - Do not consider the indirect benefit that is hard to translate into monetary value, and assume the government subsidy is 0%. - Present the result of financial analysis based on the financing plan.
3.3 Environmental Studies Criteria 3.3.1 Norms of Environmental Feasibility The Cipeucang Landfill is located at longitude 106˚66’047” - 106˚39’37” and at latitude 06˚32’63” - 06˚19’37”. The Landfill belongs to the administrative district Serpong, Kademangan. The Landfill is surrounded by the following: - North: Farming and fishery area and residential areas - West: Vacant lots and farming area, and residential areas - South: Residential area and the Cisadane river - East: the Cisadane river According to the spatial planning data of the South Tangerang City, the Cipeucang Landfill is suitable for a final disposal site with area of 10 Ha. The Cipeucang Landfill is surrounded by farming areas, and its location and extension site are as shown in the figure below:
3-3
[Fiigure 3.3-1]] Cipeucan ng Landfill and Extenssion Site Loocation The sociaal study shoould carry out o and pressent the resu ult of the intterview andd questionnaaire survey w with the locaal communitty (50 persoons). Enviroonmental co onditions (attmosphere, groundw water, surface water, noiise and vibrration, etc) of o and aroun nd the projeect site shou uld be presentedd respectiveely by dry season and w wet season.
3.3.2 T Technical Standard ds of Enviironmenttal Impactt Analysiss If an areaa is expecteed to have an n environm mental impacct from waste processinng facilities (incineraator and landdfill) constrruction, the study on thhe nature of project andd current environm mental status should be made for eeach issue too define the target areass considerin ng the environm mental impaact. The analysis shouldd forecast th he changes to t come afteer implementation of the prooject and deescribe the environmen e ntal impact by b atmosph here, water qquality, soil, natural ecology, and humann life respectively, and tthen suggesst how to red duce the poossible environm mental impaact after reviiewing and reflecting the t result off the intervieew with thee local communnity and questionnaire survey. s
3.4 Soocial Stud dies Criteeria This studdy has foundd that DKP currently hhas no criterria of social study estabblished. Theerefore, this studyy suggests a system thaat is applicaable to Indonesia by stu udying and aanalyzing th he system too raise comm munity’s aw wareness off waste dischharge and participationn in such pro ograms that is cuurrently in effect e in Korrea. 3-4
3.5 Legal Studies Criteria This study has found that the South Tangerang city has no criteria for legal study established. Therefore, this study will examine Indonesia’s waste management related legal system and provisions and suggest what are required.
3.6 Institutional Studies Criteria This study has found that DKPP currently has no criteria of institutional study established. Therefore, this study should examine the existing organizational system of DKPP that is responsible for cleaning in the South Tangerang city, study how to develop DKPP’s organizational system in the future, and present the human resource requirements for the planned term.
3-5
Feasibility Study on integrated municipal solid waste management system in South Tangerang
Chapter 4 Data Collection & Site Survey
4.1 Survey and Assessment of Study and Service Areas 4.2 Survey and Assessment of Sources of Waste Quantities, Composition and Characteristics 4.3 Assessment and survey of Demography of Demography and Urban Planning 4.4 Assessment and survey of the needs for waste Infrastructure and Facilities 4.5 Measurement
Chap pter 4 Data colleection & Site su urvey 4.1 Su urvey and d Assessm ment of S Study and d Servicee Areas 4.1.1 R Regional Spatial S Pllan (RTR RW) Up to S September 2015, 2 RTRW W used was the old one. In 2014, DKPP D Tangssel had reviewed the expaansion plann of Landfilll to Kranggaan. But the land has beeen owned bby residentiaal developpers, so therre is very litttle potentiaal for develoopment becaause of diffi ficulties in laand acquisittion. Thereffore, until now, there haas been no change c related South T Tangerang City C Spatial Plan concerrning wastee services.
4.1.2 D Developm ment Areass The acccurate devellopment is only o to landdfill II. The land in the north side oof landfill III could not possible. The laand in frontt of the officce will be acquired no later than 2 015 with raange of budget IDR 30 M for f 2.5 ha. Land L planneed for incinerator, with h destinationn from Land dfill I transferrred and proocessed by incinerator i iin stages. Land in frontt of the officce is deemeed to be more feeasible for constructing c g incineratorr
[Fiigure 4.1.2--1] Area of TPA Devellopment 4-1
4.2 Survey and Assessment of Sources of Waste Quantities, Composition and Characteristics 4.2.1 Survey of waste sources Waste sources are a number of types, can be classified as follows; a. Residential area: general house, apartment house b. Commercial areas: Commercial areas are generally divided into commercial, entertainment venues as well as markets, shops, hotels and restaurants and others. c. Public facilities: urban infrastructure and public facilities are used for the common good, divided into offices, school, gym, museums, parks, roads, canals, rivers, places of worship, etc. d. School e. Hospital f. Market: Traditional and modern markets g. Industrial Park: light industrial complex
4.2.2 Survey of Waste Quantities a. Existing data Waste generation sources at small cities in Indonesia is 2.75 ~ 3.25 L / person / day, average 3.00 L / person / day based on of SNI S-04-1991-01.
According to data from South Tangerang DKPP, disposal quantities that occur 1740㎥ / day in South Tangerang in 2013 has been estimated to be 27.6% in 481㎥ / day.
The amount of waste generation in South Tangerang by the master plan of Cipeucang landfill (2012) is 3.02 L / person / day, and 2.75 L / person / day according to population of South Tangerang Pictures (in 2012). Amount of waste generation, collection rate, and feed rate in South Tangerang is shown in the following [Table 4.2.2-1] 4-2
[Table 4.2.2-1] Amount of waste generation in South Tangerang No
Contents
Total (㎥/day)
1
Amount of waste generation
1,740
2
Amount of waste collection
481
3
Disposal volume transported in landfill
323
4
Disposal volume transported TPS 3R
138
Source) South Tangerang, DKPP, 2013 b. This time of survey The basic unit of waste conducted waste characteristic survey during this time of research was applied to forecasting waste generation sources when establishing the master plan. Sampling was performed by dividing into residential and non-residential area, analyzed sample of residential area at 238 points and non-residential facilities at 88 points. In waste generation sources it appeared to 0.56kg / person / day (4.57L / person / day), which is 1.62 to 1.78 times higher than the value of existing research literature. [Table 4.2.2-2] Results of waste generation sources in the survey No 1
2
Content
Result
residential areas of 238 points, non-residential area of 88 Survey target points 0.56 kg / person /day Waste generation - Dry season: 0.60kg /person/day, Rainy: 0.51kg /person / day sources 4.89 L /person /day - Dry season: 4.57L / person/day, Rainy: 5.35L /person/day
4-3
4.2.3 Survey of Waste composition Characteristic survey conducts to identify the characteristics of waste land in South Tangerang in order to assure the basis for the prediction of the current and the future generation.
4.2.3.1 Survey Summary 4.2.3.1.1 Survey positions South Tangerang; - Residential facilities: 238 (high-income, middle-income and low-income) - Non-residential facilities: 88 (shops, schools, hospitals, offices, restaurants, health center, lounge, market, industry) 4.2.3.1.2 Scope of the Survey Residential areas were selected largely based on income level such as high-income middleincome, low-income. Non-residential areas were selected retail stores, schools, hospitals, offices, restaurants, fitness center, lounge, restaurant, market. Sampling shall be performed twice, separated by Dry and Rainy season. 4.2.3.1.3 Research Methodology (1) Questionnaire (for residential, non-residential areas) In this questionnaire, we examines the awareness of people's waste problems, waste management systems, and investigate the people’s requirements for effective management of waste. The results shall be used as a resource for the prediction how much an acceptable level of burden upon government policy promoting population-level response is for waste management. The questionnaire was conducted in 238 person in residential area and 88 in non-residential of seven districts at Tangsel. (2) Waste sampling and analysis (field analysis, indoor laboratory analysis) This sampling were executed for eight days in the residential 238 points, non-residential 88 points, where completed prior coordination request. Waste performed and carried to the 4-4
Cipeucang landfill for the first analysis (scene analysis), then to produce a sample for the second analysis. Ternary analysis, elemental analysis, the elution experiment with a target sample waste shall be performed. Residential and non-residential areas’ wastes sampling and investigation procedures are shown in Table 4.2.3.1-1 as follows; Sampling points For residential area; - A total of 42 samples of low-income, 161 of middle-income, 35 of higher income were examined. Most samples were obtained from 56 in Pondok Aren, and Setu was the lowest in 12 sampling surveys. For non-residential area; - The 18 of sampling number were investigated in Serpong, and the most of survey sampling points was in 26 schools, followed by the 20 samples in Shop. [Table 4.2.3.1-1] Waste characteristics survey sampling points (residential area) No.
Sub-district
Low
Middle
High
Total
1
Setu
4
7
1
12
2
Serpong
5
14
7
26
3
Pamulang
9
35
8
52
4
Ciputat
5
25
5
35
5
Ciputat Timur
7
22
4
33
6
Pondok Aren
6
43
7
56
7
Serpong Utara
6
15
3
24
Total
42
161
35
238
4-5
[Table 4.2.3.1-2] Waste characteristics survey sampling Points (non-residential area) B2 No.
B3
Other
Type Restaurant Shop
Hotel
Office
School Market Hospital
Industry
Total
1
Setu
0
5
0
5
3
0
0
0
13
2
Serpong
8
5
3
6
3
1
0
0
26
3
Pamulang
5
4
0
3
7
0
3
0
22
4
Ciputat
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
3
5
Ciputat Timur Pondok Aren Serpong Utara
4
3
0
0
4
0
0
0
11
0
2
0
1
5
1
0
1
10
6 7
Total
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
3
17
21
5
15
22
3
4
1
88
② Performed survey procedures In residential area: - The items are divided into high-, middle- and low-income. - And then sampling will be done as following (sample of residential area); - Performing the sample analysis of waste generation, density, composition, and waste grain which are collected from residential area. - Sending the sample (2 kg) to the laboratory and subjected to ternary analysis, elemental analysis, and elution experiment. - Repeat these works for eight days. In non-residential area: - Create a sample (2) according to the characteristics of generation sources. - Performing the sample analysis of waste generation, density, composition, and waste grain which are collected from non-residential area. - Sending the sample (2 kg) to the laboratory and subjected to ternary analysis, elemental analysis, and elution experiment. - Repeat these works for eight days.
4-6
4.2.3.2 Survey Results 4.2.3.2.1 Target for survey (1) Target for survey Survey was carried for a high, medium, low income of relevant residential; the ratio is shown the in Table 4.2.3.2-1 below. [Table 4.2.3.2-1] Participants’ income survey No.
Category
Respondent
Percentage
1
Low income
43
18%
2
Middle income
161
68%
3
High income
34
14%
Total
238
100%
The educational level of the participants accounts for 65% of college graduates of the highest ratios shown in Table 4.2.3.2-2. [Table 4.2.3.2-2] Education level of residents No.
Education Level
Respondent
Percentage
1
Elementary School-Junior High School
27
11%
2
Senior High School–Diploma 4
57
24%
3
Graduate and Postgraduate
154
65%
238
100%
Total
About 79% participants of the survey do not applicable to the DKPP collection zone, 21% appeared in a door to door collection area.
4-7
[Ta able 4.2.3.2--3] Waste collection c ty ypes No
Type of collection c
Resp pondent
Percentage
1
Put on rooad side thenn picked up bby DKPP
1
0% %
2
Broughht on their ow wn to transfe fer depot
0
0% %
3
Pickked up door to t door by D DKPP
49
21% %
4
Not included in service arrea
188
79% %
238
100% %
Totall 4.2.3.2..2 Survey Results R (1) Wasste collectioon system a. In reesidential arreas
78% oof respondennts used plaastic bag as a way to stoore househo old solid waaste. In addiition, the waaste collectiion frequenccy is 49% oof survey resspondents th hat collectss waste oncee a week.
[[Figure 4.2.3.2-1] Wasste storage way replieed from respondent off residentia al area
[Fig gure 4.2.3.22-2] Waste collection c frequency f b. In noon-residentiaal area; Most reespondents of o the non-rresidential aarea were prrovided by the t DKPP. B Based on th he data, 40% off respondentts in the non n-residentiaal are found that their waste w is treatted from DK KPP as 4-8
shown iin Figure 4.2.3.2-3.
[Figgure 4.2.3.2 2-3] Waste collection system s of non-residen n ntial area (2) Wasste transporttation system m a. In ressidential areeas Residenntial area off waste treattment is 49% % handled by b DKPP, and 33% of iillegal dum mping. 64% is transpported by trruck Pick-up p truck.
[Figuree 4.2.3.2-4] Waste disp posal in residential areea
[Figgure 4.2.3.2 2-5] Waste ttransportaation system m in residenntial area b. In noon-residentiaal area; 80% off respondentts in non-ressidential areea answeredd that the co ollection andd transportaation of waste raan every daay. 4% of resspondents w were irregullar and the waste w collecction frequeency.
4-9
[Figure 4.2.3.2-6] Waste W tran nsportation n frequency y in non-ressidential arrea (3) Soliid waste maanagement system s a. In reesidential arreas; 67% off respondentts did not manage m theirr waste, only y 2% of respondents saaid that the separate collection of wastee was done at a home.
[Fiigure 4.2.3.2-7] Wastee managem ment system in residenttial area Type off solid wastee classified by the resppondent are shown in th he [Figure 44.2.3.2-8], and a the plasticss account for 31% of th he total.
[Figure 4.2 2.3.2-8] typ pes of wastee classified by responddents Waste bank b with thhe lowest level of 6% cclassified ass waste disposal, and m most is the process in differrent ways. 4-10
[Fiigure 4.2.3. 2-9] Classiified waste disposal Some oof the responndents weree recycling tthe waste affter sorting, the recyclinng wastes were w plasticss (24%), plaastic bottles (21%) and most types of plastic, the t iron • thhe aluminum m cans accountted for 24% %. 44% of reespondents aanswered th hat they sold d recyclablee waste to fllea vendor.
[F Figure 4.2.3.2-10] Typees of recycllable waste from respoondents
[Figurre 4.2.3.2-111] Processing of recycclable wastee Organicc waste dispposal withou ut treatmentt was 54% of o respondeents, only 1% % was invesstigated by com mposting.
4-11
[Figure 4.2.3.2-112] Organicc Waste Ma anagementt b. Nonn-residentiaal area Majoritty of responndents in non n-residentiaal areas answ wered that they t could nnot classify the solid waaste stream. Only 17% of responddents answerr was that th hey classifieed the categ gory of waste.
[ [Figure 4.2.3.2-13] Wh hether wasste classification perfo ormance off the respon ndents (4) Waaste Paymennt methods a. In reesidential arreas; Waste disposal d cossts to be paid on a montthly neighborhood or RT R / RW. 2% % of respon ndents paid dirrectly to thee DKPP, 58% % was paid to the neigh hborhood, and a RT / RW W, and 11% did not pay the bills. Ratess were answ wered on thee appropriatte level of 68%.
[Figure 4.2.3.2-14] H How to cha arging waste collectionn fee
4-12
[Figuree 4.2.3.2-15 5] Respond dents' opinions about the t waste ccollection feee b. In noon-residentiaal area; Waste ccharges of monthly m pay yment weree paid to neeighborhood d, local chappter, and DKPP. 12% of respoondents didnn’t pay for it i and 16% of respondeents did not know abouut the chargees.
[Figu ure 4.2.3.2-16] Waste ccollection fee f types in non-resideential area (5) Wasste Service Satisfaction S n a. In reesidential arreas 51% off respondentts were satissfied with thheir DKPP and private sector servvices, 16% of o responddents were dissatisfied. d
[Fiigure 4.2.3..2-17] Wastte service satisfaction in residenttial area b. In nnon-residenttial area; 85% off respondentts were satissfied with reespect to th he waste serv vices providded by DKP PP. 4-13
More saatisfaction than t in resid dential areass can be seeen.
[Fiigure 4.2.3..2-18] Wastte service satisfaction s in non-ressidential 4.2.3.2..3 Waste Ch haracteristtics Survey (1) Wasste generatioon sources a. In reesidential arreas; South T Tangerang was w investig gated when ccalculating waste generation sourcces in the residenttial area. A result in dry y season waas by weigh ht 0.58kg / person p / dayy, rainy season for 0.46kg / person / day. d A lot off waste geneeration occuurred during g dry seasonn. Averagee waste dennsity was inv vestigated bby the dry seeason of 135.25kg / ㎥ ㎥, and rainy y 99.76kgg / ㎥. [T Table 4.2.3..2.3-1] Wasste generatiion sourcess in each arrea Wasste generattion sources No.
Sub-d district
Weigght (kg/persoon/day)
Volum me (liter/perso ( on/day)
D Density (kg/m3)
Dry
Rainy
Dry
Rainy
Dry
Rainy R 92.54 9
1
Pondook Aren
0.46
0.40
3.09
4.44
1123.69
2
Ciputatt Timur
0.79
0.56
4.82
6.14
1150.34
96.58 9
3
Cipputat
0.70
0.42
3.30
3.52
1183.28
10 07.98
4
Serponng Utara
0.58
0.37
4.95
3.40
1111.95
10 03.86
5
Pamuulang
0.47
0.44
5.76
6.11
992.11
87.69 8
6
Seetu
0.50
0.45
2.27
4.28
1167.68
10 02.80
Serppong
0.58
0.58
5.52
5.17
1117.73
10 06.90
Tangeranng Selatan
0.58
0.46
4.24
4.72
1135.25
99.76 9
7
4-14
As seen on the waste generation sources [Table 4.2.3.2.3-2], the research shows that higher income level generated more waste according to the income level. [Table 4.2.3.2.3-2] Waste generation depending on the income level Waste generation sources No.
Weight (kg/person/day)
Income level
Dry Season
Wet Season
Volume (liter/person/day) Dry Season
Wet Season
1
High Income
0.64
0.50
5.92
5.89
2
Middle Income
0.56
0.50
3.48
4.00
3
Low Income
0.47
0.44
4.17
4.13
b. In non-residential area; In non-residential area, waste generation sources according to the type of activity are shown the in Table 4.2.3.2.3-3 as follows; [Table 4.2.3.2.3-3] Waste generation sources in non-residential area Waste generation sources No.
Class
Weight
Volume Unit
Dry
Rainy
Unit Dry
Rainy
1
Home Industry
0.56
0. 07
kg/person/day
5.00
1.79
l/person/day
2
Hotel
0.65
0.97
kg/bed/day
5.32
6.54
l/bed/day
3
Offices
0.72
0.55
kg/person/day
3.49
3.67
l/person/day
4
Market
3.03
2.94
kg/m2/day
19.11
18.72
l/m2/day
79.61
81.61 l/uni tons/day
3.33
3.65
Cafeteria
24.64
25.87
kg/unit tons/day
6
Hospital
0.36
0.46
kg/bed/day
7
Public Health Center
17.17
23.49 kg/uni tons/day 160.00 187.12 l/uni tons/day
8
School
0.04
0.25
kg/person/day
4.53
kg/unit tons/day
5
9
Shop
5.93
4-15
0.45
2.29
l/bed/day
l/person/day
148.83 130.25 l/uni tons/day
(2) The waste characteristic Waste generated in residential land area of South Tangerang which organic matter was 44.67% during the dry season, paper by 12.59%, plastics have been investigated by 7.16%. The time of the rainy season was investigated by 51.0% in organic matter, 9.0% in the paper sheet, and plastic by 8.0%. Waste generated in non- residential area of South Tangerang which organic matter was 42.09%during the dry season, and paper by 12.3%. The time of the rainy season was investigated by42.09% in organic matter, and 15.4% in the paper sheet. [Table 4.2.3.2.3-4] Composition of waste Residential area No.
Non- residential area
Items Dry
Rainy
Dry
Rainy
1
Organic
44.67
51.0
42.09
47.16
2
Plastic
7.16
8.0
5.0
7.02
3
Plastic bottle
5.11
4.0
6.45
8.65
4
Residue
12.42
12.0
16.45
11.86
5
Paper
12.59
9.0
12.3
15.4
6
Diaper/tampon
6.41
9.0
5.77
3.36
7
Styrofoam
1.87
2.0
1.52
1.46
8
Cloth
2.62
2.0
1.29
1.31
9
Glass
2.27
1.0
1.69
2.04
10
Can
1.18
1.0
1.17
1.26
11
Metal
0.28
0.0
0.16
0.11
12
Woods/bamboo
1.10
1.0
3.52
0.09
13
Rock/mineral
1.78
0.0
-
-
14
Rubber/leather
0.55
0.0
0.78
0.24
4-16
(3) Ternary Waste Ternary analysis results were found to be in Table 4.2.3.2.3-5 which solids accounted for combustible (89.11%) as the most part after water evaporation. The water content was appeared that the dry season was higher than rainy season [Table 4.2.3.2.3-5] Ternary analysis result of the waste Residential Waste No.
Non-residential Waste
Parameter Dry season
Wet season
Dry season
Wet season
1
Water (% BB5)
51.34
12.99
20.84
13.69
2
Ash (% BK6)
8.22
5.64
7.64
19.64
3
Volatile (% BK)
89.11
92.64
89.43
72.02
4
Fixed Carbon
2.67
1.70
2.92
8.32
(4) Elemental analysis Carbon content occupied commonly from 55.51 to 64.67% from elemental analysis, and residential, non-residential areas showed no significant difference. The content of Chlorine appeared high as 9.82 to 13.81%, which is much higher than Korea were examined. [Table 4.2.3.2.3-6] Elemental analysis of the waste Residential Waste
Non-residential Waste
No. Parameter Unit Dry season
Wet season
Dry season
Wet season
1
Carbon
%
63.38
64.67
55.51
65.32
2
Hydrogen
%
7.64
7.72
6.81
7.38
3
Oxygen
%
28.82
27.47
37.32
27.07
4
Nitrogen
%
0.16
0.14
0.36
0.24
5
Sulphur
%
0.14
0.11
< 0.01
< 0.01
6
Chlorine
%
13.81
13.23
10.60
9.82
4-17
(5) Heating value analysis Calorific value measurements showed relatively high calorific value to have 3,000cal / g or more, a residential area showed a relatively high calorific value than non-residential areas. In addition, the residential area was found to have a high calorific value of the waste during the dry season, but non-residential area was found to have a high calorific value of the waste during the rainy season. [Table 4.2.3.2.3-7] Results of analysis of the waste heating value No.
Parameter
Residential Waste
Unit
Non-residential Waste
Dry season Wet season Dry season 1
Calorific Value
cal/gr
6,398.09
5,378.37
Wet season
3,299,75
5,036,22
(6) Heavy metals Heavy metals for hazard assessment of waste showed that all items were found to be within specified limits. [Table 4.2.3.2.3-8] Heavy metals analysis of the solid waste Parameter
Quality Standards PP 18/99 PP 85/99 (mg/l)
Dry Season
Wet Season
Arsen (As)
5
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
Barium (Ba)
100
0.195
0.195
Boron (B)
500
0.004
0.012
TCLP (mg/l)
Cadmium (Cd)
1
0.028
0.027
Chromium (Cr)
5
0.032
0.036
Copper (Cu)
10
0.056
0.074
Lead (Pb)
5
0.026
0.039
Mercury (Hg)
0.2
0.00009
0.0001
Selenium (Se)
1
<0.001
<0.001
Silver (Ag)
5
<0.001
<0.001
Zinc (Zn)
50
2.518
2.721
4-18
4.2.4 Survey of Waste Characteristics a. Existing data Compositions of food waste, leaves, natural decomposition which are generated from household are majority of organic waste. In addition, organic waste for 51%, inorganic waste for 35%, and the residue for 14% are consisting of household waste. Table 4.2.4-1 shows the composition of the waste in South Tangerang. [Table 4.2.4-1] The composition of the waste No Waste composition 1 Organic 2 Mineral 3 The residue Total Source) South Tangerang, Cipeucang landfill master plan
Percentages (%) 51 35 14 100
Organic waste accounting for 51% of the total composition can be used as compost material; inorganic waste such as vinyl, plastic, textile, leather, etc. can be recycled. Cipeucang landfill waste master plan and the composition of South Tangerang surveyed by ITF feasibility study is as Table 4.2.4-2 as follows; [Table 4.2.4-2] The composition and characteristics of waste Percentage (%) Data1 Data 2 1 Organic 49 72.82 2 Recyclable plastic 13 9.63 3 Non recyclable plastic 4 4 Paper 11 3.65 5 Metal 4 0.11 6 Glass 4 0.45 7 Textile 4 1.9 8 hazard waste 8 0 9 Woods/bamboo 9.63 10 Leather 0.06 11 Styrofoam 0.05 12 Rock/mineral 0 13 Rubber 0.07 14 Tissue/ Diaper 1.93 15 Residue 3 Total 100 100 Source) Data1: South Tangerang, Cipeucang landfill master plan No
Waste characteristics
Data2: ITF feasibility study 4-19
b. This time of survey Samples were collected and analyzed from the residential and in non-residential areas (dry, wet season) in 2 times, and the results of this analysis are shown in Table 4.2.4-3. In this time of survey, it found the results are similar to the existing research literature. [Table 4.2.4-3] Composition of waste (Unit: %) Residential area No.
Non-residential area
Items Dry
Rainy
Dry
Rainy
1
Organic
44.67
51.0
42.09
47.16
2
Plastic
7.16
8.0
5.0
7.02
3
Plastic bottle
5.11
4.0
6.45
8.65
4
Residue
12.42
12.0
16.45
11.86
5
Paper
12.59
9.0
12.3
15.4
6
Diaper/tampon
6.41
9.0
5.77
3.36
7
Styrofoam
1.87
2.0
1.52
1.46
8
Textile
2.62
2.0
1.29
1.31
9
Glass
2.27
1.0
1.69
2.04
10
Can
1.18
1.0
1.17
1.26
11
Metal
0.28
0.0
0.16
0.11
12
Woods/bamboo
1.10
1.0
3.52
0.09
13
Rock/mineral
1.78
0.0
-
-
14
Rubber/leather
0.55
0.0
0.78
0.24
4-20
4.3 Assessment and survey of Demography and Urban Planning 4.3.1 Total of Population Population prediction in 2012 is total 1,405,170 people, consisting of 708,767 of males and 696,403 of females based on the census from 2011. A high population density caused by increase of the population tendency from time to time which are not only caused by the expansion of its naturally but also inseparable from the tendency of the influx of migrants from the South Tangerang City attraction such as the number of new residential being built as the area directly abuted on to the city of Jakarta. So it will cause the needed for adequate space with new jobs to offset the added labor.
4.3.2 Population Density Population density in the total area (147.19㎢) is predicted 9,351 people/ ㎢ in 2012. For the highest population density, it is 12,341 people / ㎢ in Ciputat Timur, for the lowest one, 4,914 people /㎢ in Setu.
4.3.3 Distribution of the Population The largest population area is Pondok Aren district. For the Setu district, its population proportion is 5%, the area of the highest growing rate is Serpong Utara, 5.26%. [Table 4.3.3-1] Population and population density in South Tangerang No
District
Population
Growth (%)
Area (㎢)
Density (㎢/ person)
1
Setu
72,727
4.05
14.8
4,914
2
Serpong
151,899
4.45
26.04
6,319
3
Pamulang
308,272
3.07
26.82
11,494
4
Ciputat
207,885
3.29
18.38
11,310
5
Ciputat Timur
190,415
2.52
15.43
12,341
6
Pondok Aren
331,644
3.87
29.88
11,099
142,328
5.26
17.84
7,978
1,405,170
3.79
147.19
9,351
7
Serpong Utara Total
Source) South Tangerang BPS, 2012 4-21
4.3.4 Land Use Planning The development of residence area is planned to be approximately 7,610.67 acre distributed in entire city consisting of vertical and horizontal residence. Distribution of High Density Housing planned in South Tangerang City in 2031 includes Pondok Aren Sub-District, Ciputat Sub-District, East Ciputat Sub-District and Pamulang Sub-District. Medium industrial activities developed in the North Serpong Sub-District, Setu Sub-District, and Ciputat Sub-District with the provisions of the industrial activity does not cause negative impacts to the environment and the surrounding zone.
4.4 Assessment and survey of the needs for waste Infrastructure and Facilities Until 2031, solid waste need to be handled in South Tangerang City will reach 9,2 million l/d or 9.145 m3 per day. The projection of Solid Waste Facility Necessity in South Tangerang City (unit) 2013 [Table 4.4-1] Required Waste treatment facility in South Tangerang Year No
Criteria 2011
2015
2020
2025
2031
1
Amount of Solid Waste
2,444,192
3,135,819
4,045,496
5,250,592
6,859,139
2
Cart
367
470
607
788
1029
3
TPS
208
267
344
446
583
4
Open truck
175
224
289
375
490
5
Dum truck
204
261
337
438
572
Source) Spatial Planning
4-22
4.5 Measurement 4.5.1 Soil/Ground Investigation Soil survey was carried out to obtain the basic data for Stability Review of planning waste treatment facility, and to determine the geotechnical characteristics of the project site.
4.5.1.1 Survey Summary Field survey was conducted in consideration of the earthwork and construction planning. It was conducted to investigate the ground configuration and the project engineering characteristics of the site geotechnical investigation, and survey content and quantity is shown in Table 4.5.1-1 as follows; [Table 4.5.1-1] Survey topic· Division Field research
Laboratory tests
Quantity of Survey
Test Method
Drilling Survey
9
Water content
25
ASTM D-2216
Particle size analysis
25
ASTM D-422
Plastic Limit
20
ASTM D-4318
Liquid limit
20
ASTM D-4318
After the site invite, taking into consideration the nature of the business, the final location reasonably was determined by planning a research topic, survey times in consideration of structure plans, earth work plans.
4-23
[Table 4.55.1-2] Surveey positions Boreehole No.
X (m m)
Y (m)
E Elevation (m m)
B BH-1
638,84 45.239
9,300 0,594.694
28.219
B BH-2
683,67 75.420
9,300 0,448.422
31.258
B BH-3
683,56 64.501
9,300 0,500.673
26.488
B BH-4
683,62 26.620
9,300 0,702.887
28.450
B BH-5
683,50 06.296
9,300 0,651.594
22.385
B BH-6
683,76 62.000
9,300 0,503.000
-
B BH-7
683,57 71.000
9,300 0,853.000
-
B BH-8
683,57 75.930
9,300 0,957.880
-
B BH-9
683,74 40.000
9,300 0,996.000
-
[Figuree 4.5.1-1] Drilling poin nts
4-24
4.5.1.2 Findings 4.5.1.2.1 The results of drilling Overall, this stratum of clay is formed with high plasticity. Drillings were executed up to 15 m for BH 1, 3, 4, and 40 m for BH-2, 5 m for BH-5, and 22m for BH -6,7 and 14m for BH-8 and 46m for BH-9 in depth. [Table 4.5.1-3] Strata configuration Borehole No.
Depth
N values
Soil conditions
BH-1
0.0~15.0
4~60
Clay of high plasticity
BH-2
0.0~40.0
17~60
Clay of high plasticity
BH-3
0.0~15.0
8~52
Clay of high plasticity
BH-4
0.0~15.0
5~20
Clay of high plasticity
BH-5
0.0~5.0
9~60
No plastic sand
BH-6
0.0~22.0
7~60
Silt of high plasticity
BH-7
0.0~22.0
7~60
Poor-distributed sand
BH-8
0.0~14.0
60
Poor-distributed sand
BH-9
0.0~46.0
4~58
Clay of high plasticity
4-25
[Figure 4..5.1-2] Drillling log (BH H-1)
4-26
[Figure 4..5.1-3] Drillling log (BH H-2)
4-27
[Figure 4..5.1-4] Drillling log (BH H-2)
4-28
[Figure 4..5.1-5] Drillling log (BH H-3)
4-29
[Figure 4..5.1-6] Drillling log (BH H-4)
4-30
[Figure 4..5.1-7] Drillling log (BH H-5)
4-31
[Figuree 4.5.1-8] Drilling D log (BH-6)
4-32
[Figure 4.55.1-8] Drilliing log (BH H-6) (cons)
4-33
[Figuree 4.5.1-9] Drilling log (BH-7)
4-34
[Figure 4.55.1-9] Drilliing log (BH H-7) (cons)
4-35
[Figure 4.5.1-10] D Drilling log (BH-8)
4-36
[Figure 4.5.1-11] D Drilling log (BH-9)
4-37
[Figure 4.5..1-11] Drillling log (BH H-9) (cons))
4-38
[Figure 4.5.1--11] Drilling log (BH-9 9) (cons) 4-39
4.5.1.2.2 The results of groundwater level measurements Groundwater level measurements were carried out during soil survey work. BH-1~9 of groundwater level are shown in Table 4.5.1-4 [Table 4.5.1-4] The results of groundwater measurements Bore Holes
G.W.L (-)
BH-1
0.82m
BH-2
4.60-5.40m
BH-3
4.35m
BH-4
11.25m
BH-5
0.85m
BH-6
NA
BH-7
3.2m
BH-8
2.2m
BH-9
9.4m
4.5.1.2.3 The results of laboratory test Soil of the business district was investigated in a unified taxonomy salty clay or clay except for BH-5, 7, 8 points. Water content is 21.66 to 64.3% range, liquid limit has been investigated in the range 42.88 to 90.65% showed an overall high plasticity clay strata properties.
4-40
[Table 4.5.1-5] Laboratory test results Hole No.
BH-1
BH-2
BH-3
BH-4 BH-5
BH-6
BH-7
Unified classification
Water content % (w/w)
1.00-1.50
CH
56.23
84.68
52.42
2.50-3.00
CH
48.07
60.53
32.41
4.00-4.50
CL-CH
40.16
50.62
24.90
1.00-1.50
CH
54.80
59.12
30.09
2.50-3.00
CH
49.88
56.11
28.06
4.00-4.50
CH
64.30
90.65
54.28
1.00-1.50
CH
50.51
54.46
28.37
2.50-3.00
CH
50.87
54.91
28.99
4.00-4.50
CL
38.97
42.88
21.00
1.00-1.50
CH
54.15
72.83
41.79
2.50-3.00
CH
53.63
83.08
51.08
4.00-4.50
CH
52.69
78.21
46.96
1.00-1.50
SM
39.16
87.83
45.49
3.50-4.00
MH
40.04
84.72
45.33 45.44
7.50-8.00
MH
42.32
84.33
11.50-12.00
MH
42.06
77.52
40.85
1.50-2.00
CH
44.44
88.66
51.99
5.50-6.00
SP
26.46
-
-
9.50-10.00
SP
25.55
-
-
1.50-2.00
SP
21.66
-
-
5.50-6.00
SP
29.42
-
-
23.88
-
-
BH-8 9.50-10.00
BH-9
Atterrberg Liquid limit Plasticity index LL % PI %
Depth
Cemented sand
1.50-2.00
CH
52.88
75.47
43.33
5.50-6.00
CH
46.91
86.7
53.37
9.50-10.00
CH
47.5
83.99
50.65
4-41
4.5.1.2.4 Compaction and CBR tests Compaction results are showed that the optimum water content ranges from 21.0 to 30.5%, and the maximum dry unit weight was measured in 1.33 ~ 1.51ton /㎥.
Results of compaction and CBR tests are shown in Table 4.5.1-6. [Table 4.5.1-6] Compaction and CBR tests Hole No.
Optimal Maximum Dry Water content Compaction density (%) (t/㎥)
CBR Value (%) 10 times
25 times
56 times
2.5㎜
5.0㎜
2.5㎜
5.0㎜
2.5㎜
5.0㎜
BH-1
29.50
1.36
3.08 ~4.29
3.29 ~4.32
5.83 ~8.74
6.04 ~7.29
8.42 ~12.06
10.69 ~12.06
BH-4
30.50
1.34
3.08 ~3.32
3.24 ~3.78
3.64 ~6.64
3.89 ~5.94
6.48 ~7.29
7.02 ~8.64
BH-5
29.50
1.33
3.40 ~5.67
4.53 ~5.13
5.51 ~7.21
5.67 ~7.21
7.37 ~9.31
7.83 ~9.44
BH-7
29
1.33
4.17
4.91
6.38
7.53
12.77
12.44
BH-8
21
1.51
13.75
14.08
26.52
26.85
42.72
45.18
BH-9
28.5
1.35
4.91
4.91
6.38
7.53
11.29
10.8
4-42
4.5.2 Status survey 4.5.2.1 Purpose Plans and detailed topographic map of Cipeucang where currently operating identify for Indonesia Solid Waste Master Plan should ever serve as the basis for establishing expansion plan in accordance with the waste treatment installations.
4.5.2.2 Survey overview (1) The investigation period 2014 May 12, 2010 ~ June 12, 2014 (2) Survey position Around Cipeucang landfills currently operating - Tangerang Selatan District Serpong Sub-District Kademangan and serpong.
4.5.2.3 Findings (1) Reference point position GPS geodetic observations were obtained from a reference point, note that the reference point of the measurement is below the Table 4.5.2 – 1 as follows; [Table 4.5.2–1] Reference point position Point No. X/E (m)
Y/N (m)
Z (m)
BM.02 683857.955
9300572.689
34.974 (results of geodetic GPS measurements)
BM.05 683702.442
9300470.831
33.407 (results of geodetic GPS measurements)
BM.06 683672.475
9300463.053
31.628 (results of geodetic GPS measurements)
(2) Reference point calculation results Baseline processing results are shown in the [Table 4.5.2 - 2] as follows;
4-43
[Table 4.5.2–2] Reference point calculation results Observation
From
To
Solution Type
H.Prec.
V.Prec.
(Meter) (Meter)
Geodetic Az.
Ellipsoid DHeight Dist. (Meter) (Meter)
BM06---BM05 BM06 (B2)
BM 05
Fixed
0.003
0.004
75°16'04 30.96 "
1.78
BM06---BM02 BM06 (B1)
BM 02
Fixed
0.003
0.004
59°13'43 215.447 "
3.35
REFER REFERENSIBI BM G---BM06 (B5) ENSIBI 06 G
Fixed
0.01
0.03
311°01'3 27683.28 -119.876 2" 4
REFER REFERENSIBI ENSIBI BM G---BM02 (B4) 02 G
Fixed
0.017
0.055 311°27'0 27616.82 -116.31 1" 3
GPS treatment results are shown in Table 4.5.2-3. [Table 4.5.2-3] GPS processing results UTM Coordinates
No.
Number Point
East
North
X Y (meter) (meter)
TM3° Coordinates East
ZO NE
North
X Y (meter) (meter)
Geodetic Coordinates
Elevation Elevation
Latitude Longitude Ellipsoide ZO NE
S/N
E/W
MSL
WGS84 EGM2008
1
683,85 9,300,57 383,913. 800,362. S6°19'30 E106°39'4 BM 02 7.945 2.689 48 125 777 48.2 .08020" 3.58706" 52.362
34.974
2
683,70 9,300,47 383,757. 800,260. S6°19'33 E106°39'3 BM 05 48 48.2 50.792 2.442 0.831 575 888 .41211" 8.53830"
33.407
3
683,67 9,300,46 383,727. 800,253. S6°19'33 E106°39'3 BM 06 2.475 3.053 48 599 108 48.2 .66841" 7.56411" 49.012
31.628
BAK2_G 704,49 9,282,21 404,554. 782,000. S6°29'25 E106°50'5 4 PS BIG 2.929 5.440 48 301 019 48.2 .32608" 7.07106" 168.85
150.46
4-44
[Fiigure 4.5.2-1] TPA T Cipeucang Serpong survey y map 4-46
Feasibility Study on Integrated Municipal Solid Waste Management System In South Tangerang City
Chapter 5
Feasibility Study and Planning of Waste
Management System Development 5.1 Technical and Oper ational Plan 5.2 Economical and Financial Feasibility Study 5.3 Envir onmental Review 5.4 Social Review 5.5 Legal Review 5.6 Institutional Review
Chapter 5 Feasibility Study and Planning of Waste Management System Development 5.1 Technical and Oper ational Plan 5.1.1 Waste Sor ting/Stor age 5.1.1.1 Waste Sor ting Waste sorting from the source of waste is a new paradigm. In accordance with SNI 03-32432008, recyclable/reusable matters should be separated from disposable waste from the very source of discharge. The recycling rate of waste increases depending on the market price of the collected recyclable material, consumer’s behavior, policies of authorities concerned, etc. Collection of recyclable materials (paper, bottles, plastics, and metals) can be made in two ways: i) collect-and-sort, and ii) sort-and-collect. It is generally more effective to separate recyclables from waste before collecting waste from the source. The current Waste Bank System in effect in Indonesia is a good system where people take part in sorting recyclable material from waste source, which requires stations for recyclables and waste sorting bins installed in designated areas of alleys to create a daily living environment for easier sorting and dumping of recyclables and waste. Education in school, home, and daily life may help raise people’s awareness of waste sorting.
5.1.1.2 Stor age The amount of waste produced and the frequency of collection have a functional relation to the size of bin. That is, the higher the frequency of waste collection is, the smaller the size of bin will be, and vice versa. In addition, the nearer the bin is to the collection equipment, the easier the collection will be. On the other hand, the farther the bin is to the collection equipment and thus the longer collection takes time, the less the efficiency of collection will be. The material and structure of the bin, too, may increase/decrease the time required for waste collection. A light-weight bin can be easily moved to the collection equipment, while a heavy or stationary bin (made of concrete, for example) that is hard to move and empty is accordingly less efficient. Considering the density of waste 0.1∼ 0.4kg/L, the reasonable weight of the bin filled with waste will be 40 to 60L.
5-1
Coloring of bins - Organic waste: dark colored (green/blue) - Inorganic waste: light colored (yellow) - Hazardous household waste: red Location of bins - Bins for individual use should be located in the front yard of house, and the backyard of hotels and restaurants for aesthetic considerations. - Bins for public use should be located near the source of waste or where they do not obstruct walkers or public utilities. - Bins in the arterial road sides should be installed at least every 100m. There should be various types of bins for individual use to meet owner’s affordability and taste. - Bins generally should be made of hard-to-break and waterproof material, in an easy-toempty form, and in highly visible color. - Form: box, cylinder, pouch, container - Material: brick, metal, plastic, and alternative material - Size: 10 - 50L for residential area and small shops, 100-500L for offices, large shops, hotels, and restaurants Public bins should be installed in such places like slum streets, parks, roads, and markets. - Form: box, cylinder, pouch, container - Material: brick, metal, plastic, and alternative material - Size: 10-100L for roadside parks, and 100-500L for residential areas and markets The following types of waste containers are used in Indonesian cities: - Vinyl bags: 30-50L - Plastic bins: 40-50L - Wooden bins: 40-60L - Plastic bins with wheels: 120L - Permanent plastic bin: 70L - Enclosed iron bin: 100L - Plastic container: 500-1000L
5-2
Enclosed irron bin (30 0-100L)
Plastic bins (40-1120L)
Vinyl bags b (10-100L)
Plastic bins (500-11000L)
[Figure 5.11.1.2–1] Waaste Contaiiner s
[Tablee 5.1.1.1-1] Waste Con ntainers and Uses Conntainer
Capaccity
Ser vice
Ser vice v life
Usee
Vinyyl bags:
10-100 0L
1 householdd
-
Individuall/public
40L L
1 householdd
2-3 3 years
Individ dual
Plastic basket
120L L
2--3 householdds
2-3 3 years
140L L
4--6 householdds
2-3 3 years 2-3 3 years
Commeercial streeet Commeercial streeet Apartm ment buildiing Apartm ment buildiing
500L L
400 household ds
1000L
800 household ds
2-3 3 years
30-100 0L
siidewalk, parrk
2-3 3 years
Container Iron ccontainer
5-3
5.1.2 Collection/Tr anspor tation 5.1.2.1 Amount of Waste to Collect As the South Tangerang City is planning to achieve 100% of the target collection by 2019 according to the National Mid-term Development Plan as revised in 2014, this study estimated the amount of waste to be collected by DKPP from each district. Of the total waste generation at present, 25.4% is generated from private development areas and is collected/transported/disposed by private developers, which is thus excluded in this study. [Table 5.1.2.1-1] Amount of Waste to Be Collected by DKPP Classification
2013
Target rate of collection (%)
DKPP collection (ton/day)
2017
2019
2025
51.2%
74.6%
74.6%
Pondok Aren
23
97
147
173
Ciputat Timur
18
73
111
130 147
Ciputat
19
83
126
Serpong Utara
6
28
42
49
Pamulang
22
95
145
169
Setu
5
20
31
36
Serpong
5
22
33
39
Total
93
418
635
743
Source) Master Plan Report
5.1.2.2 How to Collect Waste collection is a basic step toward establishing a waste management system, and it takes about 70% of the total cost of waste management. Therefore, establishing an efficient waste collection system is critical to establishing a systematic waste management system and cutting the cost of waste management. Waste collection in Indonesia is classified into types of: Direct Individual (Door to Door), Indirect Individual (Bring System), Indirect Communal, and Road Sweeping. Major part of waste in South Tangerang City is being collected by the Bring System. In this sector-based collection, RT/RW will collect waste from the source to TPS/TPS 3R, while DKPP will be responsible for collection and transportation from TPS/TPS 3R to TPA. Moreover, TPS 3R/TPS needs continuous expansion to cover increased waste to collect, but the South
5-4
Tangerang City has difficulties in securing the site for TPS 3R installation. Thus until the year 2025, TPS 3R will be maintained at the present level while TPS will be increased steadily. TPS/TPS 3R installation requirements are as shown in the following table: [Table 5.1.2.1-1] Future Demand for TPS Classification 2016 Pondok Aren Ciputat Timur
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
102
138
186
218
227
234
237
247
256
265
61
82
109
126
132
134
140
144
149
154
Ciputat
64
86
117
136
139
144
147
153
158
163
Serpong Utara
46
63
84
97
102
103
108
111
114
118
Pamulang
94
127
173
200
206
214
218
228
234
243
Setu
19
27
37
45
46
49
51
52
52
55
Serpong
46
63
86
99
103
109
109
111
119
121
Total
432
586
792
921
955
987
1,010 1,046 1,082 1,119
[Table 5.1.2.1-2] Demand for TPS /3R in the Future Classification 2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Pondok Aren
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
Ciputat Timur
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Ciputat
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Serpong Utara
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pamulang
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Setu
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Serpong
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Total
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
5-5
5.1.2.3 Review of Transportation Syystem Means off waste trannsportation is i generallyy classified by: b vehicless, railway, ccontainer raiilway, shipping, monorail, conveyors, and pipelinnes. South Tangerang T City C currentlly transportts waste by the most m common means of transportatiion, vehiclees. The propposed wastee transportattion system may minim mize such prroblems as ttraffic jam and a bad smell cauused by incrreased garbage trucks, and cut thee vehicle’s trravel by aboout 32.4%, by the year 2020. [Table 5.1 1.2.3-1] Reeview of Tr anspor a tatio on System Classifi fication
Cu ur r ent system m
Gar age/tr ansfeer depot system
Overvview
Garbage truccks move frrom a DKPP G P gaarage in Pam mulang to thhe individuaal diistricts, collect waste, aand transporrt to TPA.
Runs a transfer ddepot in a diistrict, wherre the garbaage trucks co ollect waste in i their distrrict and tran nsport it to T TPA.
Traffic line
Mileeage (km/veehicle) Numbber of 258 2112 vehicles Accum mulated 7,803 5,2276 mileage (km) Note) The T accumulated mileag ge is estimaated based on o the amou unt of wastee collected in 2020. As agreeed in the interim wo orkshop in August 19 9, 2015, traansfer depot ots and garaages are plannedd to be insttalled in ind dividual disstricts to shhorten the trravel of annd transfer waste w to large arrm roll vehhicles. Based on the amount off waste collectable froom the district, an installattion plan foor 4 types off transfer deepot will be suggested.
5-6
[Table 5.1.2.3-2] Gar age and Tr ansfer Depots Installation Plan Classification
Gar age
Tr ansfer Depot Installed Facility capacity
Pondok Aren
O
O
200ton/day
Ciputat Timur
O
O
150ton/day
Ciputat
O
O
150ton/day
Serpong Utara
O
×
50ton/day
Pamulang
O
O
200ton/day
Setu
O
×
50ton/day
Serpong
O
×
50ton/day
[Table 5.1.2.3-3] Number of Gar bage Tr ucks Required When Tr ansfer Depots Are Oper ational (unit: vehicle) Classification Pondok Aren
Ciputat Timur
Ciputat
Serpong Utara
Pamulang
Setu
Serpong
South Tangerang City
ARM(5.5 ㎥) Pickup(2.5 ㎥)
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
22 18
23 19
23 19
24 20
25 20
25 21
26 21
ARM(25 ㎥)
-
7
7
8
8
8
8
Sub total ARM(5.5 ㎥) Pickup(2.5 ㎥) ARM(25 ㎥) Sub total ARM(5.5 ㎥) Pickup(2.5 ㎥) ARM(25 ㎥) Sub total ARM(5.5 ㎥) Pickup(2.5 ㎥) ARM(25 ㎥) Sub total ARM(5.5 ㎥) Pickup(2.5 ㎥) ARM(25 ㎥) Sub total ARM(5.5 ㎥) Pickup(2.5 ㎥) ARM(25 ㎥) Sub total ARM(5.5 ㎥) Pickup(2.5 ㎥) ARM(25 ㎥) Sub total ARM(5.5 ㎥) Pickup(2.5 ㎥) ARM(25 ㎥) Sub total
40 17 14 31 19 16 35 7 6 13 22 18 40 5 4 9 5 4 9 97 80 0 177
48 17 14 6 37 20 16 6 42 7 6 2 15 22 18 7 47 5 4 2 11 5 5 2 12 99 82 32 213
49 18 15 6 38 20 16 6 42 7 6 2 15 23 19 7 49 5 4 2 11 6 5 2 13 102 84 32 218
51 18 15 6 39 20 17 6 43 7 6 2 15 23 19 7 49 5 5 2 11 6 5 2 13 103 87 33 223
52 19 15 6 40 21 17 7 45 7 6 3 16 24 20 8 51 5 5 2 12 6 5 2 13 107 88 36 231
53 19 16 6 40 22 18 7 45 8 6 3 16 25 20 8 52 6 5 2 13 6 5 2 13 111 91 36 238
55 20 16 6 42 22 18 7 47 8 6 3 17 25 21 8 54 6 5 2 13 6 5 2 13 113 92 36 241
5-7
5.1.3 Processing 5.1.3.1 Suggesting an Alter native Korea witnessed ever increasing waste generation along with radical industrialization and urbanization since 1970’s, and is dealing with the increased waste by reducing the volume, sanitary treatment, collecting and recycling waste, etc. South Tangerang City at present landfills all the household wastes collected and is experiencing difficulties in securing the site. The city needs transition to a new waste processing system away from the existing landfilling system, which may minimize the amount of final waste disposal (landfill). Reviewing the possible alternatives that are applicable to the project site, this study suggests a new, forward thinking way of waste processing system that meets the local environment. Case 1 (Sanitar y Landfilling) This system constructs a sanitary landfill and buries all wastes there. Case 2 (Inciner ation) This system incinerates brought-in wastes after a simple crushing process and generates electricity using the heat generated from combustion. - Processes wastes in an incinerator, produces electricity using the heat, and then implements the CDM project. - Landfill remainders of incinerator in a sanitary way. CASE 3 (Crushing + Sor ting + Drying+ Gasification + Sanitar y Landfilling) This system processes the wastes brought into the waste treatment plant in a pre-treatment facility which includes the 1st crushing process, the 2nd crushing process, and the trommel screening and drying process, and then produces electricity using the synthetic gas generated from a gasifier. - As a means of pretreatment in the gasifier, total 651 ton/day of brought-in waste all goes through crushing, trommel screening, and drying processes to meet such requirements as: grain size not greater than 150mm, and water content not greater than 20%. - The pre-treated wastes (with grain size not greater than 150mm, and water content not
5-8
greater than 20%) are used to produce electricity using the synthetic gas generated from the gasifier. Then the CDM project is implemented. - Remainders after crushing and grain sorting, char or melt generated from the gasifier will be sanitarily landfilled. CASE 4 (Sor ting + Or ganic Waste Composting + Inciner ation + Sanitar y Landfilling) Having passed the simplified processes including crushing and trommel screening, wastes with grain size not greater than 80mm are carried to a composting facility, and those greater than 80mm are carried to the incinerator. This system uses the heat generated from the incinerator to produce electricity and buries remainders of incineration in a sanitary landfill. - Organic matters segregated after crushing and trommel screening are processed in a composting facility to produce compost. - Combustible wastes segregated after trommel screening are processed in the incinerator, producing electricity using the heat and then implementing the CDM project. - Remainders of trommel screening, composting, and incineration are landfilled. CASE 5 (MBT + Or ganic Waste Composting + Incineration + Sanitar y Landfilling) Based on the MBT system which consists of unpacking, crushing, trommel screening, and sorting organic matter from waste, this system establishes organic matter collection, organic waste composting, incineration and power generation, and sanitary landfill facilities in the project site. - After trommel screening the waste, the MBT system mechanically sorts out recyclables including plastic, metal, and bottles, which will be reused. Then the composting facility processes the sorted organic waste into compost. - Combustibles are processed in an incinerator, producing electricity using the heat, before starting the CDM project. - Remainders from sorting, composting, and incineration in the MBT system will be buried in the sanitary landfill. CASE 6 (Incineration (Chosen Areas) + Sanitar y Landfilling) Only the waste collected from some areas in the South Tangerang City will be incinerated as a model project. - Incinerate wastes collected from the chosen areas, produce electricity using the heat, and then implement the CDM project. - Then bury remaining waste and remainders of incineration in the sanitary landfill.
5-9
5.1.3.2 Selecting Waste Treatment Method 5.1.3.2.1 Capacity of Facilities Capacity of the waste treatment facilities for each case is estimated based on the amount of waste brought in the year 2020 (year of operational index), and the operational hours of the facilities are estimated based on the following: Operational index year: year 2020 Waste collection: 651 ton/day (based on 365 days/year) Operational hours of facilities - Sorting/pre-treatment facility, MBT, incinerator (gasifier): 300 days/year - Organic waste composting facility: 330 days/year [Table 5.1.3.2–1] Estimating Waste Treatment by Case Facility
Unit
CASE 1 CASE 2 CASE 3 CASE 4 CASE 5 CASE 6
Sorting ton/day 790 Sorting/ facility pre-treatment pre-treatment facility ton/day 790 facility MBT ton/day 790 Organic waste composting ton/day 181 345 Gasifier ton/day 424 Incinerator ton/day 790 592 300 238 Landfill ton/day 651 111 189 99 73 489 Note) CASE 1 : Landfill all CASE 2 : Incinerate all CASE 3 : Sorting + Drying + Gasification + Sanitary Landfilling CASE 4 : Sorting + Organic Waste Composting + Incineration + Sanitary Landfilling (incineration: 70% of waste collection) CASE 5 : MBT + Organic Waste Composting + Incineration + Sanitary Landfilling (incineration: 70% of waste collection) 50% of waste collection) CASE 6 : Incineration + Sanitary Landfilling (incineration: 30% of waste collection)
5-10
5.1.3.2.2 Mater iall Balance by Case The following f shhows mass balance by case: [unit: ton/day]
[Figure 5.1.3.2–1] M Mater ial Ballance in Waaste Treatm ment ※ Rem mainders geenerated fro om the incinnerator/gasiifier are estimated 17% % of the pro ocessing capacityy.
5-11
5.1.3.2.3 Economic Efficiency by Case The following table shows a general review of construction cost, operation cost, operational profit, etc. [Table 5.1.3.2 – 2] Economic Efficiency by Case Year 2020 CASE2 Classification
Facility capacity (ton/day) Estimated heat generated after treatment (kcal/kg) Impurities Landfill (ton/day)
CASE 3
CASE 4
CASE 5
CASE 6
(Pr eOr ganic Or ganic Inciner ate tr eatment Inciner ate Inciner ate matter Inciner ate matter all + 70% 30% composting composting gasification) 790
790
592
1,800
3,000
2,100
181
300
345
238
2,800
-
1,800 455
0
130
0
0
0
0
Ashes
110
59
83
16
42
31
33
Subtotal
110
189
83
16
42
31
488
-
4,512
-
3,564 460
Total Incineration (gasification) Construction Turbine cost Sorting facility (0.1 billion Composting Rp) facility Subtotal Operational staffs (person) Fixed cost Operation Variable cost cost (0.1 billion Subtotal Rp/year) Subtotal Electricity generated (kWh) Electricity used (kWh) Electricity purchased (kWh) Electricity selling price (Rp/㎾) Valuable material selling price (Rp/kg) Compost selling price (Rp/ton) Electricity sales Profit Valuable (0.1 billion material sales Rp/year) Compost sales Subtotal
110
189
11,880
6,359
99
73
8,887
488
920
920
920
-
460
-
-
5,544
1,500
-
5,544
-
-
-
-
-
155
-
295
-
12,800
12,823
45 65
45 65
25 8
38 35
11,462 40 54
10,811
4,024 37 15
36 30
343
343
284
2
183
5
157
408
408
338
10
218
20
187
-
5,000 1,600 3,400
-
2,200 1,200 1,000
-
302
-
89
408
408
11,400 2,600 8,800
17,700 2,800 14,900
348 9,100 2,000 7,100
238
187
1,450 Refer to Table Free 781
1,322
630
-
-
-
-
215
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
781
1,322
630
Source) Master Plan Report
5-12
517
89
5.1.3.2.4 Selectingg Waste Treeatment Meethod Having analyzed a conditions of the proposeed site of th he waste treaatment facillity from vaarious points off view and having h closeely consulteed with locaal sharehold ders based oon the wastee treatmennt method annd the estim mated facilityy capacity, this study selected a w waste treatmeent method tthat is optim mal to South h Tangerangg City and ensures efficciency, econnomic feasib bility, reliabilityy, and stability. The wastte control taarget of the project site South Tanggerang City is to minim mize the finaal disposal.. This studyy recommends the incinneration metthod (Case 2) that has rrelatively lo ow rate of energyy recovery but b minimizzes final dissposal and ensures e stable treatmennt.
5.1.4 F Final Proccessing The 18thh Law of Inddonesia (2008) providees two typess of landfill: sanitary laandfill and controlleed landfill, which w can be b chosen coonsidering the t local con nditions. Considerring that thee project sitee is located near the Ciisadang riveer and resideential areas, in order to ensure e stablle processin ng of wastess and protecction of the environmennt, the sanittary landfill will w be usedd.
[Figu ure 5.1.4-1]] Concept of o Sanitar y Landfill Table 5.11.4-1 showss features off the sanitarry landfill an nd the unsan nitary landffill in comparison:
5-13
[Table 5.1.4 – 1] Features of Sanitary Landfill with Unsanitar y Landfill in Compar ison Classification
Sanitar y landfill
Open dumping
Construction
Step-by-step facility construction of reasonable scale through engineering design
Uses vacant land or bed excavation relying on experiences without engineering expertise
Liner system Landfill method Soil covering
Installed using geotextiles and clay
None
Compaction to reduce volume
Open dumping
Yes
Leachate
Discharge after processing
No Uncontrolled discharge without processing
Is there landfill gas discharge facility?
Yes
No
Management type
Continuous management
No management
Sanitary landfills differ each other in their waste storage structure and catchment/drainage facilities for leachate and rain water based on the topography of the site, and therefore designing of the landfill needs full consideration of these. The topography of the project site is mostly a plane except the area adjacent to the Cisadang river. The project site is a plane with the largest difference in altitude about 6m [EL (+) 27-35 m]. Mountain landfill
Land landfill
Canyon landfill
Plain landfill Landfill Inland water landfill Water area landfill Sea area landfill [Figure 5.1.4-2] Classification of Landfills by Topogr aphy
5-14
5.1.5 E Estimatin g Deman d for Wasste Infr asstructure and Facillity 5.1.5.1 Estimatedd Populatiion South Taangerang Ciity’s populattion increasses every yeear, and the planned poppulation in 2015 is set 2,1000,000, aboutt 49% increase from 20012. Regionallly, Pondok Aren has th he largest poopulation 49 97,700, folllowed by Paamulang, Ciputat, Ciputat T Timur, Serpong, and Seetu in order.. [Ta ble 5.1.5.1--1] South T Tanger ang City’s C Popu ulation Forrecast Estim mated Popu ulation
Distr ict
Cur r ent Pop pulation (2012)
2015
2020
2025
P Pondok Arenn
33 31,644
364,269
425,652
497,7000
Ciputat Timuur
19 90,415
205,958
240,664
281,4000
Ciputat
20 07,885
225,939
264,012
308,7000
Seerpong Utarra
14 42,328
158,311
184,988
216,3000
Pamulang
30 08,272
335,066
391,528
457,8000
Setu
72,727 7
79,924
93,392
109,2000
Serpong
15 51,899
167,533
195,764
228,9000
Total
1,4 405,170
11,537,000
1,796,000
2,100,00 0
Rem mar k
[Fiigure 5.1.5..1-1] Southh Tanger angg City’s Population Foorecast
5-15
5.1.5.2 Waste Generation A study of South Tangerang City’s unit waste generation by source revealed that wastes are generated by 0.60kg/person/day in the dry season and 0.51kg/person/day in the rainy season, averaged to 0.56kg/person/day. Future waste generation estimated by multiplying this unit waste by population of each district is as shown in the following table: [Table 5.1.5.2-1] Future Waste Gener ation (ton/day) Unit waste by sour ce (kg/capita/d)
Distr ict
2015
2020
2025 234
Pondok Aren
0.47
171
200
Ciputat Timur
0.73
150
176
205
Ciputat
0.62
140
164
191
Serpong Utara
0.54
85
100
117
Pamulang
0.50
168
196
229
Setu
0.52
42
49
57
Serpong
0.62
104
121
142
Total
0.56
860
1,006
1,175
Remark
5.1.5.3 Estimation of Waste Collection Referring to the Cieucang Landfill Waste Collection Data, South Tangerang City’s waste collection service by DKPP is estimated to cover 23.3 % as of 2014. [Table 5.1.5.3-1] Present DKPP’s Waste Collection Service Distr ict
2012
2013
Waste generation (ton/day)
747
765
782
(㎥/day) Density (ton/㎥) (ton/day)
233
350
607
0.30
0.30
0.30
70
105
182
9.4%
13.7%
23.3%
DKPP collection
Collection service coverage (%)
2014
This study expects that if DKPP’s collection service is expanded by 30% every year it will reach 74.6% by 2019, and if the collection and transport service by private sector 25% (estimated based on the area of collection) is added, waste collection service may cover the
5-16
entire South Tangerang City. [Table 5.1.5.3-2] Waste Collection Service by Pr ivate Sector (2012) Distr ict
Population (2012)
Pr ivate sector
Pr opor tion (% )
Pondok Aren
331,644
88,689
26.7
Ciputat Timur
190,415
6,954
3.7
Ciputat
207,885
-
-
Serpong Utara
144,328
72,779
51.1
Pamulang
308,272
70,190
22.8
Setu
72,727
21,253
29.2
Serpong
151,899
97,328
64.1
Total
1,405,170
357,188
25.4
Remark
To achieve 100% service coverage by 2019 as demanded by the Indonesian government, the waste collection service expansion plan and waste control targets are established as shown in the following table: [Table 5.1.5.3-3] Waste Collection Ser vice Expansion Plan Unit: % Classification Public sector (DKPP) Private sector Total
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
39.4
51.2
66.6
74.6
74.6
74.6
74.6
74.6
74.6
74.6
25.4
25.4
25.4
25.4
25.4
25.4
25.4
25.4
25.4
25.4
64.8
76.6
92.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
[Table 5.1.5.3-4] Waste Control Tar gets Classification Waste generation Recycle Throughput (ton/day) Non-Handle (ton/day) Collection rate TPS’s collection (ton/day) TPS3R’s collection (ton/day) - Recycle (ton/day) - Remainder (ton/day) Private sector’s collection/transport (ton/day) DKPP’s collection/transport (ton/day)
Tar get (ton/day) 2017
2019
2025
915 85 830(100%) 194(23.4%) 76.6% 405 20 7 13
975 116 859(100%) 100% 621 20 6 14
1,175 171 1,004(100%) 100% 729 20 6 14
211
218
255
418
635
743
5-17
[Table 5.1.5.3-5] DKPP’s Waste Collection by District Future collection (ton/day) District
2017
2019
2025
Pondok Aren
97
147
173
Ciputat Timur
73
111
130 147
Ciputat
83
126
Serpong Utara
28
42
49
Pamulang
95
145
169
Setu
20
31
36
Serpong
22
33
39
Total
418
635
743
Remark
5.1.5.4 Estimating Facility Capacity 5.1.5.4.1 Incinerator The incinerator is planned to be launched in the year 2020 taking account of the administrative procedure and construction period. As of 2020, the amount of incineration will be 651 ton/day (assuming 365 days/year). The operating day of the incinerator is set at 300 days/year considering the period of facility maintenance and repair. Considering the operational index year and the operating days, the facility capacity of the incinerator is estimated 790 ton/day as detailed below: [Table 5.1.5.4-1] Estimation of Incinerator Facility Capacity Classification
Year 2020
Waste generation (ton/day)
1,006
Remark
Incineration (ton/day)
651
A
Operating days
300
B
Facility capacity (ton/day)
792
C=A×365÷B
Value used
790
5-18
5.1.5.4.2 Landfill Facility If all waste collection is landfilled, securing the site will be a problem. Thus this study plans that from the year 2020 when the incinerator starts operation, only the remainders after incineration will be landfilled. Landfill area is estimated based on the following: - Landfill density: incineration 1.0 ton/㎥, domestic waste 0.7 ton/㎥ - Landfill height: 15 m - Amount of covering soil (㎥) is 15% of the volume of waste (㎥). Landfill site area is 12.36 ha as shown in the following table: [Table 5.1.5.4-2] Scale of Landfill Facility Classification
2016-2019
2020-2025
Total
Amount of waste brought in (㎥)
1,153,111
389,533
1,542,644
Landfill area (ha)
9.24ha
3.12ha
12.36ha
5-19
5.1.6 Basic Design 5.1.6.1 Tr ansfer Depot 5.1.6.1.1 Over view A transfer depot is needed for long distance transport of wastes in large vehicles transferred from small garbage trucks, whose system is classified into direct dumping, storage-anddumping, and direct storage and dumping. As of 2013, the waste collection in South Tangerang City uses the direct transport system where a garbage truck starts from DKPP garage, goes to its own district, collects wastes, and transports to the landfill. Considering the transport cost and environmental aspects, this study suggests installing and operating a transfer depot by district. In the “Master Plan On Integrated Municipal Solid Waste Management System In South Tangerang City (2015),” South Tangerang City revealed that it would be economically and environmentally advantageous to install and operate a transfer depot by district including garbage truck garages. This feasibility study suggests a model of installation and operation of the transfer depot for South Tangerang City. 5.1.6.1.2 Tr ansfer Depot Review Cr iter ia Indonesian laws and guidelines for transfer depot Study results and suggestions for transfer depots as detailed in the “Master Plan On Integrated Municipal Solid Waste Management System In South Tangerang City (2015)” Review of transfer depots including garbage truck garages Proposal for a model of transfer depot installation and operation 5.1.6.1.3 Tr ansfer Depot Basic Design (1) Estimation of Facility Capacity This FS estimated the facility capacity of the transfer depot model, based on the waste generation forecast by district, DKPP’s collectable amount of waste, and the number of garbage trucks/transport vehicles as detailed in the “Master Plan On Integrated Municipal Solid Waste Management System In South Tangerang City (2015).” As shown in the following Table 5.1.6.1-1, the future waste generation collectable by DKPP is estimated around 36-173 ton/day as of 2025. Therefore this feasibility study estimated the
5-20
facilityy capacity of o the standaard model oof South Tanngerang City for 3 casees: 200 ton/d day, 150 ton/dayy, and 50 toon/day. [Table 5.1.6.1-1] South S Tang ger ang Cityy’s Future Waste W Geneer ation Colllectable by y DKPP (unit: ton/day) Claassificationn 2016 201 17 2018 20019 2020 2021 2 2022 2023 20244 2025 Rem mar k Poondok Aren 73 97 7 Cipputat Timurr 55 73 3 Ciputat 62 83 3 Serrpong Utaraa 21 28 8 P Pamulang 72 95 5 Setu 15 20 0 Serpong 16 22 2 Total 314 418
129 97 110 37 127 27 29 556
1447 111 1226 442 1445 331 333 6335
151 114 129 43 148 32 34 651
155 117 132 44 152 33 35 668
159 120 135 45 155 34 36 684
163 124 139 46 160 34 37 703
168 126 143 48 164 35 37 721
173 130 147 49 169 36 39 743
200 15 50 15 50 50 5 200 50 5 50 5 -
(2) Treaatment Proocess Considerring Indonesia’s hot and humid cliimate and high proportion of organnic matters in wastes, this FS sugggests the dirrect dischargge system for fo the transffer depot onn the basis of o transfer aand ship out wastes colllections wiithin 24 hou urs.
[ [Figure 5.1.6.1-1] Tra nsfer Depoot Based on n Direct Disschar ge Sysstem (Exam mple) In this syystem wastee collectionss by small ggarbage truccks are transsferred to laarger vehicles, spread evvenly and hardened, h an nd shipped oout to the laandfill when n the load iss full. The workflow w is as below w:
5-21
[Fig gure 5.1.6.1 -2] Tr ansfeer Depot Wor W kflow ① Waaste carry inn Southh Tangerangg City’s pick kup trucks ((2.5 ㎥) annd arm roll trucks t (5.5 ㎥) collect and transpoort wastes to the transffer depot. ② Traansfer wastee to large arrm roll Dum mp the wastee in an arm roll r (25.0㎥ ㎥) waiting inn the waste transfer deppot. ③ Spread & hardden waste Usingg a backhoee, spread an nd compact w waste dump p in the arm m roll (25.0㎥ ㎥). ④ Waaste carry ouut Whenn the arm rooll (25.0㎥) is filled upp with wastees, a standby y arm roll trruck mounts the arm rooll (25.0㎥) and carries to Cipeucaang TPA. (3) Layyout Considdering the trransshipmen nt facility, tthe essentiall facility of the transferr depot, mainteenance buildding for opeeration stafffs, parking lots l and trafffic line of ggarbage trucks//transshipm ment vehicles, this FS foormed a layout plan. This sttudy estimaated 200 ton ns/day, 150 ttons/day, annd 50 tons/d day as the caapacity of th he standaard transfer depot d based d on South T Tangerang City’s C futuree waste genneration colllectable by DK KPP from individual disstricts and ccalculated th he area requ uirements coonsidering the t numbeer of garbagge trucks/traansshipmentt vehicles annd staffs req quired.
5-22
[Tablee 5.1.6.1-2] Waste Colllection andd Tr anspor t Vehicles Required R foor Tr ansferr Depot by F acility Cappacity Classsification
Picku up tr uck (2.5㎥)
Ar mr oll t r uck (5.5㎥ ㎥)
Arr mr oll tr uck k (25.0㎥)
Sum m
200 ton/day 25 30 9 (667 ㎥) 150 ton/day 18 23 7 (500 ㎥) 50 ton/day 7 8 3 (167 ㎥) Note: on the basis of 3 times/v vehicle/day of waste coollection and transfer
64 48 18
Armrolll truck 25.0 0㎥ Arm mroll truck 5.5 5 ㎥ Piickup truck 2.5 ㎥ Transsfer depot operation o staaffs includinng the direcctor are estim mated as 2000 ton/day - 8, 150tonn/day - 7, 500ton/day - 5 persons, ass detailed below: [Tabble 5.1.6.1-33] Staffs Reequired for Oper ating g Tr ansfer Depot D by F acility Cap pacity St aff
2 00 TPD
150 TPD T
50 TPD
Direector
1
1
1
G General affaiirs/accountin ng
1
1
1
Backhoee operator
1
1
1
T Traffic contrrol within th he faciility
2
2
1
Cleaner
3
2
1
Tootal
8 staffs
7 staaffs
5 staffs
5-23
200 tonn /day layouu t
[Figure 5.1.6.1-3] T Tr ansfer Depot Layou u t (200 TPD D)
5-24
[Figure 5.1.6.1-4] Transfer Deppot Tr ansshh ipment Bu u ilding Layyout (200 TP PD)
5-25
5-26
[F F igure 5.1.66.1-5] Tr anssfer Depot Tr ansshipm ment Build ding Profilee Section (2 200 TPD)
[Figure 5.1.6.1-6] Tr T ansfer Deepot Mainttenance Building Layoout (200 TP PD)
5-27
Maintenancee Building Profile/Crosss Section (20 00TPD) [F F igure 5.1.66.1-7] Transsfer Depot M
5-28
1500ton/day layyout
[Figure 5.1.6.1-8] T Tr ansfer Depot Layou u t (150 TPD D) 5-29
[Figure 5.1.6.1-9] Transfer Deppot Tr ansshh ipment Bu u ilding Layyout (150 TP P D)
5-30
[Figgure 5.1.6.11-10] Tr anssfer Depot Tr ansshipm m ent Build d ing Profilee Section (150 TPD) 5-31
[Figure 5.1.6.1-11] Tr ansfer Deepot Maintenance Buiilding Layoout (150 TP P D)
5-32
[Figure 5.11.6.1-12] Transfer Deppot Maintennance Build ding Profille/Cross Secction (150 TPD D)
5-33
50ton/dd ay layout
[Figure 5.1.6.1-13] Tr ansfer Depot Layo out (50 TPD D) 5-34
[Figure 5.1.6.1-14] Tr ansfer Deepot Tr anssshipment Building Laa yout (50 TP P D)
5-35
[Fiigure 5.1.6.1-15] Tr ansfer Depot Tr ansshipm m ent Build d ing Profilee Section (5 50 TPD)
5-36
[Figure 5.1.6.1-16] Tr ansfer D Depot Maintenance Bu u ilding Layyout (50 TP P D)
5-37
[Figure 5.11.6.1-17] Transfer Deppot Maintennance Build ding Profille/Cross Secction (50 TPD D) 5-38
(4) Constr uction Over view and Floor Planning ■ Constr uction Over view 200ton/day Classification
About 5,300.0 ㎡ (76.2m×69.6 m)
Site area Building area Extended area Scale
50ton/day
About 4,600.0 ㎡ (76.2m×60.4 m)
About 3,000.0 ㎡ (76.2m×39.4 m)
665 ㎡
324 ㎡
665.00 ㎡
324 ㎡
525 ㎡
192 ㎡
665 ㎡
324 ㎡
665.00 ㎡
324 ㎡
525 ㎡
192 ㎡
1 floor over 1 floor over 1 floor over 1 floor over 1 floor over 1 floor over the ground the ground the ground the ground the ground the ground
Max. height Structure
150ton/day
Tr ansshipment Maintenance Tr ansshipment Maintenance Tr ansshipment Maintenance Building Building Building Building Building Building
4.5 m
4.4 m
4.5 m
4.4 m
4.5 m
4.4 m
Reinforced Reinforced Reinforced Reinforced Reinforced Reinforced concrete concrete concrete concrete concrete concrete
ㆍ Pickup x 25 ㆍ Arm roll (5.5 ㎥) x 30 Parking plan ㆍ Arm roll (8 ㎥) x 4 ㆍ Passenger car x 26 (for staffs)
ㆍ Pickup x 23 ㆍ Arm roll (5.5 ㎥) x 18 ㆍ Arm roll (8 ㎥) x 7 ㆍ Passenger car x 21 (for staffs)
ㆍ Pickup x 8 ㆍ Arm roll (5.5 ㎥) x 7 ㆍ Arm roll (25 ㎥) x 3 ㆍ Passenger car x 11 (for staffs)
■ Planning Cr iteria Facility building planning focuses on: - Installation of perimeter shielding wall (2m) - Installation of trench and sump pit, septic tank to collect cleaning water and domestic wastewater Maintenance building planning focuses on: - Steel concrete structure considering economic feasibility - Director’s office
5-39
■ Floor Planning Transfer depot’s spatial areas and uses are as follows, where the free spaces offer a buffer zone for traffic line, parking lots for waste collection/transshipment vehicles and staff’s cars, and a storage for 25㎥ arm rolls in the transfer depot. [Table 5.1.6.1-4] Summar y of Tr ansfer Depot Functional Areas Classification 200 TPD 150 TPD 50 TPD Maintenance 324 ㎡ building Transshipment 665 ㎡ building
192 ㎡ ㆍ Office and resting place for management staffs
665 ㎡
525 ㎡ ㆍ Waste transshipment area
ㆍ Parking lots for waste collection/transshipment vehicles and others ㆍ Buffer zone for traffic line, arm roll’s temporary storage, etc. 5,300 ㎡ 4,600 ㎡ 3,000 ㎡ ㆍ Entire site area
Parking lot
1,332 ㎡ 1,102 ㎡
Free space
2,979 ㎡ 2,509 ㎡ 1,822 ㎡
Total
Descr iption
324 ㎡
461 ㎡
(5) Equipment List Running the transfer depot will require such equipment wheel-type backhoes for waste spreading/hardening, as detailed below: - Backhoe: Wheel type, bucket capacity 0.175㎥, max. digging radius 6,110㎜ [Table 5.1.6.1-5] Equipment list of Tr ansfer Depot Classification
200 TPD
150 TPD
50 TPD
Backhoe (bucket capacity 0.175 ㎥)
1
1
1
5-40
5.1.6.1.4 Tr ansfer Depot Oper ation Plan (1) Oper ational staffs Operating the transfer depot will require, by facility capacity, 8 staffs for 200 ton/day, 7 for 150 ton/day, and 5 for 50 ton/day. Their responsibilities would be as detailed below: [Table 5.1.6.1-6] Summar y Of Tr ansfer Depot Staff & Requirement Staff
200
150
50
Director
1
1
1
ㆍ Direct transfer depot
Responsibilities
General affairs/accounting
1
1
1
ㆍ General affairs/accounting
Backhoe operator
1
1
1
Traffic controller
2
2
1
ㆍ Managing 2n floor of transshipment facility, spreading and hardening transshipment waste ㆍ Transfer depot vehicle access management
Cleaner
3
2
1
ㆍ Keep the transfer depot clean
Total
8 persons 7 persons 5 persons
(2) Wor kflow ① Car r y in waste Garbage trucks including pickup trucks (2.5 ㎥) and arm roll trucks (5.5 ㎥) leave the garage in the transfer depot, collect waste in a district, and carry into the transfer depot. ② Tr ansfer waste to lar ge ar m roll The garbage truck enters the 2nd floor of the transshipment building as instructed by a traffic controller, goes to the dumping site as directed by the backhoe operator, and dumps the waste to the arm roll (25.0㎥) that is on standby. Once transshipment is finished, the garbage truck parks at the parking lot in the transfer depot, rests for a while, and then leaves for waste collection in another district. In the transshipment area, special precautions should be taken to avoid fall of vehicles due to frequent forward/backward driving for waste dumping and collision of backhoes and garbage trucks, because the area is where heavy machines and human work together with lots of waste in a limited space.
5-41
③ Spread & har den waste The backhoe operator pushes the transshipped waste toward inside the the arm roll (25.0㎥) to make room for the next garbage truck to dump waste, and compacts the waste load to use the arm roll (25.0㎥) more efficiently. ④ Car r y Out Waste Once an arm roll (25.0㎥) is fully loaded with waste by work of the backhoe, a standby arm roll truck loads the arm roll and transfers it to Cipeucang TPA. Then another arm roll truck moves an empty arm roll to this vacancy to continue to the next transshipment of waste. To minimize odor and other environmental problems, waste retention in the transshipment site should be minimized, i.e., waste should be transshipped and shipped out in 24 hours.
(3) Counterplan for Environmental Pollution As the waste transshipment space is where garbage trucks and transshipment vehicles frequently access and backhoes work, the inside of the transfer depot will not be visible from outside, and the waste transshipment building will be a partly open structure to ensure proper ventilation and lighting. Trenches, sump pits, and septic tanks will be installed to collect cleaning water and domestic wastewater and thus to avoid direct discharge to rivers and streams. This plan will: install a net at the frond end of the sump pit to prevent piping from being clogged by vinyl and other domestic wastes and impurities; process the cleaning water temporarily drained in the sump pit by interlocking with the septic tank; and drain domestic wastewater directly to the septic tank. The overlying water in the septic tank will be discharged through a sewer or sanitary sewer. Sediment in the sump pits and the septic tank will be cleaned periodically to ensure proper treatment of cleaning water and domestic wastewater. The sump pit acts as a buffer zone that segregates household waste and impurities, and soil that can be introduced with cleaning water, and the capacity requirement was estimated on an assumption that the cleaning water will stay 4 hours.
5-42
[Table 5.1.6.1-7] Estimation of Sump Pit Capacity by Facility Capacity Facility Cleaning water Building (㎥/use) Transshipment 200ton/day 4 building Transshipment 150ton/day 3 building
Classification
Sump pit capacity
Remark
1.0 ㎥(1.0m×1.0m×1.0 m)
Excess rate 1.0 ㎥(1.0m×1.0m×1.0 m) considered Transshipment 50ton/day 1 0.343 ㎥(0.7m×0.7m×0.7 m) building In the above, estimation of the cleaning water requirements assumed: cleaning water 0.02 ㎥ /ton of waste, washing twice a week, and part of waste dropped on the floor in the course of transshipment of waste from small trucks to large ones in the transfer depot. [Table 5.1.6.1-8] Calculation of Cleaning Water Gener ation by Facility Capacity Classification
Capacity of Facility (ton/day)
Cleaning water (㎥/use)
200
4
150
3
50
1
Transshipment building Cleaning water
Remar k
ㆍ Water 0.02 ㎥/ton of waste ㆍ Washing twice a week
Source) Guideline and Description of Waste Treatment Facility Structure (1991, Ministry of Environment, Korea) Domestic wastewater includes toilet water and other domestic wastewater used by Transfer Depot staffs and was estimated assuming that 120 L/person/day would be generated from each source. Estimation of the capacity of the septic tank considered the amount of the above cleaning water and domestic wastewater generated. [Table 5.1.6.1-9] Estimation of Septic Tank Capacity by Facility Capacity Capacity Number of Domestic Cleaning Septic tank Classification of Facility staffs wastewater Remar k (ton/day) (person) (㎡/day) water (㎥/use) Capacity (㎥) Septic tank
200
8
0.96
4
150
7
0.84
3
8 6
50
5
0.60
1
3
Source) Guideline and Description of Waste Treatment Facility Structure (1991, Ministry of Environment, Korea)
5-43
5.1.6.1.5 Constr uction Cost and Oper ation Cost (1) Constr uction Cost 7,081 million Rp is expected to used as construction cost for the transfer depot, and the details by work are as below: [Table 5.1.6.1-10] Constr uction Cost Classification
200 TPD
150 TPD
50 TPD
Mechanical work
858
858
858
Civil work Building work Electrical work Total
3,363 5,340 1,011 10,572
2,817 5,340 1,011 10,026
1,752 3,872 599 7,081
Remar k Vehicles and equipment purchase
(2) Oper ation Cost ① Calculation Cr iter ia Overhead expenses are 20% of the labor cost. Repair cost is 0.75% of the net construction cost. Electricity charge = standing charge + usage fee Service water charge is calculated based on the usage of cleaning water and tap water. Other expenses are 1% of the variable cost. ② Calculation of Oper ation Cost [Table 5.1.6.1-11] Oper ation Cost Classification Labor cost Overhead Fixed expenses cost Subtotal Repair Variable Electricity Fuel cost Service water Others Subtotal Total
200TPD 168,600,000
150TPD 150,600,000
50TPD 118,200,000
33,720,000
30,120,000
23,640,000
202,320,000
180,720,000
141,840,000
61,890,000
58,740,000
41,752,000
123,456,000 55,440,000 5,737,000
123,456,000 46,200,000 4,595,200
74,137,000 39,960,000 2,314,000
2,465,000
2,329,000
1,551,000
248,988,000 451,308,000
235,320,200 416,040,000
159,714,000 298,554,000
5-44
Remar k 20% of Labor cost 0.75% of purity Construction cost
1.0% of Variable cost
5.1.6.2 Facility Layout L Plaan 5.1.6.2.1 Project Site S Over view Accordinng to the spaatial plan (R RT/RW) of tthe South Tangerang T ciity, the currrently operaating Cipeucanng Landfill is located in n Serpong, Cipeucang Serpong, an nd Cetu Kaddemangan. Waste lanndfill is divvided into 3 zones, wheere Zone 1 is 1.72 ha an nd currentlyy operating, Zone 2 is 2.0 ha and is consstructing a new n landfilll, and Zone 3 is 7.5 ha but b is experriencing diff fficulty in securinng the site, according to t the consuultation with h DKPP. At presennt, DKPP iss planning to o secure a ssite located in the east of o Zone 1, oof which 4.1 13 ha may accoommodate the t waste management m facility, considering th he buffer zoone (50 m wide) w along thee Cisadang river. Moreover, takingg account off an incinerator and intternal roads, the planned llandfill site in the mastter plan (3.112ha, 2020--2025) seem ms hard to seecure. Thereforre, the Southh Tangerang g city needss to either seecure an add ditional landdfill site to bury waste inccluding botttom ash since 2022 neaar the projecct site or cooperate witth other citiees in the Banten province. p
[Figure 5.1.6.2-1] Ciipeucang L Landfill Dev velopment Plan in Spaatial Plann ning (RT/R RW) 5.1.6.2.2 Facilitiess Layout The projeect site has existing lan ndfill, manaagement and d auxiliary facilities, f annd a few houses, located aat EL(+) 20..0 - 35.0 m, and consistts of plane with w slope below b 5% eexcept somee areas adjacent to the Cisaddang river.
5-45
[Figgure 5.1.6.22 –2] Locattion of Projject Site
Zone 1 Landfill L (View 1)
Whole W View of Pr oject Site (View 2)
[Figure 5.1..6.2 –3] Prooject Site Photos
Facilitiess to be instaalled in the project p site can be classified into a landfill, ann incinerato or, and managem ment and suupport facilitties. Incinerrator is locaated near thee entrance, aand for easy y access to the faccility by largge trucks, an a 8m wide road inside the facility y and a 5m w wide road arround the landffill are constructed. The dom mestic waste landfill is located l nearr Zone 1 forr the purposse of securinng the landffill capacity as large as possible thrrough intercconnection with w Zone 1, 1 and a 50 m wide bufffer zone is locatedd between the Cisadangg river and the landfill.. The landfill for Type 22(fly ash) iss
5-46
located in the south of the incinerator, having a roof structure to avoid rainwater inflow. Considering that leachate generated from this extension landfill is planned to be transferred to and processed in the existing leachate treatment facility (zone 1 and 2), this is excluded from the layout plan. Since there is no measuring system in the Cipeucang Landfill, the layout plan considered the traffic line. - The true height of the project site is planned to be EL (+) 27-35 m considering accessibility from external approach ways, safety from natural disasters, and harmony with the terrestrial environment. Plans for using the project site are as shown in the following table: [Table 5.1.6.2-1] Plan for Land Use in Expansion Section Item
Ar ea (㎡)
Pr opor tion
Domestic waste landfill
10,028
19.0%
Waste landfill for Type 2(fly ash)
3,150
6.0%
Incinerator
13,373
25.4%
Auxiliary facilities (road, buffer zone, etc)
11,984
22.7%
Buffer Zone
14,169
26.9%
Total
52,704
100%
Remar k
-The bed of the proposed landfill site is found silty clay (SC) that is relatively hard according to the result of a standard penetration test, 5 to 50 times. And the groundwater level is GL(-) 4.6-5.3m in average, therefore it is right to excavate 2m below the surface of the ground, but to secure landfill capacity within the limited site, this study plans to excavate 5.0m below the surface ground, with 5m-high layers. Earthwork criteria are as shown in the following table. [Table 5.1.6.2-2] Inter nal Soil Composition Item
Foundation facility
Applicable cr iter ia Banking slope
1 : 1.8 (install 1m-high banquett every 5m in height)
Cut slope
1 : 1.5 (install 1m-high banquett every 5m in height)
Landfill slope
1 : 3.0 (install 3m-high banquett every 5m in height)
Landfill floor slope
2%
5-47
Remar k
[Figur e 5.1.6.2-4]] Plan View w
5-48
[Figure 5.1.6.2-5] Section Vieew
5-49
5.1.6.3 Inciner ator 5.1.6.3.1 Design Cr iter ia Incinerator design was made based on the result of study on the characteristics and the emission standards for household waste in the South Tangerang city. (1) Proper ty of Household Waste Chemical composition, three components, density, low calorific value, etc of the target waste is estimated based on the result of waste property study in the master plan, of which the low calorific value of the waste is set at 1,800 kcal/kg based on the standard quality. [Table 5.1.6.3-1] Chemical Composition, Three Components, and Density of Tar get Waste Classification
High quality C H O N S Cl
Chemical composition (wt%)
Total Water Combustibles Ash Low calorific value (kcal/kg) Waste density (ton/㎥)
Three components (wt%)
17.43 6.24 20.80 0.20 0.13 0.70 45.50 36.40 45.50 18.10 2,100 0.22
Standar d quality 23.00 2.50 11.40 0.20 0.10 0.30 37.50 46.50 37.50 16.00 1,800 0.22
Low quality 18.09 2.70 11.28 0.44 0.20 0.40 33.11 55.49 33.11 11.40 1,400 0.22
(2) Air Pollutant Emission Standar d To meet Indonesian and Korean emission standards for major air pollutants including SO2, HCl, NO2, and Dioxin that emit from incinerators, an air pollution prevention system is planned. [Table 5.1.6.3-2] Air Pollutant Emission Standar d Pollutant
Unit
Standar d
SO₂ ppm HCl ppm NO₂ ppm Dust mg/Nm³(12) Dioxin ng-TEQ/S ㎥ Source) Standard Quality of Incinerator Emission 5-50
< 250 < 70 < 300 < 20 < 0.1
Remar k Indonesian standard Korean standard
(2) Efflluent Qualiity Standarrd • A waastewater treeatment faciility is plannned to treat organic waastewater inncluding dom mestic wastew water and innorganic waastewater inncluding boiiler blowdow wn water annd back wasshing water that t are gennerated from m incineratoor operation so as to meeet the efflue uent quality standaard. [Table 5.1.6.3-3]] Effluent Quality Q Standard Con ntaminant
Unit
Standard
BOD
mg/L
< 150
COD
mg/L
< 300
SS
mg/L
< 400
T-N
mg/L
< 60
Remark k
Inddonesian staandard
Source)) Environmeental ministtry regulatioon No _5_2014 5.1.6.3..2 Selectingg Incineratiion System m and Numb ber of Systeems (1) Seleecting Incin neration Sy ystem • The iincinerationn system wid dely used inn incinerato ors are stokeer type, fluiddization, an nd pyrolyytic gasificattion, and their features are as beloow: [Tab ble 5.1.6.3-4 4] Comparring and Seelecting Treeatment Sysstem Classifi fication
Stokeer
Fluiidization
Pyroolytic gasifiication
Systtem
Incineration mechaanism
Applicability
·In a hypoxic state, s ·Inccineration comprises 3 combbustion, pyrrolysis, steeps (dry, combustion, ·Waste iss compound ded and ggasification n arise, annd post-com mbustion) with hot fluid sand by b andd waste is bu urnt at whhile the mottor driven force, and d instantly dried highh temperaturre over firee grate conv veys waste and d burned. 1,000 0℃ in a sec condary in the incin nerator. com mbustion chaamber. Household d waste
Househoold waste an nd s sludge
5-51
Hoousehold waaste, sluddge, and industrial waste
[Table 5.1.6.3-4] (Continued) Compar ing and Selecting Treatment System Classification
Stoker
Fluidization
Pyr olytic gasification
Combustion efficiency
Normal
High
High
Pre-treatment
not required
required
required
Incineration residue
15 ∼ 20%
5 ∼ 8%
around 5%
Ignition loss
around 5%
around 3%
around 5%
Construction cost (relative)
1.0
1.1 - 1.2
1.4 - 1.5
Strength
·Used long and widely ·Wide calorific range ·No need for pre·Suitable for incinerating treatment liquid, high water content ·Incinerates various waste types of household waste ·Suitable for intermittent ·Easy to operate and operation maintain
Weakness
·Needs refilling loss of ·Relatively large amount fluid medium (fluid sand) of exhaust gas ·Not suitable for large ·Produces a lot of bottom waste or tar-like melting ash wastes ·Produces a bit much ·Not suitable for high calorific waste impurities from pretreatment
Selected
·Suitable for small and
medium size wastes
·Relatively small
discharge of environmental pollutant
·Construction record
lower than stoker system ·Produces a bit much impurities from pretreatment
◎
This study selected the stoker system because the system is applicable to various types of household waste, is technically proven by lots of practical application, and has accumulated advanced operating skill.
5-52
(2) Number of Inciner ator Units ① Matter s to Consider The number of units refers to the number of facility systems that can be operated as another incinerator when an incinerator is shut down for the purpose of maintenance or others. Thus the layout should consider affordability of the proposed site. ② Estimation of Number of Inciner ator Units This study found that installing two or more units, rather than a single one, would be reasonable to raise availability of the incinerator unit when the amount of combustible waste is large. The following shows Korea’s guidelines on the number of units classified by target waste amount to incinerate: [Table 5.1.6.3-5] Compar ing and Selecting Treatment Technology Tar get 50 100 200 250 300 400 Capacity of 150ton/day ton/day ton/day ton/day ton/day ton/day ton/day Inciner ator
- 50
50 - 100 100 - 200 200 - 300 300 - 400
Remar k Less than 50 ton/day: to be processed by incinerators with capacity at least 50ton/day
1 unit
1 unit 2 units 1 unit 1 unit 2 units
1 unit
50 300ton/day: install with the optimum capacity
2 units 300-500 1 unit ton/day: installed with excess capacity
2 units 2 units
400 - 500
2 units
500 ton/day or Combination of 200, 250, 300, or over: combination of 400 ton/day (2 units or more) capacities 400 ton/day or less Source) A Handbook of Guidelines on Domestic Waste Treatment Facility Installation and 500 -
Operation (Oct 2012, Ministry of Environment, Korea) To raise availability and stability of incinerator operation, this study planned to configure the facility with 395 ton/day×2 units on the basis of 790 ton/day (facility capacity). 5-53
5.1.6.3.3 Design Over view and Cr iter ia (1) Design Over view Designing of this facility intends to secure stability, reliability, ease of operation and maintenance, and economic efficiency of the facility by selecting the proven method and system to ensure detoxification and downsizing of waste and thus to minimize environmental pollution through stable treatment of domestic waste. [Table 5.1.6.3-6] Design Over view Item
Descr iption
Remar k
Target
Household waste 651 ton/day
Facility capacity
790 ton/day (395 ton/day×2 units)
on the basis of operating 300 days/year
Electricity
Waterpower generation : 2.6MW Electricity generation : 8.8MW
Generator : 11.4MW
Plant configuration
Incinerator + power generation facility
Incinerator
Consecutive combustion stoker (water cooling fire grate)
Boiler
Type: Natural circulation Capacity: 72.5 ton/hr x 40 kg/㎠.G, 400 ℃
Steam turbine
Type: Extraction condenser type Steam Condition: 40kg/㎠.G × 400℃
Condenser
Type: Air Cooled Condenser Capacity: 95 ton/hr
System configuration
Carry-in and feeding unit + incinerator + power generator + semi-dry reactor + bag filter + smokestack
SNCR : urea water Semi-dry reactor: activated carbon spray
Air pollution prevention system
SNCR → Semi-dry reactor → activated carbon spray → bag filter→ induced draft fan → smokestack
Conform to emission standards
5-54
(2) Inciiner ator Deesign Cr iter ia Designning choosee the optimaal capacity oof the compponent systems of the inncinerator by b considdering the duurability of material, m mechanical stability, s easse of mainteenance and econom mic efficienncy. [Tablee 5.1.6.3-7] Key System m Design Cr C iter ia Systeem
Design n cr iter ia ·Com mbustion cap pacity : 3955 ton/day x 2 units (24 hrr/day
Incinerr ator
· Incinnerator typee · Outllet temperatture · Stayy time · Igniition loss ·Typee
Boileer
Semi-ddr y r eacttor
Filter bag
Activaated car boon feedeer
Inducced air bllow
· Cappacity: · Opeerating presssure · Outllet temperatture · Opeerating meth hod
· Cappacity: · Inlett/outlet tempeerature · Spraay type · Opeerating meth hod
· Cappacity: · Inlett/outlet tempeerature · Opeerating meth hod
·Typee · Cappacity: · Opeerating meth hod
· Cappacity: · Inlett/outlet tempeerature · Opeerating meth hod
5-55
operration) : Continuous com mbustion sto oker type (watter-cooling fi fire grate) : 850 0℃ or over (solid : 950℃ ℃) : 2 sec or over : 5% % or below : Naatural circulat ation water piipe boileer : 72..5 ton/hr : 40 kg/㎠.G × 4400℃ : 200 0℃ or below w : Waater supply, ssteam, and drum d wateer level are aautomatically y conttrolled by a th three-factor control c systeem : 75,,000Nm3/hr ((standard quality) : 200 0℃/160℃ : 2-ffluid nozzle sspray : Au utomatic conttrol of slaked d lime slurrry based on H HCI concenttration of TMS S system : 77,,800Nm3/hr ((standard quality) : 160 0℃/159℃ : Perriodic pulsinng by differen ntial pressure
: Scrrew feeder tyype : 6 m3 : Au utomatic activvated feed co ontrol interrlocked withh gas flow of TMS systeem : 2,8 800A ㎥/minn x 600mmAq : 159 9℃ : VV VVF + Autom matic dampeer conttrol (inside thhe incinerato or)
5.1.6.3.4 Inciner attion Processs Plan (1) Inciiner ation Process P Oveer view Incinneration process is conffigured as shhown in thee Figure 5.1.6.3-1: Proveen combusttion gas treaatment proc ess configu uration (SNC CR+spring ddry reactorr+activated carbon spraay+back filtter+smokesstack) Proceess should meet m the “A Air Pollutantt Emission Standard S an nd Effluent SStandard” Use remaining r h from in heat ncineration ffor power generation g and condenssation waterr recycliing
[Figu ure 5.1.6.3-11] Treatment Process Over view
5-56
(2) Storr age and Suupply Facilities ① Systeem Configuur ation The transsport and suupply facilitties consistss of a waste storage tan nk that storees waste carrried into the ffacility for incineration i n, a large waaste crusherr, and a cran ne.
[Figuure 5.1.6.3--2] Stor agee and Supplly System Diagr D am (E Example) ② Systeem Over vieew A waste metering syystem is intrroduced to ccheck the am mount of waste input. The plannned number of waste feed f inlets aare 9, considdering the waste w feed tiime to avoid d garbage truck’s t trafffic jam in peeak hours, aand the wasste storage tank capacity ty is calculaated as below: -V=(G×d)÷r where,, V = volum me of waste storage (m33) G = daaily waste inncineration (ton/day) : 790 ton/dayy d = stoorage periodd (day): 3 daays r = meean specific gravity of waste w in thee waste storaage tank (to on/m3): 0.222 ton/㎥ (u used)
This studdy secured ease e of operration by auutomating thhe crane and d a space foor crushing large l waste (fuurniture, etcc) in the wasste storage ttank.
5-57
③ Key Systems Reeview This studdy planned to t adopt a separate typee of waste crusher c that requires a rrelatively laarge area of innstallation but b is capab ble to crush and feed waaste with staability. [Table 5.1.6.3-8] 5 Compar C ativve Review of o Waste Cr usher andd Feeder Classifi fication
S Separ ate Crr usher -Feeeder Type
Cr usher -Feeder C Combined Type
Systtem
Featuur es
·Cruusher is insttalled separaately from the waste feedeer ·Reqquires a larg ge installatiion area ·Enssures operational stabillity
·Crusher and waste ffeeder are combined d into one ·Requiress a small insstallation arrea ·When the crusher faails, the who ole process stops.
◎
Seleccted
④ Stor age a and Su pply Faciliities Configgur ation Key com mponents off the storage and supplyy facilities are a as shown n below: [Table 5.1.6.3-9] L List of Equ ipment (Ex xample) Classifi fication
Item m
Q’ty
Capacity C
Load d (kW)
1
Waste meter m
2
Waste feed d door
1
50 ton
0.8 0
9
7,350 0H x 3,700W W
-
3
Waste crrane
2 (1 sparee)
12 m³
156 1
4
Waste crrane m maintenanc ce hoist
1
5Ton
4.95 4
5
L Large waste crusher
1
5Ton/hr
150 1
5-58
(3) Inciiner ator ① Systeem Configuur ation An incinnerator is a system s that burns up w waste fed by a crane and d consists off a waste feeder, refractories, auxiliarry burner, fiire grate, etcc.
[Figure 5.1 1.6.3-3] Inciiner ator Sy ystem Diagr am (Exam mple) ② Systeem Over vieew Instaall a safety door d to prev vent backfiree caused byy pressure ch hanges wheen waste is fed f The feeder f is of a hydraulicc reciprocatiing type and d automatically controlls waste feeed. The system s is caapable to co ontrol air floow by fire grate g (flexible response to changes) when primarry combustiion air is fed d to ensure complete co ombustion of o waste in the incineraator. Tanggential nozzlle is installeed to maxim mize agitatioon by secondary combuustion air feeeding. Moduularized steepped reciprrocating firee grate enab bles individu ual control oof combustiion state. Maxiimized dioxxin decompo osition ensuured by maintaining combustion chhamber outlet temperrature at 850℃ or over and gas sttay time at 2 sec or long ger.
5-59
③ Key Systems Reeview Incinerattor’s combuustion metho od will be oof an alternaating current system whhich is prov ven stable byy numerous practical ap pplications aand highly responsive r to changes iin waste pro operty. [Tab le 5.1.6.3-10] Comparr ative Review of Combustion Meethod Classifi fication
Alter natin ng cur r ent system
Paar allel cur r ent system m
Systtem
Mechaanism
Featuur es
·Maaximize mix xing of secoondary com mbustion airr with exhauust gas
·Incompleetely burnt ggas stays lo ong at top of thee drying unitt
·Higghly respon nsive to channges in wasste property ·Waater pipe in the side waall of the inciinerator exteended
·Local overheat in thhe current slope plate and damages too refractoriees causes cliinkers ·Thermal damage to the fire gratte caused by y high radiaant heat
◎
Seleccted
④ Incinner ator Sysstem Config gur ation Key com mponents off the incineraator are as llisted below w: [Table 5.1.6.3-11] L List of Com mponents (E Example) Classifi fication
Item
Q’ty
Capacity C
1
Incineraator
2
395Ton
-
Auxiliary Burner B
2
9 MW
25 25
2
Load d (kW)
Ignition Burner B
2
9 MW
3
Chute co ooler
2
688Mcal 6
-
4
C Chute coolin ng pump
2 (1 spare)
50 ㎥//hr x 5kg/㎠ ㎠.G
15
5
C Chute coolaant tank
2
2㎥
-
6
Leeachate spraay nozzle
4
550L/hr
19
7
Hydraulic system s
2
600L
19
8
Hopper gate g
1
3,000 0L x 1,500W W
-
5-60
(4) Coombustion Gas G Coolin ng System ① Systeem Configuur ation A combuustion gas coooling systeem consists largely of a waste heatt recovery bboiler, blow wdown tank, higgh pressure steam s headeer, low presssure steam header, air preheater, ssteam turbin ne, low pressure steam conddenser, deaeerator feed ppump, deaerrator, boilerr feed waterr pump, etc.
[Figuree 5.1.6.3-4] Combustioon Gas Coo oling System m Diagr am m (Examplee) ② Systeem Over vieew Use high h temperrature comb bustion gas tto produce steam requiired for pow wer generatiion and ensuree stable pow wer generatio on even whhen the steam m productio on fluctuatess. Instaall a chute bllower in thee electric heeater and thee economizer of the booiler to imprrove gas coolingg efficiencyy by preventting fly ash settlement and minimiize conditioons for dioxin resynthhesis. Enabble controlling the amou unt of steam m inflow to the turbine in order to maintain stteady steam pressure onn the entrancce of turbinne. Adoppt an inverteer control sy ystem to conntrol tempeerature of the rear end ccondensation water in the steam conddenser. Maxiimize feed water w recycle rate by coondensing ③ Key Systems Reeview ■ Turbbine This sttudy selecteed an extracction-backprressure typee of turbine that allows adjusting the rate of pow wer generatiion and heatt supply andd offers a beetter econom mic efficienncy than a 5-61
backprressure typee as it produ uces more ellectricity. [Table 5.1.6.3-12] Com mpar ative Review of Waste Heaat Utilizatioon Methodss Classiffication Exxtr action-b backpr essu r e tur bine
Backpr B essuur e tur bine
Systtem
·Thhis type mak kes the needded steam too vaccuum in con ndenser. Incrrease the Mechaanism genneration efficiency by eenlarging a heaat head. Feattur es
·Using the added steam annd maxximum pow wer generatioon. ·Sm mooth for alttered steam m.
·This typee features eaasier operation as the steam pressure diischarged frrom the outlet of the t steam tuurbine is hig gher than atmo ospheric preessure and th he flow of exhaust steam andd condensatiion water is smooth. ·Installatio on cost is loow. ·Operation n and mainttenance are easy.
◎
Selected ■ Coolinng System
This studdy selected an air cooliing condensser that requuires larger site and inittial investm ment cost, but is freee from the problems of securing ccooling wateer and proceessing heat exchange water. w [Taable 5.1.6.3 3-13] Comppar ative Reeview of Co ooling Methhod Classifi fication
Air A cooling
Water ccooling
Systtem
Mechaanism
Featuur es Seleccted
·Usee air to reco over surpluss steam and ·Use cooliing water too recover su urplus prodduce conden nsation watter. steam and d produce coondensation n water. ·Creeates noise by b an air bl ower ·Wiide installatiion area ◎
5-62
·Needs continuous suupply of coo oling water ·High inveestment cosst for piping g and pumps
④ Combustion Gas Cooling System Key components of the combustion gas cooling system are as listed below: [Table 5.1.6.3-14] List of Components (Example) Classification
Item
Q’ty
Capacity
Load (kw)
1
Waste heat boiler
2
72.5Ton/hr x 40kg/㎠.G, 400℃
-
2
Blow down tank
2
1.5 ㎥
-
3
High pressure steam header
1
72.5Ton
-
4
Low pressure steam header
1
12Ton
-
5
Air preheater
2
910Mcal/hr
-
6
Steam turbine
1
11.4 MW
37
7
Low pressure steam condenser
1
95Ton/hr
150
8
Deaerator feed pump
2 (1 spare)
105 ㎥/hr
40
9
Deaerator
2
92Ton/hr
-
10
Boiler feed water pump
4 (2 spare)
45 ㎥/hr
168
5-63
(5) Com mbustion Gas G Treatm ent Facilityy ① Systeem Configuur ation A combuustion gas trreatment faccility consissts of a Seleective Non-C Catalytic Reeduction (SNCR), spring drry reactor, activated a carrbon feederr, bag filter, and smokesstack.
[Figure 5.1.6.3-5] 5 Combustion C n Gas Treattment System Diagr am m (Examp le) ② Systeem Over vieew This system feedds urea solu ution througgh a nozzle located l in th he entrance of the boileer and reducees NOx conttained in thee exhaust gaas into harm mless nitrog gen and wateer. This system spraays slaked lime slurry tto a spring dry d reactor to neutralizze acid gas, and increasses the efficciency of rem moval by opptimizing thhe spray disstribution frrom a choseen optimaal nozzle poosition and by b minimiziing the grain diameter of slaked lim me slurry when w sprayinng. Remooves dioxinn by absorbiing to a bag filter by acctivated carb bon injectedd before exh haust gas infflows to thee bag filter.
5-64
③ Key Systems Reeview This studdy plans a syystem consiisting of “S NCR+SDR R+A/C+B/F”” which is eeasy to hand dle chemicalls, meets airr pollutant emission e staandards, and d needs lesss cost for insstallation an nd operationn. [Taable 5.1.6.3-15] Comp ar ative Reeview of Coombustion Gas G Treatm ment Processses Classifi fication
SNCR+ +SDR+A/C C+B/F
SDR+A A/C+B/F+d uct bur nerr +SCR
Systtem
Mechaanism
·Rellatively low w pressure looss and easee of chemical c han ndling ·Staable efficien ncy in removving acid gas
·Highly efficient e in rremoving accid gas and nitrog gen oxides ·Needs a SCR front ccombustion n gas preheaterr
Featuur es
·Cloogging and wear in pipping caused by slaked s lime slurry
·Low pressure loss aand high eneergy consumption ·High cosst of chemiccal handling g and initial inv vestment
◎
Seleccted
④ Com mbustion Gaas Treatment System C Configur attion Key com mponents off the combusstion gas treeatment system are as listed l below w: [Table 5.1.6.3-16] L List of Com mponents (E Example) Classifi fication
Item
Q’ty
Capacity C
Loa d (kw)
1
Urea water solution U s injection nozzle n
16
100kg/hr 1
-
2
S Spring dry reactor r
2
75,0 000N ㎥/hrr
-
2 (2 spare))
1.5 1 ㎥/hr
0.75 0
2 (1 spare))
1.5 ㎥/min
1.5
3 4
Sllaked lime injection i pump p Acctivated carbon feed bloweer S Spring dry reactor r C Cooling watter feed pump p
3 (1 spare))
4 ㎥/hr
0.75 0
6
Bag filtter
2
77,8 800N ㎥/hrr
-
7
Smokesttack
2
60M
-
5
5-65
(6) Airr Supply/E xhaust Sysstem ① Systeem Configuur ation This studdy planned that t the air required r forr burning waste w inside the incineraator will be supplied by a forcedd air fan and d a second aair fan, and the induced d draft fan w will be instaalled at the front of a chimnney to emit combustion c air.
[Figuure 5.1.6.3--6] Air Suppply/Exhau st System Diagr D am (E Example) ② Systeem Over vieew The forced f air blower is plaanned to actt as a suppliier of oxygeen required ffor combustion in the inccinerator. To maximize m combustion effficiency, innjected air will w go to a steam type air preheateer to heat upp to 120℃ and then will w be suppllied to the lo ower part off the incinerrator. A seccondary air blower willl completelyy burn up thhe incompleetely burnt ggas and supply air througgh a nozzle to t adjust tem mperature inn the incineerator. Combustion gass will go through a induuced draft faan and a chiimney to thee atmospheere. A dam mper will be installed to t keep con stant pressu ure inside th he incineratoor to facilitaate combuustion.
5-66
③ Key Systems Reeview This studdy planned a combinatiion of “speeed conversioon (VVVF) + automatiic damper opening o control system whicch requires a large initiaal investment cost but has h outstandding air flow w control reesulting in reduced r electricity costt, has a widde range of total t volumee control an nd ease of fine addjustment of o pressure, and thus ennsures contin nuous operaation. [Tabble 5.1.6.3-117] Comparr ative Reviiew of Interr nal Contr ol Systems for Incinerr ator Speed con nver sion (V VVVF) + pening Classifi fication auttomatic dam mper open ing contr oll Pole chaanging andd damper op contr ol ssystem system Incine erator
Incinerator
Systtem
·Controls the am mount of aiir by means of frequency f co onversion bby an ·Controls the amountt of air by adjusting Mechaanism inveerter and ad djusting dam mper damper op pening opening Featuur es
·Has a wide ran nge of contrrol and high h ·Control range r is narrrow. preccision ·Starting torque t is sm mall. ·Staarting torquee is small. ·Relatively cheap ·Inittial investm ment cost is hhigh. ◎
Seleccted
④ Air Supply/Exh S haust System Configu r ation Key com mponents off the air supp ply/exhaust system are as listed beelow: [Table 5.1.6.3-18] L List of Com mponents (E Example) Classifi fication
Item
Q’ty
Cap pacity
Load d (kw)
1
F Forced air blower b
2
910A ㎥/min n x 250mmA Aq
80 8
2
Seecondary airr blower
2
40 00A ㎥/min x 1000mm mAq
120
3
Induced draaft fan
2
2,8 800A ㎥/miin x 600mm mAq
410 4
4
Stack k
2
∅1400 x H 60m
5-67
(7) Reeprocessingg System ① Systeem Configuur ation Ash gennerates from m the incineerator, wastee heat boilerr, spring dry y reactor, annd bag filterr. Ash will be reemoved as planned p as follows: f Bottom m ash dispo osal
Fly F ash dispposal
[F Figure 5.1.6.3-7] Reprrocessing System S Diag gr am (Exam mple) ② Systeem Over vieew Bottom m ash will bee transferred d to and keppt in a storaage using a concealed c cconveyor wiithout direct contact of thee operator. And A the botttom ash disccharge systeem will has a concealed d structuree in the form m of a tank. The botttom ash stoorage tank will w have a capacity for 5 days’ sto orage to enssure maintaainability. Plan to discharge the t bottom ash a at the geeneral waste landfill. A fly assh storage taank (for 3 days) d + a tonnbag storage (for 3 day ys) will ensuure stability y. Fly ashh will be burried in a waaste landfill for Type 2 (fly ash). ③ Key Systems Reeview ■ Bottom m Ash Dischharge System m This stuudy plannedd a chain tan nk type connveyer that best b fits the medium-too-large stokeer type incinerattor and is hiighly effectiive in coolinng.
5-68
[Table 5.11.6.3-19] Co ompar ativee Review off Bottom Ash A Discharr ge System Classifi fication
Chain flight tankk type
Ram feeeder type
Systtem
Featuur es
priate when there are no ot more ·Suiitable for medium-large m e incinerato or ·Approp than two o ash outletss like small ·Cooling effectt (200℃ → 60℃) is incinerators highh. ·Cooling g effect is loow. ◎
Seleccted ■ Fly Assh Dischargee System
This stuudy selectedd a separatee storage sysstem that prrevents fly ash a from stiicking and binding b and ensuures efficiennt discharge and prolongged storagee. [Table 5.1.6.3-20] 5 Compar C ativve Review of Fly Ash Dischar ge Systems Classifi fication
Separ at e stor age syystem (stor agee tank + tonnbag)
Stor age tannk system
Systtem
Featuur es
·Putts in tonbag g and ships oout all to Typpe 2 waste landfill by trrucking. ·Preevents fly assh from sticcking and bindding togetheer.
·Prolongeed storage ccauses fly assh to stick to th he storage taank. ·Hard to discharge d annd thus needs frequent maintenanc m ce.
◎
Seleccted
④ Ash Processing P System Co onfigur atioon Key com mponents off the ash pro ocessing sysstem are as listed l below w: [Table 5.1.6.3-21] L List of Com mponents (E Example) Classifi fication
Item
Q’ty
Capacity C
Load d (kw)
1
Ash extraactor
2
4Ton/hr 4
2.2 2
2
F ash storaage tank Fly
2
26 ㎥
1.5 1
5-69
(8) Watter Supply//Dr ain Systtem ① Systeem Configuuration Water is classified innto process water, dom mestic waterr, recirculation water, annd cooling water, w and all arre planned to t be processsed in the w wastewater treatment plant p exceptt the waste leachate l that is spprayed and processed p in n the incinerrator. And a deionizer (2B3T) ( willl be installeed to refill blow down waater and sup pply chute coooling wateer.
[Figuure 5.1.6.3--8] Water S Supply/Dr a in System Diagr D am (E Example) ② Systeem Overview Ensure stable boileer water sup pply when w water quality and flow changes. Introduuce deionizeer to improv ve quality off cooling water and exttend the serv rvice life of waste heat recoovery boilerr. Supply cooling waater to indiv vidual equippment from a cooling to ower for proocess. Install a wastewateer treatmentt facility to reuse waterr after passing a series oof physical,, chemicall treatment. ③ Key Systems Reeview ■ Deioniizer This studdy selected a 2B3T type deionizer which requuires relativeely large sitte but is hig ghly stable annd easy to opperate.
5-70
[Tabble 5.1.6.3--22] Compaar ative Rev view of Deio onizer Systtems Classifi fication
2B3T T (double beed)
R/O R (r ever sse osmosis)
Systtem ·Higghly efficien nt in removving green algaae and SS ·Eassy to operattion ·Reqquires largee installationn site ◎
Featuur es Seleccted
·Removess 95% or ovver ·Takes a long time foor cleaning ·Requires small instaallation site
■ Water Supply Metthod This studdy planned an a overhead d tank whichh is easy to maintain water w pressuure and allow ws to use water for a certaain period ev ven in the ooutage of waater and pow wer. [Tablee 5.1.6.3-23 3] Compar aative Revieew of Waterr Supply M Method Classifi fication
Oveerhead tankk
Booster pump
Systtem
Featuur es Seleccted
·Waater supply is i available for a certtain time du uring water ooutage. ·Eassy to maintaain water prressure
·Eases insstability of ssupply wateer pressure ·Prevents water polluution caused d by stagnant water w
◎
④ Wateer Supply/Drain System m Configuraation Key com mponents off the water supply/drainn system aree as listed beelow: [Table 5.1.6.3-24] L List of Com mponents (E Example) Classifi fication
Item
Q’ty
Capaccity
Loa d (kw)
1
Coolling tower
2
650R RT
20
2
Ovverhead tank k for processs water
1
7㎥
-
3
Process waater supply ppump
2 (1 spare))
14 ㎥//hr
3.7 3
4
O Overhead taank for houssehold water w
1
7㎥
-
5
H Household water w supplyy tank
2 (1 spare))
14 ㎥//hr
3.7 3
5-71
(9) Auxxiliar y Syst ems ① Systeem Configuuration Auxiliaryy systems innclude a deo odorizationn system, airr compressio on system, aand auxiliarry fuel system. This T study planned p thatt bad smell will be suckked by a suction bloweer and proceessed in a deodorrization tow wer when thee incineratorr does not operate, o com mpressed airr will be sup pplied to the feeeders for insstruments and processees respectively, diesel will w be usedd as auxiliarry fuel, and the wastewater w treatment sy ystem will pprocess the blowdown water from m incineratorr, leachate,, and cleaninng water. Air Compr esso or
Wastewateer Tr eatmennt System
[Figure 5.1 1.6.3-9] Au xiliar y Sysstems Diagrr am (Exam mple) ② Systeems Overvieew A plaan will be made m to remoove odor froom the wastte dumping site and thee storage tank, or the inccinerator whhen it is in abnormal a opperation. Compressed air required for each systeem will be supplied s to instrumenta i ation & control system ms and to proocessing sy ystems separrately. The compressor c will be of a screw typee that produ uces less noise and vibrration. Dieseel will be ussed as auxilliary fuel foor the incineerator and th he emergenccy generator. 5-72
Wastte water from m the incineerator will ggo through physiochem p mical treatm ment and then will be disccharged or reused r as it has low conncentration of pollutants. ③ Revieew of Systeems ■ Deodoorization System This studdy plans an activated caarbon-basedd deodorizaation tower that t producees no wasteewater, has simpple constructtion and easse of mainteenance. [Table 5.1..6.3-25] Deeodor izationn Systems in i Compar ison Activated Car bon-Baseed A Deodor iza tion Towerr
Ch emical Waash Tower
System m
·Effective on low co oncentrated odor ·Needs no n drainage Featur ees ·Simple mechanical m structure ·Needs reecycling and d refilling oof activatedd carbon
·H Highly efficcient ·A Applicable to t comprehhensive rang ge of o odor ·P Produces wastewater ·C Consumes chemicals c
◎
Selecteed ④ Auxiiliary System ms
A list of the systemss are as prov vided in thee table below w: [Tablee 5.1.6.3-266] List of Syystems (Exaample) Item 1 2 3
Deodoorization tow wer Air coompressor for f processing system ms Air coompressor for f instrumenntation & co ontrol systems
Q’ty
Cap pacity
Load (kw)
1
660N N ㎥/min
-
4 ((1 spare)
8.0N N ㎥/min
55
2 ((1 spare)
9.0N N ㎥/min
45
4
Deehumidifier
1
9N ㎥/min
0..4
5
Dieseel storage tan nk
1
19 ㎥
-
6
Dieseel feed pum mp
2 ((1 spare)
1 ㎥/hr
0.7 75
5-73
5.1.6.3.5 Process F low Diagr am
[Figure 5.1.6.3-9] 5 O Over all Treaa tment System Diagr a m
5-74
5.1.6.3.6 Mass & Heat H Balan n ce (1) Masss Balance
[Figure 55.1.6.3-10] M ass Balan n ce
5-75
(2) Heaa t Balance
[Figure 55.1.6.3-11] H eat Balan n ce
5-76
(3) Boiller Steam Balance
[Figure 5.1.66.3-12] Boileer Steam Balance
5-77
5.1.6.3.7 Counter plan p for En nvironmenttal Pollutio on (1) Couunter plan for f Air Pollution ① Faccility Over view v This feassibility studdy (FS) sugg gests plans tto prevent air a pollution n from two ppoints of vieew, i.e., preventioon of generaation and reemoval. Prevvention of hazardous h gas g generatioon involvess completee combustioon of waste and maintaiining approopriate temp perature by hheating or cooling c taking innto account of temperatture based ccharacteristiics of hazard dous gas. R Removal of hazardouus gas involves chemical, physicall removal off such gas by b using SN NCR, SDR, A/C A feed systtem, bag filtter, etc. Regardinng air polluttants, NOx will w be rem moved by sprraying urea solution froom SNCR, and acid gas (HCl and SOx) S will bee removed bby spraying slaked limee slurry from m the spring g dry reactor after a quenchhing combusstion gas doown to 200℃ ℃ in the economizer too avoid gen neration of dioxinn.
[Figuree 5.1.6.3-13]] Air Polluttant Prevenntion System Diagr am m (Examplee)
(2) NOxx Treatmennt Plan ① Faccility Over view v Ammoniia and urea solution can n be used foor denitrification reaction. Ammonnia is more reactive than ureaa solution, but b seen from m chemicall stability annd economy y (ammoniaa slip) urea solution s is deemeed better.
5-78
Non-cataalytic denitrrification inv volves spraaying urea so olution direectly into ann incineratorr and remove N NOx by redducing down n to nitrogenn and waterr, where urea selectivelly reacts to NOx N without a catalyst iff there is oxy ygen. The kkey reaction n formula is as follows:: 4NO + 4NH3 + O2 -----------〉 〉 4N2 + 6H H2O(1) 6NO2 + 8NH3 ------------〉 7N2 + 12H2O O(2) 6NO + 4NH3 ------------〉 5N N2 + 6H2O(33) Denitrification reacttion removees about 60--70% of NO Ox 5, which requires: ooperation at 850~9500℃, retentionn time 1 secoond, and ureaa solution injjection 1.5 tim mes the NOxx generation. 8 sets of S SNCR nozzlee will be insttalled in twoo steps insidee the incineraator to allow fine spraying g when spraying with w compreessed air and to be protectted from deterioration by y cooling air..
[Figure 5.1.6.3-14] 5 S SNCR Systtem Diagr am a (Exampple)
5-79
(3) Acidd Gas Trea tment Plan n ① Faccility Over view v Acid gass emitted froom an incinerator makees a gas/liqu uid reaction n when slakeed lime slurrry is injected tto the reactoor and makees a gas/sollid chemicall reaction when w the liquuid slurry dries d so that it turrns into watter and a callcium comppound that is harmless to human. Ca(OH)2+2HCL-〉C CaCl2+H2O+ +H2O Ca(OH)2+2HF-〉Ca aCl2+2H2O Ca(OH)2+SO2-〉Ca aSO3+H2O CaSO3+1/2O2+2H20-〉CaSO 0 4 +2H2O Ca(OH)2+2HCL-〉C CaCO3+H2O
The reactant fall on the hopper located undder the sprinng dry reacttor, and partt of this is moved m to the bag filter and collected in n the hopperr placed und der the bag filter for diisposal. In addition, a by forming a layer of o activated carbon andd slaked lim me on the surrface of the filter, dioxiin and acid gas can be filtered one more time.
[Figuure 5.1.6.3-1 15] Acid Gaas Treatmeent System Diagr am ((Example)
5-80
(4) Dioxxin and Duust Removaal Plan ① Faccility Over view v Althoughh it is subjecct to types of o system annd operating g conditions, after incinneration of waste, usually 22 6 g/N㎥ of dust and non-combuusted carbon n powder in n the combuustion gas reeact with chloorides to generate dioxin. To remoove these, th his system adopts a the baag filter meethod. As dust iin the combbustion gas passes p the ffilter insiderr the bag filtter, it formss an absorpttion layer of fly f ash, reacction produccts, unreactted slaked liime, activated carbon, eetc., and passing through tthis layer it makes a second-order reaction wiith the unreacted slakedd lime to geet rid of harmful aid a gas, whhile remainin ng heavy m metal and diooxin, and fin ne dust are ttrapped in the activatedd carbon miccropores.
[Figu ure 5.1.6.3-116] System Diagr am (Example) (
5-81
(5) Wasstewater Trreatment P lan ① Faccility Over view v Wastewaater generateed from thiss facility inccludes: orgaanic wastew water includi ding dishwatter and ash water; and inorgganic wastew water includding boiler blowdown water, incinnerator clean ning water, baackwash waater, and lab boratory wasstewater. Ass there is no o wet cleaniing to be done in the incinnerator and accordingly a y no wastew water of high h concentrattion will be produced, a physiochhemical treaatment meth hod is selectted. This treeatment metthod collectts wastewater in a wastewater tank, neutralizes, an nd settles it using a coaagulant to reemove contaaminants. As the w waste leachate is highly concentrateed and thus is hard to treat in the w wastewater treatmennt facility off the incinerrator, it will be disposed d by sprayin ng inside thhe incinerato or. Ash wateer is reused in the ash extractor, e buut in emergeency it will be processeed in the wastewater treatmennt facility.
Wastew water tr eatm ment systeem diagr am
Leachhate tr eatm ment systeem diagr am
[Figur e 5.1.6.3-17 7] Wastewaater Treatm ment System m Diagr am (Example)) ② Estim mation of Wastewater W Generation G This faccility is exppected to pro oduce wasteewater of ab bout 34㎥/d day containiing BOD 17 79mg/L, COD 2366mg/L, andd SS 265mg//L, and this study madee a plan meet the legal standards of o wastewater dischargge. 5-82
[Table 5.1.6.3-225] Wastewater Generr ation Am mount (㎡/day)
BOD B (m mg/l)
C COD ((mg/l)
SS (mg/l)
Household wastewaterr
9 9.6
150
300
400
Ash A Effluennt
4 4.57
900
900
900
Boiler blowdoown water
133.42
20
20
20
Cleaning
2 2.4
150
300
400
Back k washing w water
3.43
20
20
20
Laboratoryy
1 1.2
100
100
100
344.62
17 79.21
2236.06
265.85
Claassification n
Orgaanic
Incineraator Inorganic
Total
(7) Odoor Preventiion Plan In the inccinerator, thhe main sou urce of odor is the wastee dump and d the waste sstorage tank k. Odor in the waaste storage tank is plan nned to be uused as com mbustion air in the incinnerator by th he forced drraft fan wheen the incineerator is in nnormal opeeration. In caase of wastee dump, a power p driven shhutter will be b used to issolate odor ffrom outsidde, and the odor o inside w will be indu uced to the incinnerator and burnt b up theere. When thee incineratoor is shut do own for a reason such as a regular maintenance, m , odor in thee waste storage taank is plannned to be removed by uusing activaated carbon in an odor rremoval tow wer.
[Fiigure 5.1.6..3-18] Odorr Preventio on Plan Over view (Exxample)
5-83
5.1.6.3.8 Facility Layout Plan (1) Inciner ation Facility Building Layout
[Figure 5.1.6.3-19] 790 ton Inciner ation Facility Layout (Example) 5-84
(2) Tr a ffic Line Pllan By liinking the faacilities including the w weigh bridg ge and the laandfill and bby separatin ng the traffic lines by funnction, no innterference will occur among trafffic lines of ggarbage truccks, bottom m ash (generral waste) trransport vehhicles, Typee 2(fly ash) transport veehicles, and d passennger cars.
Security buildin ng
Weig gh bridg ge
Pa
ars
Ga
ck
Fly Ge
Parkiing lot
In cinerator bu uilding
Genera al waste Fly ash
[Figu re 5.1.6.3-220] Tr affic Line L Plan (Example) (
5-85
te
5.1.6.3.9 Oper ation and Management Plan (1) Oper ation and Management Or ganization The waste incinerator will be operated and maintained 24 hours without interruption, and the operation organization will consist of a director, management team, operation team, and maintenance team. Incinerator operation staffs will work on the basis of 3 shifts by 4 teams a day (24 hours), and maintenance and routine management work will be done in the daytime. The number of operation staffs will be total 73 including the director, as detailed in the following table: [Table 5.1.6.3-26] Oper ation and Management Or ganization Scheme Head manager (1)
Management Team (8)
Operation Team (54)
Maintenance Team (10)
Group Manager
1
Group Manager
1
Group Manager
1
Manager
1
Manager
4
Manager
1
General affair
2
Control operator
8
Mechanical
3
Accounting
1
Local operator
32
Electrical
2
Cleaning
2
Crane operator
8
Ash handling
1
Ash Crane operator
1
Laboratory
3
Group Manager A
Individual
C
D
Manager
1
1
1
Control operator
2
2
2
1 2
Local operator
8
8
8
8
Crane operator
2
2
2
2
Working hours
06:0014:00
14:00-22:00
22:0006:00
Rest
[Figure 5.1.6.3-21] Oper ation Team Staffs by Working Hour (Example)
5-86
5.1.6.3.10 Cost of Constr uction and Oper ation (1) Constr uction Cost The cost for constructing the incinerator of 790 ton/day capacity is estimated 128 billion KWN. [Table 5.1.6.3-27] Details of Project Cost (unit: 1 mil. KWN) Classification
Inciner ator (790ton/day)
Item
Machine work Electricity, instrumentation & control work Construction work Civil work Construction cost Survey Cost Design Cost
Remar k
76,200 19,800 17,400 3,200 400 5,200
Construction Inspection
5,800
Subtotal
128,000
4.5% of Purity Construction cost 5.0% of Purity Construction cost
(2) Oper ation Cost Operation cost for running the incinerator facility of 790 ton/day capacity will use 35,996 mil Rp and the details are as follows: [Table 5.1.6.3-28] Summar y of oper ation cost (390TPD) Classification Labor cost Overhead Fixed cost expenses Subtotal Major repair Repair
Cost(Rp/year )
Description
1,474,440,000 ㆍ 73 persons 294,888,000 ㆍ 20% of labor cost 1,769,328,000 16,156,800,000 ㆍ 1.65% of construction cost 7,344,000,000 ㆍ 0.75% of construction cost
Electricity Fuel
6,240,000,000 ㆍ Fixed charge and usage rate 385,178,000 ㆍ Incinerator and emergency generator used
Chemicals
3,160,356,000 ㆍ Expenses for chemicals used in facilities
Variable Service water 601,959,000 ㆍ Process water cost Others Sub total Total
338,882,000 ㆍ 1.0% of variable cost 34,227,175,000 35,996,503,000
5-87
5.1.6.4 Sanitar y Landfill 5.1.6.4.1 Over view The sanitary landfill aims at final disposal of wastes that is safe and reliable, free from environmental pollution. For this purpose, the facility plan should consider the following features so that individual facilities may work independently but have organic relations to each other. Facilities in the landfill consists largely of road, liner system, leachate collection and drainage facilities, rainwater drainage facility, leachate treatment facility, landfill gas collection facility, and auxiliary facilities. 5.1.6.4.2 Landfill Facility Scale This study found that, to landfill incinerated wastes from 2020 to 2025, at least 330,000㎥ of landfill capacity should be secured. [Table 5.1.6.4-1] Landfill Facility Scale (2020-2025) Classification
Waste
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Total
ton/day
111
128
144
136
181
203
ton/year
40,395
46,600
52,440
59,375
65,945
73,975
338,727
㎥/year
40,395
46,600
52,440
59,375
65,945
73,975
338,727
Covering soil required (㎥)
2,827
3,262
3,670
4,156
4,616
5,178
23,709
Total landfill (㎥)
43,222
49,862
56,110
63,531
70,561
79,153
362,439
Landfill after settlement (㎥)
39,182
45,202
50,866
57,593
63,966
71,755
328,564
Note) 1. Covering soil is 15% of landfill waste. 2. Landfill after settlement = Landfill waste×(1-settlement rate)+covering soil, where the settlement rate is 10%. This study found that landfill capacity available in the project site is 120,000㎥ for general waste and 17,700㎥ for waste landfill for Type 2(fly ash), where the waste landfill for Type 2(fly ash) can be used until the long term target year 2025 while the general waste landfill needs additional site at least 310,000㎥ before it can be used until 2025 but it is hard to secure within the project site.
5-88
[Table 5.1.6.4-2] Sanitar y Landfill Development Plan Item Daily landfill
Domestic waste
Type 2 (Fly ash)
(ton/day)
101-193
10
(㎥/day)
101-193
10 2,573(65m×40m)
Landfill area (㎡)
10,499
Landfill capacity (㎥)
120,000
17,700
Service from
year 2020 2020-2021 (2.5 years)
year 2020 2020-2025 (6 years)
Duration
Remar k
Compaction density: 1.0ton/㎥
5.1.6.4.3 Landfill Facility Plan (1) Landfill Method ① Landfill Str ucture Method of sanitary landfill is classified into an improved anaerobic sanitary landfill, semiaerobic sanitary landfill, and aerobic sanitary landfill, by water content and oxygen concentration that depend on micro-organic environment inside the landfill. Although there are other methods that use individual landfill structure, this study found that the semi-aerobic sanitary landfill is feasible considering that the topography of the project site is plane with slow slopes. covering soil
waste
covering soil
waste
covering soil
waste
drain pipe drain pipe
water sealing layer
water sealing layer
Impr oved anaer obic sanitar y Semi-aer obic sanitar y Aer obic sanitar y landfill landfill landfill [Figure 5.1.6.4-1] Concept of Landfill Str ucture ② Landfill Method Landfill method can be classified into a sandwich method and a cell method and should be selected considering the topography, location, daily landfill, exposure area, etc. As this landfill deals with incineration ash and there is hardly a problem related to inhabitation of harmful
5-89
insects, flying of waste, and bed smell. Accordingly this study selects the sandwich method which can save cover soil. F inal Cove r
Middle Cove r
Middle Cove r
F ina l Cove r
2%
2%
2%
2%
~ WAS T E ~
~ WAST E ~
~ WAS T E ~
Daily Cove r
~ WAS T E ~ Le achate Line r Sy s te m
Le ach ate Line r Syste m
Le a chate Colle ct ion P ipe
Sandwich Method
Le achat e Colle c tion Pipe
Cell Method
[Figure 5.1.6.4-2] Concept of Soil Cover ing (2) Landfill Constr uction Plan ① Leachate Liner System Installation of a leachate liner system intends to prevent contamination of public water, groundwater, and soil by leachate produced from a landfill and harmful impact on the environment, which requires careful planning and designing by reviewing the topography and soil. As the cost of liner system construction takes large portion of the total construction cost of a landfill, selection of the liner system should consider economic, environmental aspects of the system. The liner system installation standard as per Indonesian waste landfill technology standard provides as follows: Liner system for landfill construction - Clay: minimum thickness 0.6m, coefficient of permeability 1x10-8 m/sec or below - Geomembrane: minimum thickness 1.5 mm In Korea, as it is hard to secure large amount of clay having a low coefficient of permeability, leachate liner system construction generally uses a clay liner mixed with geo-membrane and bentonite at 5-10% of the total weight.
5-90
Liner system for domestic waste landfill construction - Clay: minimum thickness 1.0 m - Geo-membr ane: clay 0.5m+Geo-membr ane 2.0 mm Liner system for specified waste landfill construction - Clay: minimum thickness 1.5 m - Geo-membr ane: clay 1.0m+Geo-membr ane 2.5 mm This study found that the lower stratum of the project site has fully developed silty clay having relatively low permeability which means that leachate leak will not create large scale contamination of soil and groundwater, and thus the study plans to use geo-membrane (t=1.5㎜) as per Indonesian standard in the domestic waste landfill, and, in the landfill for Type 2(fly ash), apply Korean standard to lower the possibility of leachate leak. As for the landfill liner material, this study has examined the following three options and takes the second option that can prevent secondary contamination for at least 15 years after landfilling. [Table 5.1.6.4-4] Compar ing Liner Mater ials for Domestic Waste Landfill Classification
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Liner section
HDPE sheet(t=2.0㎜)
HDPE sheet(t=1.5㎜)
CCL(t=0.6 m) (k≤1×10-9m/s)
Applicable to: · All ground bed
· All ground bed
· Slow slope
·Cut off water for 31.7 ·Cut off water for 17.8 ·Cut off water for 4.4 years years years Impermeability · Permeable period: Tv = d2/(k(d+h)) where,. d: thickness of liner (m), h : leachate level (2.0m), k : coefficient of permeability (m/s) Unit cost of · 20 USD/㎡ · 16 USD/㎡ · 39 USD/㎡ construction Applicable
O
As for the waste landfill for Type 2(fly ash) liner material, this study has examined the following three options and takes the first option that can prevent secondary contamination for at least 50 years after landfilling.
5-91
[Tabble 5.1.6.4-55] Compar ing Liner M Mater ials for fo Waste Landfill L for Type 2(fly ash) Classiffication
Optio on 1
O ption 2
Option 3
Secction
HDP PE sheet(t=2 2.5 ㎜) CCL(t=1 1.0 m) (k≤1×10 0-9m/s)
H HDPE sheett(t=2.5 ㎜)
C CCL(t=1.0 m) ((k≤1×10-9m/s) m
Applicable to:
· All grou und bed
· All ground g bed
·Appliicable to slo ow slope
·C Cut off wateer for 69.9 ·Cut off water for 49 9.5 ·Cut off water fo or 20.4 yearrs years years 2 Imperm meability · Perrmeable perriod: Tv = d /(k(d+h)) w where,. d: th hickness of liner (m), h: h leachate level (2.0m)), k: coefficiient of permeaability (m/s) Unit ccost of · 88 US SD/㎡ · 23 3 USD/㎡ · 65 USD/㎡ ㎡ constrruction Appliicable O In the doomestic wasste landfill, compact c at least 95% of o soil in thee site and paave the site with 50cm thiick layer, paave the top with w non-w woven fabricc and then ag gain with H HDPE sheet.. On top of it, lay nonwoven fabric (1,00 00g/㎡) to pprotect the lining materrial from thee material (ccrushed stone) ussed in the leeachate drain n layer.
Bottom
Slope
[Figure 5.1 1.6.4-4] Domestic Wasste Landfill Liner Secction
Considerring that thee waste land dfill for Typpe 2(fly ash)), which con ntains large amount of heavy metals annd dioxin, leeachate run noff may cauuse serious environmen ntal hazard. Therefore the plan applied the t Korea’s leachate lin ner installatiion standardds as follow ws: Mix the site s soil witth bentonitee powder, coompact it at least 95%, spread in 1 00cm thick k, and
5-92
lay HDPE sheet (t=22.5mm) on top of it. Onn top of it, lay l nonwov ven fabric (11,000g/㎡) to t protect thhe lining maaterial from m the materiaal (crushed stone) used d in the leacchate drain layer. l
Bottom
Slope
[Figure 5.1.6.4-5] Waste W Landffill for Typee 2 (fly ash)) Leachate Liner Secttion ② Leaachate Colleection/Dr aiin System A leachaate collectionn/drain systtem is to quuickly collecct rainfall peenetrations to the wastee landfill laayer and thee leachate produced p froom waste deecompositio on and transsfer them to o the leachate treatment facility. fa Prev venting soil and ground dwater contamination rrequires insttallation of a linerr system andd an efficien nt leachate ddrain system m. Leachatee collection//drain layer installationn standard iss as shown in the follow wing table: [Table 5.11.6.4-6] Leaachate Colllection/Dr ain a Layer In nstallation Standar d Classificaation
Installatioon standar d
Drain layer thickness (㎝) Coefficiennt of peermeability (㎝/sec)
Pllanned
R Remar k
30∼ 50 ㎝
30 3 ㎝
Fast draain of leach hate
-
10-2 ㎝/sec ㎝ or over
Fast draain of leach hate
Drrain layer sllope (%)
2.0 or oveer
2.0 0 or over
Fully uuse the natu ural toppography
D Drain intervval (m)
20∼ 50 m
40m or below
Minimizze leachate leak
Layout of o the leachaate collectio on/drain linees lays the main m line an nd branch liines from up p to down strreams in ordder, locates in the centeer line of thee area where the groundd level is lo owest so as to ensure gravity flow to the flow controol tank, insttalls branch lines at an interval of 40 m or lower, w with the miniimum diameeter 300 mm m for the main line, 200 mm for brranch lines,, so that the system can quickkly collect and a drain leeachate and keep the in nside of the llandfill layeer semiaerobic.
5-93
[F Figure 5.1. 6.4-6] Leacchate Main n Line This studdy plans to drain d the leaachate to a rreservoir by y installing a pump in a vertical su ump pit inside thee landfill. The T vertical leachate drrain sump innstalled in th he lowest pooint will be at least 1.2m in ddiameter annd be made of o polyethyylene pipes.
[Figurre 5.1.6.4-7]] Ver tical Leachate L Dr ain Sumpp
5-94
[Figure 5.1.6.4-8] Insttallation Plan for Leacchate Drainn way
5-95
③ Rainwater Dr ainage When rainwater in the neighborhood flows into the landfill, the amount of leachate in the landfill drastically rises and accordingly overloads the leachate treatment facility’s capacity, and moreover makes the flow and the water quality too much fluctuate to process. To avoid this, this study recommends to: drain away the rainfall near the landfill to the outside; isolate rainwater from waste in the facility where landfill is still not started; and in the zone where landfill completed, install a drain way on the surface of the final soil cover to drain the surface run-offs and thus reduce leachate generation as much as possible. In addition, the rainwater drainage should not only lessen the leachate treatment load but also systematically maintain the entire rainwater drain system. The rainwater runoff is estimated based on the ground surface in the project site (land use), d area, and rainfall intensity. This study uses a rational formula for this calculation as below, considering that the external basin area is smaller than 4㎢: Q
1 360
C
I
A
where, Q: rainwater runoff (㎥/sec) C: coefficient of runoff I: rainfall intensity (mm/hr) A: drainage area (ha) This study uses 0.4 as the coefficient of runoff considering that the topography of the external drainage area in the project site is slow slope. [Table 5.1.6.4-7] Standar d Coefficient of Runoff by Land Use Classification
Coefficient of r unoff
Roof
0.85-0.95
Open ground
0.10-0.30
Road Other impermeable surfaces Water
0.80-0.90
Park with lawn and trees
0.05-0.25
0.75-0.85
Slow slope
0.20-0.40
1.00
Steep slope
0.40-0.60
Classification
Coefficient of runoff
Source: Standard of Sewerage System (2005), Korea Water and Wastewater Works Association Referring to the Rainfall Intensity Duration Frequency (IDF) Analysis for the Asia Pacific Region, November 2008, this study assumes that the rainfall intensity (I25) is 121.4 mm/hr for the period of 25 years.
5-96
The rainwater runoff in the project site is estimated as xx ㎥/day, which is reflected in establishing the plans for perimeter drain and the landfill inside drain. Q50 = 1 / 360 ․ C ․ I ․ A = 1 / 360 × 0.4 × 121.4 × 3.85 = 0.519㎥/s where, Q = rainwater runoff (㎥/s) A = 3.85ha (drain area) C = 0.4 (coefficient of runoff in the gentle slope) I = 121.4 mm/hr Cross sectional area of the waterway outside the project site that is required for stable drain of the rainwater runoff is calculated at least0.27㎡. A = Q25 / V = 0.519 / 2.0 = 0.26㎡ where, Q25 = rainwater runoff (㎥/s) V = flow rate in the conduit line (m/s, 1.0-3.0 m/s) To prevent rainwater from flowing into the landfill, this study plans to install a drainway around the facility (U-type side gutter, width 0.6m×height 0.8m) to reduce generation of leachate, and drain the surface runoff generated in this project site toward the Cisadang river using the gravity flow.
5-97
[[Figure 5.1..6.4-9] Rain nfall Intenssity (mm/hrr ) for 60-m min dur ationn by Pear so on-Ⅲ Source)) Rainfall Inntensity Du uration Freqquency (IDF) Analysiss for the A Asia Pacific Region, November 2008
5-98
[F F igure 5.1.6 6.4-10] Insttallation Pllan for Rain n water Dr a inage
5-99
④ Grooundwater Dr ainage Rainfall on the grouund surface are mostly ddrained by surface runoff, but som me of it infilltrates into soil and forms groundwate g er. Althoughh this landfilll will cut off inflow/ouutflow of groundw water by form ming a wateerproof layeer under the landfill, it seems that tthe rainfall infiltratioon into soil from aroun nd the landfiill will form m groundwater and flow w down the waterprooof layer in the lower ground insidde the landfiill. If ground dwater flow ws through the t lower groound and thhe embankm ment for an eextended peeriod, the so oil particles will flow out o with groundw water to causse erosion and a safety prroblems in the t body off embankmeent. Therefo ore, it is required to examinee the stratigrraphy of thee cutoff bedd after excav vation and innstall a dum mmy ditch or dabalbin d pippe to drain away a grounndwater wheere it gushes out. ⑤ Lanndfill Gas Tr T apping an nd Processiing Generally, gas generrates from landfill l conssists largely y of methanee (CH4) andd carbon dio oxide (CO2), w which takes 98% of the total gas geeneration, and a a small amount of hhydrogen su ulfide, hydrogenn, and otherrs. Methane and hydroggen contained in landfill gas is infl flammable and a explosivee, while hyddrogen sulfiide and amm monia causee malodor, which w may affect the environm ment when leak. l Draining gas geneerated from landfill as soon as posssible will not n only prevent danger d but also a accelerrate decompposition insiide the landfill and enhhance stabiliization of the lanndfill. A lanndfill can bee seen as an anaerobic reactor, r having a decom mposition mechanissm as detailled below:
[Tabble 5.1.6.4-8 8] Gener al Proper ty of o Landfill Gas G (0℃, 11atm) P operty Pr
Measur M emeent
Temperature (℃ ℃)
37.7 - 48.88
Specific gravity y
1.02 - 1.066
Waater content
Saturated
Higher heaating value (㎉/㎥)
3,560 3 - 4,4550
Source)) Integrated Solid Wastte, George T Tchobanoglo ous and 2 others, 1993 Landfill gas generattion from th he sanitary l andfill shou uld be assessed taking iinto accoun nt all inclusiveely of the am mount of org ganic wastee that is the source of laandfill gas aand how lon ng the waste haas been burieed. Landfilll gas generaated by an anaerobic a reaction mechhanism can be expressed as CaHbO OcNd in thee form of geeneral organ nic matter th hrough chem mical properrty analysis of the wastee brought in nto the landdfill, and thee total volum me of the poossible land dfill 5-100
generatioon can be esstimated usiing the folloowing formula.
Organic matters thatt generate laandfill gas ccan be classsified into faast, intermeediate, and slow s decompoosing matterrs based on the decompposition ratee as detailed d below: [Tabble 5.1.6.4-9] Waste C Classificatioon by Decom mposition R Rate Matter
Tim me r equir ed d for deecompositio on
food, newspaper, n fallen leavees, sludge, etc e
3m months∼ 5yeears
Paper, w wood, textilee, etc
5yeears∼ 50yeears
rubbeer, leather, etc e
500 years or ov ver
Claassification Fast ddecomposinng matter Inttermediate decom mposing mattter Slow decomposin d ng matter
Landfill gas generattion is foreccasted usingg the EPA Model. M The estimation e oof landfill gaas generatioon in the Cipeucang Laandfill foundd that the maximum m lan ndfill gas geeneration will w be 21.51㎥//minute (yeaar 2020), bu ut after the iincinerator launches in 2020, it wiill drasticallly fall. [Table 5.11.6.4-10] Laandfill Gas Gener ation Forecast [ZONE 1 - ZONE 3] Year
L Landfill gaas gener atioon
Year Y
Landfill gas gener ation a
㎥/yr
㎥/miin
㎥/yr
㎥/m min
20113
505,537
0.96
2021 2
8,533,2955
16.24
20114
1,083,062
2.06
2022 2
6,527,6788
12.42
20115
2 2,070,853
3.94
2023 2
5,070,471
9.65
20116
3,243,443
6.17
2024 2
4,006,1666
7.62
20117
4 4,695,476
8.93
2025 2
3,224,0166
6.13
20118
6 6,541,059
12.444
2026 2
2,645,5255
5.03
20119
8 8,930,888
16.999
2027 2
2,199,2855
4.18
20220
111,306,697
21.511
2028 2
1,859,4822
3.54
As the laandfill gas generation g from fr zone 3 landfill to be b installed this time iss estimated at 0.30 ㎥/min (22025), no additional a gaas trap will be installedd.
5-101
[Table 5.1.6.4-11] Landfill Gas Generation Forecast [ZONE 3] Landfill gas generation
Year
㎥/yr
㎥/min
2021
20,041
0.04
2022
42,472
0.08
2023
67,029
0.13
2024
94,182
0.24
2025
123,661
0.30
2026
156,109
0.29
2027
150,740
0.28
2028
145,556
0.27
The largest landfill gas generation in the Cipeucang Landfill is estimated at 21.51㎥/minute and thus introducing a landfill gas recycle system has some feasibility. From 2020 when the incinerator starts running, the figure would drastically fall, and if soil covering is not made, the content of methane gas that generates from anaerobic decomposition could be low. Moreover, if waste collection rate fails to reach 2019’s target the landfill gas generation is likely to be smaller than expected. Therefore, it seems reasonable to establish a plan for landfill gas recycle after checking waste collection trend in 2016-2018 and performing a landfill gas extraction test. Power generation from landfill gas is estimated as follows: - Annual landfill gas collection (50% of average generation in 2019-2028) 5.17 ㎥/min × 60 min/hour × 24 hours/day × 365 days/year = 2,717,352 ㎥/year - Landfill gas generated: 4,500kcal/㎥/household - Total energy available: 2,717,352㎥/year × 4,500kcal/㎥ = 1.22×1010kcal/year - Maximum power production (Assume the efficiencies of the gas engines is 40% of the ideal) (
5.17 ㎥/min × 4,500 kcal/㎥ × 60 min/hr
)×0.4=649kWh≒ 0.65 MWh
860kcal/kWh
Landfill gas trap installation is divided into vertical and horizontal traps. The horizontal gas trap features early trapping and thus can be an active measure against odor and possible complaint from the community, but it has problems including possible breakdown of trapping pipe and lowered trapping efficiency due to inundation of leachate. 5-102
The trappping well coonstruction to collect laandfill gas from f existin ng landfill (zzone 1 - zon ne 2) will incluude: excavaating 80% of the landfilll height usiing a verticaal excavatorr (e.g., Augar) where lanndfill has been done to o a certain leevel (at leasst 10m), securing an eff ffective widtth of trapping using graveel or others having a hiigh permeabbility, installing a perfoorated drain pipe (150-2000 mm) for trrapping or transfer, insttalling vertiical trapping g wells at evvery 50m consideriing that a veertical trapp ping hole noormally cann trap gas 0.2 2-1.0 ㎥/m min, and, if it is hard to recyclle, connectinng a simple incineratorr to the vertiical trapping well to buurn away the gas generatedd.
Examp ple: Simplee Inciner ato or Installattion [Figure 5.1.6.4-11] 5 L Landfill Gaas Tr ap Installation Pllan
Ver ticall Tr apping System
5-103
⑥ Leaachate Reciirculation System S The leachhate recircuulation systeem is a U.S..-developed d and widely y used technnique that recognizes landfill as a a giganticc biologicall reactor discarding the traditional concept of sanitary landfill, gives g wastee a condition ning similarr to an anaerobic reacto or so as to m maximize physiochhemical, bioological puriification ability of the landfill l and d secure alteernative energy productioon and earlyy stabilization. In otherr words, thiss system shortens the tiime taken for f waste decomposition, previouslly 20-30 yeears from lan ndfilling, deecomposes w waste at a super s high ratee, quickly sttabilizes waste and effeectively prod duces biogaas, and conttrols leachatte and landfill gas g managem ment more actively.
[F igure 5.1.6.4-12] Con cept of Leaachate Reciirculation SSystem
A leachaate recirculaation system m is divided into a horizzontal system m and a verrtical system m. Korea’s eexperiencess found that it is recomm mendable to o introduce the system m to a sanitarry landfill where w dryinng process iss done and tthus water content c is lo owered to beelow 30% on o the volume bbasis, and too feed up to o 20㎥/ha/daay by increaasing the waater contentt of landfill waste by 5 to 10% to keepp it around 30 3 to 35%. A leachaate recirculaation system m consists off a leachate collection tank t (using existing pond), a leachate transfer sysstem (installling pumps and transfeer lines), and d a feeder (vvertical/horrizontal type). In case of Cippeucang Lan ndfill, this sstudy recom mmends thatt a leachate recirculatio on system shhould be introduced to facilitate early stabilizzation in thee landfill Zoone 1 that will w be fully filleed up by 20015.
5-104
Hor izzontal Feeeder
Ver tical Feeeder
[Figure 5.1.6.4-13]] Example: Leachate Recirculati R ion System m Installatio on
⑦ Auxxiliar y Faciilities ■ Managgement Faciilities This studdy plans thaat the curren nt Cipeucanng Landfill’ss maintenan nce buildingg will be useed as a facility too efficientlyy direct and control varrious landfilll managem ment activitiees including g landfill waste w managgement, lan ndfill work m managemen nt, and faciliity managem ment. ■ Measuuring System m A measuuring system m will be insstalled at thee entrance of o the facilitty to measurre garbage trucks t and calcuulate the preecise amoun nt of waste brought in, which will be a digitall system buried undergroound and abble to weigh at least 50 tons.
Measur M em ent Display befor e Display after a sto or age and ooutput measur in ng measur ing i system [ [Figure 5.1..6.4-14] Ex ample: Meeasur ing Sy ystem Operr ation
Lo aded vehiccle
5-105
■ Wheel-washing Facility When a waste w transpport vehiclee enters the landfill, a wheel-washi w ing facility will wash off o contaminnants remainning in the wheels w and waste and dust remain ning in the bbody of the vehicle to keep the access rooad clean an nd prevent bbad smell.
② Wash W off fr ont ③ Wash off r ear wheeels and low wer wh heels and lo ower ④ The veh hicle front of o the vehiccle at back k of the vehicle at leaves a time a time [Figgure 5.1.6.4 4-15] Exam mple: Wheeel-washing Facility F Opper ation
① A vvehicle ent er s
■ Grounddwater Testt Well The purppose of instaalling a grou undwater teest well arou und the land dfill is to chheck if water barrier in the lanndfill workss and, when n it was dam maged, moniitor how farr contaminan ant outflow spreads s into grouundwater annd affects hu uman livingg environmeent. The gro oundwater teest well will be installed at 3 places and 20 m deep d consideering the direction of groundwater g r flow so that it can be possibble to determ mine wheth her the grounndwater is contaminate c ed by leachaate leak. Groundw water monitooring will be b done quarrterly and will w examinee pH, BOD,, COD, NH3-N, NO2-N, nitric n nitroggen, SS, groundwater leevel, etc. ■ Fence Fence wiill be installled around the t border oof the projecct site to control humann access and d raise efficienc y of managgement. Fence will be aat least 1.5m m high and installed aroound the borrder of the projeect site.
5-106
[Figure 5.1.6.4-16]] Groundwater Test Well in Detaa il
5-107
5.1.6.4.3 Landfill Wor k Plan (1) Landfill Wor k Over view An efficient landfill work plan is essential to minimizing the environmental impact by bad smell and leachate caused during waste landfilling and securing a sanitary work environment. Unlike general construction works, waste landfill features manual works for which work plans are made as waste is brought in and a series of repetitive and interconnected works including unloading, conveying, spreading and compacting, carrying of cover soil, grading, and compaction. ① Waste Unloading Clear designation of where the waste will be unloaded and checking if unloading is done as instructed in accordance with the landfill work plan are basic to the unloading work management. Unloading site designation should consider the following: - Unloading should be done in a place where soil cover is done and compacted so that no garbage truck’s tire is damaged or no wheels are stuck. - No transport vehicles should be let into the landfill work places to avoid crash with landfill machines. - Bulky waste should be unloaded onto a fully compacted place for easier crushing before dispersing and grading. ② Disper sing, Cr ushing, and Compacting Waste Unloaded waste from garbage trucks should be spread and graded in the landfill area using a dozer or compactor, and then crushed and compacted. The following notes and cautions should be followed if these works are to be done safely and efficiently: - If crushing and compression are essential, a compacting machine will be required that has larger crushing and compression capability than dozers. - Considering workability and safety, the slope gradient in a horizontal plane or slope should range around 1:3∼ 1:10. - The optimal thickness of the scattered and graded waste ranges from 30 to 50㎝. Rolling back and forth 5 to 6 times over the waste will get sufficient crushing and compaction. - In case of waste that is likely to fly and scatter, mix with other wastes before burying or spray water to prevent dust rising in dry season. This will prevent flying of waste and work well in compaction, as well.
5-108
Ship in waste
Ship in cove er soil
M Measure
Transshipmen nt (cover
Move and unload to
Measurre
Transp port and scatter
M Move and un nload to Repeatt
C Compact Transp port and grad de co over soil (daily//intermediate e co over soil) Comp pact cover so oil
[Figure 5.11.6.4-17] Laandfill Worr kflow (2) Lanndfill Methood Review Waste lanndfill is gennerally donee in two direections: upw ward landfilll that burie s unloaded and carried inn waste from m lower to upper u layerss using a coompactor, do ownward laandfill that buries b waste froom upper too lower layeers. Althouggh the downward landfiill has a weaakness, i.e., the compactiion density is low, but it can be ussed when eq quipment’s access a is diffficult becau use of possible damage to fundamentaal facility inn an early phhase of land dfill. This sttudy, too, pllans to apply thiis method only to the 1st landfill laayer (bottom m layer of th he fundameental facility y), and from the second layer and upwaard (upper llayers of lan ndfill) the upward u landdfill method seems feasible bbecause thiss method co ompacts bettter.
5-109
(3) Landfill Facility Operation Standard This study set a standard for landfill facility operation based on Korea’s accumulated waste landfill operation skills, and planned the waste carry-in time and landfill time by taking account of the waste collection and transport system, workability, traffic impact, and aesthetic factors, etc. ① Standar d Carr y-in Time Waste carry-in time should be operated flexibly considering the collection time, waste collection system, traffic conditions, etc., so that the carried-in waste can be buried and covered with soil as soonest as possible to ensure efficient landfill management. Standard daily waste carry-in time: 8 hours (AM 7:00 - PM 3:00) - 06:30 - Site inspection should check the site for: : Preparedness for guiding garbage trucks to the work site : Lighting units for night work if required - 06:50 - Check operation of waste landfilling equipment - 07:00 - Start carrying in waste - 14:00 - Start conveying cover soil and unload to the soil covering work site - 15:00 - Start covering soil over waste - 16:00 - End carrying in waste and clean work site (guide and information staffs) - 17:00 - Finish waste landfill, soil covering, and work site cleaning - 18:00 - Perform final inspection and prepare a site checklist ② Waste Landfill Planning Criteria Planning should ensure that the minimal function of rainwater drain can be maintained after waste landfill and differential settlement and waste landfill volume can be maximized. To protect fundamental facility and perform systematic landfilling, the waste landfill planning should include a downward landfill for the 1st landfill layer that contacts the fundamental facility, and an upward landfill for 2nd and higher layers, and set standards of waste layer compaction, working slope, daily average landfill work volume, referencing the following figure.
5-110
- Waste layer com mpaction thicckness: 0.5 m - Waste layer com mpaction cou unt: 4 timess - Waste layer com mpaction den nsity: 1.0 toon/㎥ or over - Waste landfillingg work slop pe standard: 1:3 on averrage Daily llandfill voluume is as sh hown below w: - Dailyy average laandfill volum me in the w waste landfill facility wiill be calcullated using the t amounnt of daily waste w carried d in and thee waste layeer compactio on density. Dailyy waste carrried in: averrage 111tonn/day (2020)) Com mpaction dennsity : 1.0ton/㎥ Landdfill height: 4.7m (if staandard interrim soil covver is
0.3m m thick)
Dailyy landfill work area = Daily waste carrried in ÷ co ompaction ddensity ÷ Waaste landfilll height for each layer = 111ton/day÷1.0ton/㎥ ÷ 4..7 m ≒ 233.6㎡ ∴ Caalculation off daily landffill work areea found that
25㎡ will w be feasiible consideering the
factorss affecting the t waste caarry-in amouunt in the fuuture. - Dailyy average am mount of co overing soil is calculateed as follow ws: Dailyy landfill work area: 23 3.6㎡ Lenggth of one siide of wastee : Interrim soil covver: 4.9 m × 4.9 m × 0.33 m = 7.2㎥ ㎥ ∴ Daaily averagee amount of covering sooil is calculated about 7.2㎥. 7 ③ Perim meter Slope Finish Plan n A reasonnable finish to the perim meter slope should be considered c in order to ssecure stabillity of the slopee as layer-byy-layer land dfill proceedds and to redduce enviro onmental prooblems caused by exposed landfill sloppe during laandfilling. Althoughh finishing the t slope affter waste laandfill is lesss advantageeous than fiinishing by waste landfill inn terms of workability, w , stability off slope, and d environmental impactt, but it has a strength in securing landfill cap pacity and thhus is choseen.
5-111
Middle Cove r Daily Cove r Final Cove r
~ WAS T E ~
[Figure 5.1.6.4-18] Per imeter Slope Finish Plan ④ Soil Covering Plan The purpose of soil covering is to prevent waste from flying and smelling by wind; prevent inhabitation of harmful insects and animals, fire, and infiltration of rainwater; improve landscape, and preserve environment. Interim soil cover - Interim soil cover is planned at 30 cm considering the contact pressure and the bearing capacity for easy access by vehicles and in order to reduce leachate generation by rainwater infiltration and prevent diffusion of volatile organic compound in the landfill. Top of the interim soil cover may have problems in rainwater drain due to puddles created by settlement of the lower layers of waste over time and thus should be maintained periodically. - Compacting should be done right after interim soil covering is done, grading and compacting should be done on the surface of the soil cover in the landfill zone that was damaged by traffic of garbage trucks and soil covering vehicles, and grading should be done on the surface of the soil cover in order to prevent damage to the surface of interim landfill and thus to its functionality. Final Soil Cover - The final soil cover laid over where landfill is finished should be inclined by at least 2%, which should comprises from bottom to top: a gas drain layer (at least 30㎝), a cutoff layer (of clay or a mixture of clay and minerals at least 45㎝ (k=1×10-6㎝/sec or below), or at least 30 ㎝ (k=1× 10-6㎝/sec or below) of clay or clay-mineral mixed soil and on top of it a 1.5 mm or thicker cutoff membrane of synthetic polymers), a drain layer (at least 30 cm of sand and others), and a planting layer (at least 60㎝) in order.
5-112
(4) Equipment Procurement Plan Smooth and efficient collection, transport, and landfill of waste requires proper equipment and machines. Especially, equipment and machines used in the waste landfill should be planned and classified based on their use, i.e., landfilling, soil covering, or others. landfill equipment’s basic specification may not exactly fit the site conditions but it lists what should be equipped as a landfill equipment and thus a plan should be set accordingly. Applicability of landfill equipment may differ with conditions of the site, but the following basic requirements should be met in order to perfect dispersion and compaction in the landfill: [Table 5.1.6.4-12] Gener al Equipment Plan Based on Waste Amount Waste (ton/day)
Equipment
0-20
9,000 kg dozer (1) or 9,000-11,500 kg loader (1)
20-50
9,000-11,500 kg dozer or 11,500-14,000 loader (1)
50-130
14,000 kg dozer (1) or 18,000 kg loader +(18,000 kg-23,000 kg) compactor (1) 20,000 kg dozer (1) or 23,000 kg loader +(18,000kg-23,000kg) compactor (1)
130-250 250-500
36,000-40,000 kg dozer (1)+(18,000 kg-20,000 kg) compactor (1)
36,000-40,000 kg dozer (1)+(32,000 kg-36,000 kg) compactor (1)+ auxiliary equipment When the characteristics of remaining ash after incineration is considered, the dozer is deemed 500+
reasonable because it can do spreading and compacting at a time. [Table 5.1.6.4-13] Equipment Procurement Plan Classification
Use
Requir ed units
Dozer (19 ton)
Dispersion and compaction of waste; soil covering
Excavator (0.7㎥)
Cover soil excavation and loading
1
Dump tr uck (10 ton)
Cover soil transport
1
5-113
1
Remar k Use existing equipment Use existing equipment Use existing equipment
5.1.6.4.4 Oper ation and Management Plan (1) Oper ation and Management Or ganization As waste landfill transits to sanitary landfill from unsanitary open dumping, construction of landfill facility, operation and maintenance of leachate treatment facility requires professional skills and efficient organization. This study suggests the following plan for operation and management of the entire landfill facility. Gener al Manager Directs and supervises the entire landfill facility. Management Team is responsible for : Business planning Budgeting and accounting Personnel, service, security-related matters Illegal waste dumping and regulation Metering and control of waste carried into the landfill Billing and collection of municipal waste disposal fee Control of vehicle’s access to the landfill Oper ation Team Planning and execution of landfill and soil covering plans Maintenance of access road and drainage Disease control and environment cleaning Operation and management of leachate treatment facility Maintenance of management facilities Vehicles and heavy equipment management
5-114
General Manager (1)
Management (3)
Operation (13)
Administration 1 Accounting 1 Waste carry-in 1
management 1 Landfill operation 3 Leachate treatment facility 2 Field staff 7
[Figure 5.1.6.4-19] Landfill Oper ation and Management Or ganization
(2) Oper ation and Management Items Waste landfill facility operation and management should be done on fundamental facility, landfill work, and follow up management after landfilling. The following items are listed to help perform this efficiently: [Table 5.1.6.4-14] Oper ation and Management Items Classification Fundamental facility management Waste landfilling
Oper ation and management items · Road, facilities for leachate cutoff/collection/drain, groundwater and rainwater drain, leachate treatment; landfill related facility, landscaping facility, buildings, auxiliary facilities, and measuring systems · Procuring cover soil (store and use soil secured during landfill construction) · Landfilling and soil covering
Equipment and · Equipment for landfilling and soil covering machines management · Machine, electricity, and measurement control facilities Envir onment Management
· Flying ashes, groundwater contamination, noise, and others
Safety Management
· Fire prevention, perimeter fences, ground settlement, traffic safety
5-115
5.1.6.4.5 Constr uction Cost and Oper ation Cost (1) Constr uction Cost Construction cost for the landfill is estimated separately for the domestic waste landfill and the waste landfill for Type 2(fly ash), as detailed in the following table: [Table 5.1.6.4-15] Landfill Constr uction Cost Classification
Domestic waste Landfill
Waste Landfill For Type 2 (Fly ash)
Amount (Million Rp.)
Earthwork Pavement Leachate cutoff Leachate collection/drain Rainwater drain Auxiliary facilities Subtotal Leachate cutoff Leachate collection/drain Building work Subtotal Total
Remar k
3,111 8,053 3,957 774 917 1,494 18,306 2,387 246 14,301 16,934 35,240
(2) Oper ation Cost Operation cost for the waste treatment facility comprises labor cost, electricity fee, and maintenance cost, as detailed below: [Table 5.1.6.4-16] Annual Landfill Oper ation Cost Amount (Million Rp.)
Remar k
Labor cost
381
Landfill management staffs = 17
Management cost Sub-total Fuel Cover soil Etc cost Sub-total
76.2 457.2 156.42 262.8 6.82 423.412
Classification
Fixed Cost
Variable Cost
Total
880.612
5-116
Fuel for vehicle 1% of Variable cost
5.2 Economical and Financial Feasibility Study 5.2.1 Estimated Cost of Investment 5.2.1.1 Transfer Depot The investment cost by installation scale of the Transfer Depot is as detailed in the following table: [Table 5.2.1.1-1] Details of Transfer Depot Investment Cost Amount (Million Rp.)
Classification Land purchase Construction design/supervision Civil work Building work Construction Machine work cost Electrical work Subtotal Total
200TPD
150TPD
50TPD
7,950
6,900
4,500
317
301
212
3,362 5,341 858 1,011 10,572 18,839
2,816 5,341 858 1,011 10,026 17,227
1,752 3,872 858 599 7,081 11,793
Remark
3% of construction cost
5.2.1.2 Incinerator The investment cost for installing the incinerator (790 ton/day) is estimated at 1,303,716 Million Rp as detailed in the following table. [Table 5.2.1.2-1] Details of Investment Cost for Incinerator Classification
Amount (Million Rp.)
Land purchase
23,716
Construction design/supervision
114,000
Machine work Construction cost
762,000
Electricity, instrumentation & control work
198,000
Construction work
174,000
Civil work
32,000
Subtotal
1,166,000
Total
1,303,716
5-117
Remark
5.2.1.3 Landfill Facility Construction cost for the landfill is estimated separately for the domestic waste landfill and the waste landfill for Type 2(fly ash), as detailed in the following table: [Table 5.2.1.3-1] Landfill Investment Cost Classification
Amount (Million Rp.)
Land purchase
23,716
Construction design/supervision
1,057
Domestic waste Landfill
Construction cost
Waste Landfill For Type 2 (Fly ash)
Earthwork
3,111
Pavement
8,053
Leachate cutoff
3,957
Leachate collection/drain
774
Rainwater drain
917
Auxiliary facilities
1,494
Subtotal
18,306
Leachate cutoff
2,387
Leachate collection/drainage
246
Building
14,301
Subtotal
16,934
Subtotal
35,240
Total
60,013
5-118
Remark
3% of Construction cost
5.2.2 Estimated Cost of Operation and Maintenance 5.2.2.1 Transfer depot 5.2.2.1.1 Transfer Depot (200 ton/day) Operation cost for running the Transfer Depot of 200 ton/day capacity is estimated at 451,308,000 Rp/year based on 8 operation staffs, and the details are as follows: [Table 5.2.2.2-1] Summary of operation cost (200TPD) Classification
Cost (Rp/year)
Labor cost
Description ㆍ Management staffs and transshipment 168,600,000 vehicle operators
General Fixed administrative cost expenses Subtotal
Variable cost
33,720,000
ㆍ 20% of labor cost
202,320,000 ㆍ 0.75% of the net construction cost
Repair
61,890,000
Electricity
123,456,000
Fuel
55,440,000
ㆍ Diesel fuel for arm roll trucks and backhoes
Service water
5,737,000
ㆍ Cleaning water and domestic water
Others
2,465,000
ㆍ 1.0% of variable cost
Subtotal
248,988,000
Total
451,308,000
(1) Labor cost The labor cost for Transfer Depot management is estimated at 168,600,000 Rp a year. Staff Director General affairs/accounting Backhoe operator Vehicle access management Cleaner Total
Operation staff 1
Wage (Rp/month) 3,500,000
12
Cost (Rp/year) 34,200,000
1
2,500,000
12
30,000,000
1
1,800,000
12
21,600,000 Loader driver
2
1,200,000
12
28,800,000
Loader crew
3 8
1,500,000
12
54,000,000 168,600,000
Crew
5-119
Month
Remark Class II Class I
(2) General administrative expenses The general administrative expenses refers to all the expenditures for operating an entity including fringe benefits for operation staffs, utility bills, and general administrative expenses and is proportional to the number of operation staffs. This study estimated the amount at 33,720,000 Rp a year by applying 20% of the labor cost. Classification
Labor cost (Rp/year)
Rate applied
Cost (Rp/year)
General administrative expenses
168,600,000
20%
33,720,000
(3) Repair cost The repair cost incurred from operation of the Transfer Depot is estimated at 61,890,000Rp a year when applying 0.75% of the construction cost. Classification
Amount (Rp)
Rate applied
Cost (Rp/year)
Repair
8,252,000,000
0.75%
61,890,000
(4) Electricity charge Transfer Depot of 200 ton/day’s electricity consumption is estimated at 64.8 kWh, the annual charge will amount to 123,456,000 Rp combining the standing charge and the service fee (demand factor 70% applied). Classification
Price
Standing 200,000Rp/month charge Service fee 1,112Rp/kWh
Usage Operation Month Demand factor Cost (Rp/year) (kWh) hour (month) (%) 12 64.8
8
Total
12
2,400,000 70%
121,056,000 123,456,000
5-120
(5) Fuel cost The fuel cost consists of the money spent for buying fuel for that are run by the Transfer Depot and is estimated at 55,440,000 Rp a year. Classification
Operating Number Service Price Fuel hour and (Rp/L) efficiency of units frequency travel
Backhoe
5,500
5.6L/hr
6hr/day
1
-
Total
Cost (Rp/year) 55,440,000 55,440,000
(6) Service water charge The cost for the service water used in the transfer depot consists of cleaning water and domestic water and is estimated at 5,737,600Rp. Classification
Price (Rp/㎥)
Usage
Yearly usage (㎥/year)
Cost (Rp/year)
Cleaning water
8,150
4.0 ㎥/times
416
3,390,000
Domestic water
8,150
0.96 ㎥/day
Total
288
2,347,000
704
5,737,000
Remark Washing twice a week on the basis of 300 days/year
(7) Other expenses Other expenses than the above fixed cost and variable cost is estimated 2,465,000 Rp a year when applying 1.0% of the variable cost. Classification
Amount (Rp/year)
Rate applied
Others
2,465,000
1.0%
5-121
Cost (Rp/year)
5.2.2.1.2 Transfer Depot (150 ton/day) Operation cost for running the Transfer Depot of 150 ton/day capacity is estimated at 416,040,000 Rp/year based on 7 operation staffs, and the details are as follows: [Table 5.2.2.2-2] Summary of operation cost (150TPD) Classification
Cost (Rp/year)
Labor cost General Fixed administrative cost expenses Subtotal
30,120,000
Variable cost
ㆍ 20% of labor cost
180,720,000
Repair
58,740,000
Electricity
Description
150,600,000 ㆍ Full-time management staffs, transshipment vehicles and tank truck operators
ㆍ 0.75% of the net construction cost
123,456,000 ㆍ
Fuel
46,200,000
ㆍ Diesel fuel for arm roll trucks and backhoes
Service water
4,595,000
ㆍ Cleaning water and domestic water
Others
2,329,000
ㆍ 1.0% of variable cost
Subtotal
235,320,000
Total
416,040,000
(1) Labor cost The labor cost for Transfer Depot management staffs and arm roll truck operators is estimated at 150,600,000 Rp a year. Staff
Operation staff
Wage (Rp/month)
Month
Cost (Rp/year)
Remark
1
2,850,000
12
34,200,000
Class II Class I
Director General affairs/accounting Backhoe operator Vehicle access management Cleaner
1
2,500,000
12
30,000,000
1
1,800,000
12
21,600,000 Loader driver
2
1,200,000
12
28,800,000
Loader crew
2
1,500,000
12
36,000,000
Crew
Total
7
150,600,000
5-122
(2) General administrative expenses The general administrative expenses refers to all the expenditures for operating an entity including fringe benefits for operation staffs, utility bills, and general administrative expenses and is proportional to the number of operation staffs. This study estimated the amount at 30,120,000 Rp a year by applying 20% of the labor cost. Classification
Labor cost (Rp/year) Rate applied
General administrative expenses
150,600,000
20%
Cost (Rp/year) 30,120,000
(3) Repair cost This cost refers to the cost of repairing the transfer depot facilities, and is estimated at 58,740,000 Rp a year when applying 0.75% of the construction cost. Classification
Construction cost (Rp)
Rate applied
Cost (Rp/year)
Repair
7,832,000,000
0.75%
58,740,000
(4) Electricity charge Transfer Depot of 150 ton/day’s electricity consumption is estimated at 64.8 kWh, an the annual charge will amount to 124,577,000 Rp combining the standing charge and the service fee (demand factor 70% applied). Classification
Price
Standing 200,000Rp/month charge Service fee 1,112Rp/kWh
Demand Usage Operation Month factor Cost (Rp/year) (kWh) hour (month) (%) 12 64.8
8
Total
12
2,400,000 70%
121,056,000 123,456,000
5-123
(5) Fuel cost The fuel cost consists of the money spent for buying fuel for that are run by the Transfer Depot and is estimated at 46,200,000 Rp a year. Classification Backhoe
Operating Number Service Price Fuel hour and (Rp/L) efficiency of units frequency travel 5,500
5.6L/hr
5hr/day
1
-
Total
Cost (Rp/year) 46,200,000 46,200,000
(6) Service water charge Service water used by the transfer depot is estimated to cost 4,595,000Rp a year. Classification
Price (Rp/㎥)
Daily use
Yearly usage (㎥/year)
Cleaning water
8,150
3.0 ㎥/times
312
Domestic water
8,150
0.84 ㎥/day
252
Total
Cost (Rp/year)
Remark
Washing twice a 2,542,000 week 2,053,000 on the basis of 300 days/year
564
4,595,000
(7) Other expenses Other expenses than the above fixed cost and variable cost is estimated 2,329,000 Rp a year when applying 1.0% of the variable cost. Classification
Amount (Rp/year)
Rate applied
Others
2,329,000
1.0%
5-124
Remark
5.2.2.1.3 Transfer Depot (50 ton/day) Operation cost for running the Transfer Depot of 50 ton/day capacity is estimated at 298,554,000 Rp/year based on 5 operation staffs, and the details are as follows: [Table 5.2.2.2-3] Summary of operation cost (50TPD) Classification
Cost (Rp/year)
Labor cost General Fixed administrative cost expenses Subtotal
Variable cost
Description
118,200,000 ㆍ Full-time management staffs, transshipment vehicles and tank truck operators 23,640,000
ㆍ 20% of labor cost
141,840,000
Repair
41,752,000
ㆍ 0.75% of the net construction cost
Electricity
74,137,000
ㆍ
Fuel
36,960,000
ㆍ Diesel fuel for arm roll trucks and backhoes
Service water
2,314,000
ㆍ Cleaning water and domestic water
Others
1,551,000
ㆍ 1.0% of variable cost
Subtotal
156,714,000
Total
298,554,000
(1) Labor cost The labor cost for Transfer Depot management staffs and backhoe operators is estimated at 118,200,000 Rp a year. Staff
Operation staff
Wage (Rp/month)
Month
Cost (Rp/year)
Remark
1
2,850,000
12
34,200,000
Class II Class I
Director General affairs/accounting Backhoe operator Vehicle access management Cleaner
1
2,500,000
12
30,000,000
1
1,800,000
12
21,600,000 Loader driver
1
1,200,000
12
14,400,000
Loader crew
1
1,500,000
12
18,000,000
Crew
Total
5
118,200,000
5-125
(2) General administrative expenses The general administrative expenses refers to all the expenditures for operating an entity including fringe benefits for operation staffs, utility bills, and general administrative expenses and is proportional to the number of operation staffs. This study estimated the amount at 23,640,000 Rp a year by applying 20% of the labor cost. Classification
Labor cost (Rp/year) Rate applied
General administrative expenses
118,200,000
Cost (Rp/year)
20%
23,640,000
(3) Repair cost The repair cost incurred from operation of the Transfer Depot is estimated at 41,752,000Rp a year when applying 0.75% of the construction cost. Classification
Construction cost (Rp)
Rate applied
Cost (Rp/year)
Repair
5,567,000,000
20%
41,752,000
(4) Electricity charge Transfer Depot of 50 ton/day’s electricity consumption is estimated at 38.40 kWh, an the annual charge will amount to 74,137,000 Rp combining the standing charge and the service fee (demand factor 70% applied). Classification Standing charge Service fee
Price
Demand Usage Operation Month factor Cost (Rp/year) (kWh) hour (month) (%)
200,000Rp/month 1,112Rp/kWh
12 38.40
8
Total
12
2,400,000 70
71,737,000 74,137,000
5-126
(5) Fuel cost The fuel cost consists of the money spent for buying fuel for that are run by the Transfer Depot and is estimated at 36,960,000 Rp. Classification
Operating Number Service Price Fuel hour and (Rp/L) efficiency of units frequency travel
Backhoe
5,500
5.6L/hr
4hr/day
1
Cost (Rp/year) 36,960,000
Total
36,960,000
(6) Service water charge The service water charge is estimated at 2,314,000 Rp a year. Classification
Price (Rp/㎥)
Daily use (㎥/day)
Yearly usage (㎥/year)
Cleaning water
8,150
1.0
104
Domestic water
8,150
0.60
180
Total
284
Cost (Rp/year)
Remark
Washing twice a 847,600 week on the basis of 300 1,467,000 days/year 2,314,000
(7) Other expenses Other expenses than the above fixed cost and variable cost is estimated 1,551,000 Rp a year when applying 1.0% of the variable cost. Classification
Amount (Rp/year)
Rate applied
Others
1,551,000
1.0%
5-127
Remark
5.2.2.2 Incinerator Operating the incinerator costs 35,996,503,000 Rp a year as detailed below: [Table 5.2.2.2-1] Summary of operation cost (790TPD) Classification Labor cost
Cost (Rp/year)
Description
1,474,440,000 ㆍ Residential management staffs, operator team, maintenance and test team, others
General Fixed cost administrative 294,888,000 ㆍ 20% of labor cost expenses Subtotal
1,769,328,000
Major repair 16,156,800,000 ㆍ 1.65% of construction cost
Variable cost
Repair
7,344,000,000 ㆍ 0.75% of construction cost
Electricity
6,240,000,000 ㆍ Fixed charge and usage rate 385,178,000 ㆍ Incinerator and emergency generator used
Fuel
601,959,000 ㆍ Process water
Service water Chemicals
3,160,356,000 ㆍ Expenses for chemicals used in facilities 338,882,000 ㆍ 1.0% of variable cost
Others Subtotal Total
34,227,175,000 35,996,503,000
(1) Labor cost The labor cost consists of the payables to the management staffs, vehicle operator team, maintenance and test team, and other operation staffs of the incinerator facility and is estimated at 1,474,440,000 Rp a year. Classification
Operation staff
Cost (Rp/year)
Director Management Team Vehicle operator team Maintenance and test team Total
1 8 54 10 73
34,200,000 164,640,000 1,074,000,000 201,600,000 1,474,440,000 5-128
Remark
(2) General administrative expenses The general administrative expenses refers to all the expenditures for operating an entity including fringe benefits for operation staffs, utility bills, and general administrative expenses and is proportional to the number of operation staffs. This study estimated the amount at 294,888,000Rp a year by applying 20% of the labor cost. Classification
Labor cost (Rp/year)
Rate applied
Cost (Rp/year)
General administrative expenses
1,474,440,000
20%
294,888,000
(3) Major repair The cost of major repair assumes 1.65% of the construction cost and is estimated at yearly 16,156,800,000Rp. Classification
Construction cost (Rp)
Rate applied
Cost (Rp/year)
Major repair
979,200,000,000
1.65%
16,156,800,000
(4) Repair cost The cost of facility maintenance is estimated at yearly 7,344,000,000 Rp by applying 0.75% of the construction cost. Classification
Construction cost (Rp)
Rate applied
Cost (Rp/year)
Repair
979,200,000,000
0.75%
7,344,000,000
(5) Electricity charge The incinerator facility consumes 2,600 kWh of electricity and the cost is estimated is at yearly 6,240,000,000 Rp which consists of the standing charge and the service fee. Classification
Price
Standing charge 200,000Rp/month In normal 1,112Rp/kWh operation Total
Usage (kWh)
Hour of use (month / hr)
Cost (Rp/year)
2,600
12
6,240,000,000
-
6,240,000,000
5-129
(6) Fuel cost The cost of fuel for the incinerator consists of the cost of fuel for starting the incinerator and that required for operating the emergency generator, and is estimated at yearly 385,177,590Rp. Classification
Fuel consumption (㎥/use)
Number of use (use count/yr, hr/yr)
Price (Rp/㎥)
21.42 1.93
3 3
5,500,000 5,500,000
Starting incinerator Emergency generator Total
Cost (Rp/year) 353,370,360 31,807,230 385,177,590
(7) Service water charge Service water charge is estimated at 601,959,000 Rp/year. Classification Process water
Price (Rp/㎥) 8,150
Daily use (㎥/day)
Yearly usage (㎥/year)
246.2
73,860
Total
Cost (Rp/year)
Remark
601,959,000
on the basis of 300 days/year
601.959,000
(8) Chemicals cost Chemicals used in the incinerator facility includes liquefied slaked lime, activated carbon, ammonia, and wastewater treatment chemicals, and they cost 1,580,178,000Rp/year. Classification Chemicals for scale removal Deoxidizer pH regulator Slaked lime slurry (20%) Activated carbon Ammonia (25%) Hydrochloric acid (35%) NaOH(33%) sulfuric acid (98%) NaOH(20%) Alum Polymer Total Total
Price
Cost (Rp/year)
Yearly usage
Remark
48,000Rp/㎏
837 ㎏/year
40,176,000
72,000Rp/㎏ 79,200Rp/㎏ 1,440Rp/㎏ 52,800Rp/㎏ 39,600Rp/L 1,536Rp/㎏ 3,936Rp/㎏ 1,320Rp/㎏ 3,936Rp/㎏ 1,680Rp/㎏ 66,000Rp/㎏
1,581.6 ㎏/year 1,054.5 ㎏/year 214,806 ㎏/year 2,177 ㎏/year 21,165L/year 10,506 ㎏/year 14,895 ㎏/year 33 ㎏/year 23.7 ㎏/year 2,640 ㎏/year 13.2 ㎏/year
113,875,000 83,516,000 309,321,000 114,951,000 838,134,000 16,137,000 58,625,000 44,000 93,000 4,435,000 871,000 1,580,178,000 3,160,356,000
1 system 2 systems
(9) Other expenses Other expenses than the above fixed cost and variable cost is estimated 338,882,000 Rp a year when applying 1.0% of the variable cost. Classification
Amount (Rp/year)
Rate applied
Others
338,882,000
1.0%
5-130
Remark
5.2.2.3 Landfill Facility Operation cost for the waste landfill comprises labor cost, repair cost, fuel cost, and other expenses, as detailed below: [Table 5.2.2.3-1] Annual Landfill Operation Cost Classification
Fixed cost
Amount (Rp)
Remark
Labor cost
381,000,000
Landfill management staffs = 10
General administrative expenses
76,200,000
Variable cost
Subtotal
457,200,000
Fuel
156,420,000
Cover soil
262,800,000
Others
6,820,000
Subtotal
423,412,000
Total
Fuel for equipment
1% of variable cost
880,612,000
(1) Labor cost The labor cost for landfill management and operation staffs is estimated at 381,000,000Rp a year. Staff
Operation staff
Wage (Rp/month)
Month
Cost (Rp/year)
Remark
Director
1
2,850,000
12
34,200,000
Class II
Office worker
1
2,500,000
12
30,000,000
Class I
Accountant
1
2,500,000
12
30,000,000
Class I
Waste collection management
1
2,500,000
12
30,000,000
Class I
Landfill management
1
2,500,000
12
30,000,000
Class I
Backhoe operator
1
1,800,000
12
21,600,000
Loader driver
Dump driver
1
1,800,000
12
21,600,000
Driver
Dozer
1
1,800,000
12
21,600,000
Loader driver
Field staff
7
1,500,000
12
162,000,000
Crew
Total
15
381,000,000
5-131
(2) General administrative expenses The general administrative expenses refers to all the expenditures for operating an entity including fringe benefits for operation staffs, utility bills, and general administrative expenses and is proportional to the number of operation staffs. This study estimated the amount at 76,200,000 Rp a year by applying 20% of the labor cost. Classification
Labor cost (Rp/year)
Rate applied
Cost (Rp/year)
General administrative expenses
381,000,000
20%
76,200,000
(3) Cover soil cost Cost of cover soil required for operation of the landfill is estimated 262,800,000 Rp/year. Classification
Daily demand (㎡/day)
Price (Rp/㎥)
Cost (Rp/year)
Repair
7.2
100,000
262,800,000
(4) Fuel cost Cost of the fuel used for landfill is estimated at 156,420,000 Rp/year. Classification
Price (Rp/L)
Fuel efficiency
Operating hours
Backhoe Dump truck (25 ㎥) Bulldozer
5,500
Number of units
5,500
10.5L/hr
3hr/day
1
51,975,000
5,500
21.1L/hr
3hr/day
1
104,445,000
23.8L/hr
3hr/day
1
117,810,000
Total
Cost (Rp/year)
156,420,000
(5) Other expenses Other expenses than the above fixed cost and variable cost is estimated at 4,192,000 Rp/year when applying 1.0% of the variable cost. Classification
Cost (Rp/year)
Rate applied
Others
4,192,000
1.0%
5-132
Remark
5.2.3. Types of Economic Benefits of Waste Projects The benefits from operation of the waste treatment facility include a direct benefit that is easily estimated into monetary value and an indirect benefit that is hard to evaluate into monetary value due to external factors. Depending on the beneficiary of the benefit incurred, the benefit earned will vary. The easily estimated direct benefit comes from the waste disposal fee and the production and sale of electricity. The direct benefit that is hard to reduce to a monetary value due to external factors consists of the benefit from improved environment such as improved living environment and sanitary condition, and the value in use that benefits the waste throwers. Although the value in use can be used by estimating the amount willing to pay when people can not throw waste and thus want to solve the problem, the amount is hard to estimate and thus is not considered in this plan. In addition, the benefit from operation of the waste treatment facility is analyzed and reviewed based on the following criteria:
5.2.3.1 Benefits of Intangible Projects The benefit from improved environment refers to the improvement in the living environment resulted from the waste treatment facility installation, which is estimated at 100,000 Rp/person/year. Designed Population (person, as of 2020)
Per capita benefit from environmental improvement (Rp/person/year)
Yearly benefit from environmental improvement (Million Rp/year)
1,796,000
100,000
179,600
5.2.3.2 Benefits of Tangible Projects 5.2.3.2.1 Waste Disposal Fee The waste disposal fee collectable from the user for the service of waste treatment and disposal in the waste incinerator can be evaluated into a benefit. Estimation of the waste disposal fee benefit is based on 300,000Rp/ton. Waste collection (ton/day, 2020) 651
Fee/ton (Rp) 300,000 5-133
Annual disposal fee (Million Rp/year) 71,285
5.2.3.2.2 Electricity Sales The incinerator makes earnings from selling electricity that it has produced during incineration. The amount is estimated based on the power production per hour (8,800kW), operating rate (80%), and the current Indonesian electricity price 1,450vRp/kWh (medium voltage power sale). Daily power generation (kW)
Day of production (day)
Operating rate (%)
Annual power generation (kW/year)
Sales profit/kWh (Rp)
Annual earnings from power sale (Million Rp/year)
211,200
300
80%
50,688,000
1,450
73,498
5.2.3.3 Benefits Estimated The result of estimation of the benefits to be incurred after introducing this waste incinerator is as detailed in the following table: Waste disposal fee (Million Rp/year)
Electricity sales (Million Rp/year)
Benefit from improved environment (Million Rp/year)
Total (Million Rp/year)
71,285
73,498
179,600
324,383
5-134
5.2.4 Projected Income of Waste Collection Fee Based on the waste collection fee as of 2014, the waste collection fee per target year is estimated as below: [Table 5.2.4-1] Waste Collection Fee per Short-term Target Year (unit: 1,000 Rp) Short-term target year 2016 2017
Classification Waste disposal fee
2,726,520
Remark
3,657,100
[Table 5.2.4-2] Waste Collection Fee per Mid-term Target Year (unit: 1,000 Rp) Mid-term target year
Classification Waste disposal fee
2018
2019
4,908,290
5,670,500
Remark
[Table 5.2.4-3] Waste Collection Fee per Long-term Target Year (unit: 1,000 Rp) Classification
Long-term target year 2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Waste disposal 5,849,640 6,038,540 6,227,450 6,426,130 6,631,330 6,839,780 fee
5-135
Remark
5.2.5 Study on Economic Feasibility The purpose of this study on the economic feasibility is to estimate and compare the project cost and operation cost required for implementing the national priority project and the possible economic benefits incurred by them, and analyze whether the benefits exceed the cost to find whether this waste treatment facility (incinerator) project has profitability from the perspective of the body of project operation.
5.2.5.1 Analysis Conditions 5.2.5.1.1 Preconditions (1) Preconditions Preconditions for the study on economic feasibility are as follows: - Reference year of analysis: January 1, 2016 - Construction period including design period: 2016-2019 (4 years) - Facility operation period: 2020 - 2039 (20 years) - Target facility: Waste incinerator (790 ton/day) (2) Discount rate Determining the economic feasibility of an investment project requires comparing the benefits with the cost. But the cost is incurred in the early phase of the project, while the benefits come later and in the long term. But simplified calculation and comparison of the annual cost and benefits may overlook the important factor, time. Therefore, there is a need to translate the future cost and benefit into a current value, but this is possible only when we discount the flow of the future cost and benefit at a reasonable rate. Theoretically, the discount rate may be said a reasonable profit rate expected to earn from this project, but unlike in commercial projects, the market interest rate (the return on the distribution of three blue-chip corporate bonds due in in three years, for example) may not be used as the expected profit rate in public projects. Therefore, as the interest rate that serves a reference for discounting the benefit and cost to a current value, a social discount rate is used. The social discount rate is usually set below the market interest rate, because the entity that assesses feasibility of a project using the social discount rate is usually a government which wants to have its future project evaluated higher.
5-136
In most countries c thhe governmeent roughly estimates th he discount rate of its iinvestment project consideriing the natioonal econom mic growth rate, inflatiion, econom mic potential al, etc., whicch is usually set s at 7-8% in i developin ng countrie s, and 5-6% % in advanceed countriess. This studdy uses 8% as the disco ount rate, coonsidering that t the project area Inddonesia is a developing country. (3) Inflattion The cost-benefit anaalysis encou unters a probblem how to handle thee effect of iinflation wh hen it measuress the cost annd benefit th hat arise in the future, but b this stud dy ignored tthe inflation n effect by measuuring the fuuture cost an nd benefit ass a fixed priice in the reeference yeaar. The reaso on is, because it i is impossible to foreccast the futuure inflation n exactly, an nd even if aan unexpecteed inflation arises in thhe future, thee impact wiill have the same effectt on both thee cost and the benefit and a thus will have no efffect on the net presentt value. (4) Tax Considerring the natuure of the national strattegic projecct, this study y gave no coonsideration ns to taxation and it effect on operatiing cost, proofits, and deepreciation cost.
5.2.5.1..2 Analysis Method (1) Benefit-cost ratioo analysis (B/C) A benefitt-cost ratio is the preseent value of the total beenefit expected to earn ffrom projecct implemeentation diviided by the present valuue of the total cost. If B/C≥1, B thenn there existts an economic feasibilityy. Benefit-costt ratio analys sis (B/C)) =
whe ere,
: Prresent value e of benefit
: Present value of cost: c
: Discountt rate (intere est rate)
: Project duration d (terrm of analys sis)
(2) Net P Present Valuue (NPV) A net preesent value is the present value of the total beenefit expected to earn ffrom projecct implemeentation minnus the preseent value off the total co ost. If NPV≥0, then theere exists an n economic feasibilityy.
5-137
Net Present Value( NPV) N =
(3) Internnal Rate of Return (IRR R) An internnal rate of return r referss to a discouunt rate at which w the present value of the totall benefit expectedd to earn froom project operation o annd the presen nt value of the total cosst become equal e (NPV = 0). 0 If IRR iss greater thaan the sociaal discount rate, r then we can say thhat there is an a economic feasibilityy. Internal Rate of Return (IRR):
5.2.5.2 Calculatiion of Payb back Periood Calcullation of thee payback period (PBP)) of the inciinerator insttallation prooject examin ned the follow wing 4 cases of governm ment subsidyy and exclu uded consideering the inddirect beneffits (improoved living environmen nt). - Case 1 : Governnment subsid dy 80% - Case 2 : Governnment subsid dy 60% - Case 3 : Governnment subsid dy 40% - Case 4: Governm ment subsid dy 0% For each case, thee payback period is sum mmarized ass below: [Table [ 5.2.55.2–1] Payb back Period d Classsification
AL LT - 1
ALT - 2
ALT A -3
ALT T-4
Governnment subsiddy
80% 8
60%
40%
0% %
Discount rate
8%
8%
8%
8% %
Wastee disposal feee
300,00 00Rp/ton
300,000Rp p/ton
300 0,000Rp/tonn
300,000 0Rp/ton
Pow wer sales
1,450Rp/kWh
1,450Rp/k kWh
1,450Rp/kWh
1,450R Rp/kWh
NPV (Million ( Rpp)
632,713
416,876
201,040
(230,633)
IRR
34 4.84%
18.33% %
11.65%
5.15 5%
PBP
5.10 yr
9.36 yrr
14.11 yr
-
5-138
5.2.5.3 Calculation of Financial Net Present Value (FNPV) Calculation of the net present value expected as per project operation based on government subsidy 0% and excluded the indirect benefits (improved living environment). Calculation has found that the discount rate where the net present value becomes 0, that is, the economic internal rate of return where the present value of the total benefit equals that of the total cost, that is, the discount rate where B/C ratio becomes 1, is 5.14%, which is less than the applied discount rate 8% and thus is deemed economically not feasible. NPV by discount rate is as shown below: [Table 5.2.5.3 –1] Calculation of NPV by Discount Rate (unit: Million Rp) Case
Present value of benefit
Present value of cost
Net present value (NPV)
B/C
4%
1,749,232
1,618,549
130,683
1.08 0.94
6%
1,394,313
1,476,285
-81,972
8% (reference)
1,128,433
1,359,741
-231,308
0.83
10%
926,085
1,262,273
-336,187
0.73
5.2.5.4 Calculation of Financial Internal Rate of Return (FIRR)) If the project cost, operation cost, and benefit changes, then accordingly the NPV, B/C ratio, and IRR will change as below: - Case 1 : Cost increase by 10% - Case 2 : Cost increase by 20% - Case 3 : Profit - Case 4 : Profit - Case 5 : Cost increase by 10%, and profit decrease by 10% [Table 5.2.5.3 –1] IRR Variation with Cost/Benefit Case
NPV (Million Rp)
B/C ratio
IRR(%)
Base
-231,308
0.83
5.14
Case 1
-367,276
0.75
3.74
Case 2
-503,253
0.69
2.49
Case 3
-344,157
0.75
3.60
Case 4
-456,998
0.66
1.91
Case 5
-480,125
0.68
2.23
5-139
Remark
5.2.6 Financial Feasibility 5.2.6.1 Overview The purpose of this financial analysis is to examine if this incinerator construction project has profitability from the point of view of the project execution body. This financial analysis might be later used in establishing strategies of the projects including private capital inducement.
5.2.6.2 Review Conditions 5.2.6.2.1 Basic conditions Reference year: January 1, 2016 Construction period: 2016-2019 (4 years) Period of incinerator operation: 2020-2039 (20 years) Financing: - CASE 1 : EDCF 49% + Private 51% - CASE 2 : EDCF 100% In inflation: Economic feasibility study did not reflect inflation. Discount rate: 8%. discount rate for developing countries in general 5.2.6.2.2 Estimation of cost (1) Investment cost The investment cost for this incinerator includes the construction cost, consulting cost, and land compensation. Total investment details and annual investment plan for this incinerator construction project are as detailed in the following table: [Table 5.2.6.2.2-1] Yearly Investment Plan (Unit : Million Rp) Classification
Total
Construction Price Consulting Service
1,166,100 114,000
2016
Land acquisition and compensation
23,716
23,716
Total
1,303,816
23,716 5-140
2017
2018
2019
13,200 38,000
474,040 38,000
678,800 38,000
51,200
512,040
716,860
(2) Operation Cost Details of the operation cost estimated at financial analysis used the same data as detailed in the Table 5.2.6.2.2-2. [Table 5.2.6.2.2-2] Estimation of Operation Cost Classification
Cost (Rp/year)
Description
1,474,440,000 ㆍ Residential management staffs, operator team, maintenance and test team, others
Labor cost
General Fixed cost administrative 294,888,000 ㆍ 20% of labor cost expenses Subtotal
1,769,328,000
Major repair 16,156,800,000 ㆍ 1.65% of construction cost Repair
7,344,000,000 ㆍ 0.75% of construction cost
Electricity
6,240,000,000 ㆍ fixed charge and usage rate 385,178,000 ㆍ incinerator and emergency generator used
Fuel
Variable cost
Service water Chemicals Others Subtotal Total
601,959,000 ㆍ Process water 3,160,356,000 ㆍ Expenses for chemicals used in facilities 338,882,000 ㆍ 1.0% of variable cost 34,227,175,000 35,996,503,000
5.2.6.2.3 Financing (1) CASE 1 This option is to borrow all the money required for this incinerator construction from EDCF at an interest rate 0.15%, as shown below: Conditions
Amount (Million Rp)
Interest rate
Personal procurement
-
12%
EDCF
1,303,817
0.15%
Total
1,303,817
5-141
Repayment condition Payable in 10 years with a 4-year grace period Payable in 15 years with a 9-year grace period
(2) CASE 2 The option is to borrow 49% of the money required for this incinerator construction from EDCF at an interest rate 0.15%, with the rest funded by private investors, as detailed below: Conditions
Amount (Million Rp)
Interest rate
Personal procurement
664,947
12%
EDCF
638,870
0.15%
Total
1,303,817
Repayment condition Payable in 10 years with a 4-year grace period Payable in 15 years with a 9-year grace period
5.2.6.2.4 Estimation of Profit The profit from operation of this waste landfill consists of the waste disposal fee and the electricity sales, as detailed below: Waste disposal fee (Million Rp/year)
Electricity sales (Million Rp/year)
Total (Million Rp/year)
71,285
73,498
144,783
5.2.6.3 Analysis Method 5.2.6.3.1 Net present value A net present value is the present value of the total profit expected to earn from project implementation minus the present value of the total cost. If NPV≥0, then there exists a profitability.
5.2.6.3.2 Internal rate of return (IRR) An internal rate of return refers to a discount rate at which the present value of the total profit expected to earn from project operation and the present value of the total cost become equal (NPV = 0). If the internal rate of return is greater than the project discount rate, then we can say that there is a profitability. Note, however, that if NPV is smaller than ‘0’ the calculated IRR is meaningless, and therefore, if NPV is a negative number IRR will not be calculated.
5-142
5.2.6.3.3 Profitability Index (PI) The profitability index is a ratio of the present price of the cash inflow incurred by investment with the present price of the cash outflow. If PI is greater than 1, we can tell that a profitability exists.
5.2.6.4 Financial Feasibility Study Result 5.2.6.4.1 Study Result (Unit : Million Rp)
Classification
CASE1
CASE2
Direct Construction Price
1,166,100
1,166,100
Consulting Service
114,000
114,000
Land acquisition & comp
23,716
23,716
Sub total
1,303,816
1,303,816 719,940
Cash Outflow(1)
Total investment costs
Operating costs
719,940
Interest payment
451,322
25,424
Sub Total
2,475,078
2,049,180
Cash Inflow(2) Operating profits
Tipping Fee
1,422,000
1,422,000
Electric selling
1,469,960
1,469,960
2,891,960
2,891,960
416,882
842,780
Sub Total Net Cash Flow(3=2-1) Financial feasibility Analyses FNPV
-499,056
-244,619
Current value of cash outflow
1,626,047
1,371,611
Current value of cash inflow
1,126,991
1,126,991
FIRR
2.26%
4.98%
PI
0.538
0.773
5-143
5.2.6.4.2 Study Result Analysis of the pay back period (PBP) found that if the government subsidy is secured at least 40% then the PBP would be 14.11 years with NPV 201,040 million Rp, which showed an economic feasibility. Thus there is a need for initial investment cost support by the central and local governments for this incinerator construction project. As the electricity sales (73,498 Million Rp) is 2 times greater than the operation cost (35,910 Million Rp), the South Tangerang City was found that it could pay the operation cost by selling electricity. The financial feasibility study estimated the project cost and operation cost for this project and the direct benefit (waste disposal fee and electricity sales) expected to earn from this project and evaluate the present value by applying the 20 years’ period and the 8% discount rate. CASE 2 shows that NPV is –499,056Million Rp, with FIRR 2.26%, and CASE 1 shows that NPV is –244,619Million Rp, with FIRR 4.98%. The negative NPV with regard to the financing assumed in the financial analysis tells that there are no economical feasibility. However, although the profitability theory applies in determining private investments, the same can not apply to the public investment project like this waste incineration facility construction. Feasibility study on a public investment project should consider economic feasibility, rather than profitability, focusing on the cost and benefits (direct/indirect ones) and various other political priorities, and assess feasibility of the project from all angles. Specifically, a feasibility study that contains a do-or-not-do option is a complex decision making process of a highly strategic level. Therefore, this feasibility study should take all factors other than just profitability into consideration to reach a comprehensive and synthetic conclusion.
5-144
5.3 Environmental Studies 5.3.1 Documents of Environmental Studies Environment and Sanitation Aspect Residence Condition As many as 62% respondents lived in a housing complex as can be seen in Figure 5.3.1-1.
PLACE OF RESIDENCE
Non-housing Complex 38% Housing Complex 62%
[Figure 5.3.1 – 1] Place of Residence Traffic Condition As many as 62% respondents stated that there was no traffic jam in their neighborhood, while 38% respondents said that there is occasional traffic jam in busy hours Traffic
TRAFFIC CONDITION Jam All
Day Traffic Jam on
Long
Busy Hours
0%
38% No Traffic Jam 62%
. [Figure 5.3.1 – 2] Traffic Condition
5-145
Flood Occcurrence As manny as 90% respondents r that were iinterviewed had never had h flood inn their living area.
FLOOD OCCURRENCE Once per
Every Tim me
Year
It Rains s
4%
2%
Twice per Year 4% N Never 9 90%
[Figure 5.33.1 – 3] Floood Occurrence Communnity Servicee Communnity service is the activ vity held andd done voluuntarily togeether for thee neighborho ood’s sake. As many as 600% activities that were done were for environment sanitaation. Theree were 26% resppondents whho stated th hat there hadd not been any a commun nity servicee activities held h in their areaa. The frequuency of theese activitie s were varieed. Mostly the t activitiees were held d once a month.
CO M M UN N I TY SERVI CE A CT TI VI TII ES 10 00 8 80 %
60 0
6 60 4 40
10
2 20 0 Surrounding
Ro oadwork
Others
Nonee
Sanita ation
[Figurre 5.3.1 – 44] Commun nity Servicee Activities
5-146
COM M UNITY SERVICE FREQUENCY Once a Week 10%
Others 32% Twice a Week 20%
Once per Month 38%
[Figure 5.3.1 – 5] Community Service Frequency Waste Bank Waste bank is one of the government’s programs, especially DKPP’s and BLHD of Tangsel’s. As many as 66% lived in a neighborhood that had not had waste bank around.
WASTE BANK EXISTENCE
Exist 34%
Does Not Exist 66%
[Figure 5.3.1 – 6] Waste Bank Existence Solid Waste Disposal As many as 62% respondents said that their solid waste were collected and then transported to TPA, 2% disposed it on any kind of ground, and 36% disposed solid waste by other methods (most of them would burn their garbage). 5-147
PLACE TO DISPOSE GARBAGE Stream Ditch 0%
Others 36% Temporary Disposal 62%
Grounds 2%
[Figure 5.3.1 – 7] Household Solid Waste Disposal Solid Waste Sorting Effort People’s awareness of the importance of sorting their waste was still low. As many as 56% respondents did not sort their waste and 12% sorted their waste occasionally.
SOLID WASTE SORTING
Yes 32% No 56% Occasionally 12%
[Figure 5.3.1 – 8] Solid Waste Sorting
Residence Distance from TPA Figure 5.3.1-9 shows that 72% interviewed respondents live in radius less than 500 m from TPA Cipeucang.
5-148
RESIDENCE DISTANCE FROM CIPEUCANG TPA Others 0%
> 500 m 28% < 500 m 72%
[Figure 5.3.1 – 9] Residence distance from Cipeucang TPA
5.3.2 Projects Which Need Environmental Studies The preparation of Environmental Study Document refers to the Minister of Environment of the Republic of Indonesia Regulation Number 5 of 2012 on Types of Business and / or Activity Plan Obliged to Have Environmental Impact Analysis Type activity categories obliged to have environmental studies contained in the annex of the regulation. Obligation of environmental studies, including the activities of public works, consider the scale / magnitude of activity and area (metropolitan, large, medium, small). For solid waste activity, it can be seen in the table below.
5-149
No.
Type of Waste Activity
Scale/Amount
Development of domestic waste landfill; disposal by controlled landfill / sanitary landfill system including its supporting plant Landfill area, or Total capacity
≥ 10 ha ≥ 100.000 tons
TPA in tidal area, Landfill area or Total Capacity
For all capacities / amounts
Construction of transfer station Capacity Construction of Integrated Waste Treatment Capacity
≥ 500 tons / day ≥ 500 tons / days
Treatment with incinerator Capacity
≥ 500 tons / days
Composting Plant Capacity
All Capacities
Specific Scientific Reason Adjustment between Landfill total area and Landfill capacity Paradigm shift from disposal site/ final processingstorage Act 18 of 2008 on Waste Management which 3R concept became part of the description of the EIA landfill activities. It's no longer "open dumping" but as a final processing site, so there are composting and landfill gas (waste to energy). Incinerators are typically for small capacity (<100 tonsnes per day), the process is less complete so that the impact can be more significant.. This landfill setting is more stricts than that of in other regions. Technically, tidal area is not recommended to be landfill. But for some areas with no other options then it still be allowed to build a landfill in tidal area transfer station site is generally located inside the town or suburb and built in a limited land area To encourage private / community interest. Domestic waste processing at any amount must be completed with EIA because the current domestic waste is mixed with hazardous waste composting plant capacity is enlarged in order to encourage private / public party to be involved in composting
5.3.3 Criteria of Environmental Studies on Waste Projects Geo-Chemical Space and Land Space and land is necessary, because it is associated with the level of negative / positive perc eption emerged by land acquisition; as an indication of emerged public anxiety ; illustrate th e level of land speculation arising in the study area, with the aim of creating a conducive and constructive development climate among relevant stakeholders; and avoid / prevent social anxiety emerging in society.. Road Physical Infrastructure
5-150
Studies related to the physical infrastructure are necessary since the road are passed by the trucks during the construction. The load of the truck must be adjusted to the condition of road’s capability. Traffic Traffic disruption on the access point potentially occurs as a result of the mobilization of vehicles to / from landfill Air and Noise Quality Air and noise quality needs to be analyzed because decrease in ambient air quality especially dust and noise at the landfill site could potentially occur in a limited radius distribution (the predominant wind direction), especially in the work area at the project site. In addition, the operation of diesel-fueled heavy equipment on the land work may result in gas emissions include: CO, NO2, SO2 and Pb; with relatively small potential for limited distribution radius (work area at the project site). Odor The study on theodor distrubance potential needs to be identified because of waste coming to the landfill will generate odors that may have an impact on the health of local residents. Quality of Surface Water and Groundwater Type of potential impact emerged is an increase in surface water runoff which is a derivative effect of changes in land cover and topography (cut and fill), due to reduced absorption function; with limited potential on land used for landfill infrastructure . Biology Terrestrial and Aquatic Biota Potential impact occurred is the change (reduction) of vegetation coverage of moor / dry agricultural land (landfill site) and changes of habitat and wildlife distribution, particularly if it is above the unique ecosystem zone.
5-151
5.4 Social Studies Socioeconomic Aspect Education Level Education level of respondents can be seen in Figure 5.4-1. As many as 36% had their education until elementary school, 26% graduated high school, 20% finished Junior High School, 10% had a degree, and 8% never finished elementary school. <
EDUCATION
College
Elementary School
10%
8% High School 26%
Elementary School
Junior High
36%
School 20%
[Figure 5.4 – 1] Education Level Length of Residence As many as 66% of the respondents had lived in that area for more than 10 years, which was much longer before TPA Cipeucang started to operate.
LENGTH OF RESIDENCE 0-5 Years 30%
5-10 Years
> 10 Years
4%
66%
[Figure 5.4 – 2] Length of Residence Family Member The number of family member indicates the number of population exposed by the existing 5-152
TPA operational impacts and the follow through zone II TPA expansion. Most of the respondents (46%) had family member 4 to 6 people.
THE NUM BER OF FAM ILY M EM BER
1 4%
> 6 20%
< 4 30%
< 6 46%
[Figure 5.4 – 3] The number of family member Income Level Respondents income level was pretty low with 62% had the income less than 2 million rupiahs per month, which correlates with livelihood of respondents in point f. > 5 Million
M ONTHLY INCOM E
Rupiahs 8% 2-5 Million Rupiahs 30%
< 2 Million Rupiahs 62%
[Figure 5.4 – 4] Income Level
As many as 30% respondents got frequently Upper Respiratory Tract Infection, 16% itchy rash, 14% diarrhea, 6% typhoid, while 52% frequently had other diseases that were not directly related to sanitation.
5-153
FREQ QUEN T DI SEA SES S IN FA A M I LY Y 100 80 %
60 40
552 30
14
20
6
16 6
0 Upper
Diarrheea
Typho oid
Itchy Rash
Otthers
Respiratorry Tract Infect ion
[Fig gure 5.4 – 5 ] Frequentt Diseases in n Family Public P Perception Aspect A General Source of o Expansionn Informatio on As manyy as 46% resspondents stated that thhey had not heard of information oon TPA expansion plan, while 22% hadd heard it from local goovernment socialization s n, 14% had heard from m their friends and a neighbors, and the rest r got the news from the media.
SOURCE OF INFO ORM ATIO ON ABO OUT TPA EX XPANSION Fam mily Member Neeighbour/ 2% Friends N Never
14%
H Heard
Media
B Before
8%
46% City Government Others O
Socialization
8%
22%
[F Figure 5.4 – 6] Sourcee of information about TPA expaansion People’s Response on o TPA Exp pansion Plann Opinion on TPA Cippeucang Exp pansion Survey showed that there were more respoondents who o thought th hat TPA exppansion wou uld not be advanntageous. 5-154
OPINION ON TPA EXPANSION PLAN Very Advantageous 0%
Not
Advantageous
Advantageous
48%
52%
[Figure 5.4 – 7] Opinion on TPA expansion Plan Impact of TPA Cipeucang Expansion on Surrounding Community As many as 90% respondents stated that the TPA Cipeucang expansion would have negative effects on their living conditions.
IM PACT OF TPA EXPANSION FOR THE Not Harmful
SURROUNDING COM M UNITY
10%
Harmful 90%
[Figure 5.4 – 8] Impact of TPA expansion for the surrounding community Most of Respondents had multiple expectations that can be seen in Figure 5.4-9. All respondents expected the expansion plan would make many improvements. As many as 95% respondents who had expectations asked that TPA Cipeucang would not emit odorous atmosphere any more to its surrounding, 78% asked that the better planned TPA would no longer propagate flies and rats, 73% and 53% expected that TPA expansion would not be polluting groundwater and the surrounding environment, 48% hoped that they would get environmental and health incentive from the government, 20% expected the newly expanded TPA operations would not cause traffic jam.
5-155
P PEO PLE E' S EXP PECTAT TI ON O N TPA A EXPA N SI ON PLA N 100 0 80 0
95
60 0 %
40 0 20 0
78
73 53 20
23
48
3
20
0
[F Figure 5.4 – 9] Peoplee’s expectattion on TPA A expansionn plan Regulat ion Aspect
In order to amend Tangsel T mun nicipal solidd waste man nagement sy ystem entireely, law enforcem ment on solid waste management sshould be appplied. Figure 5..4-10 show people’s response on ttoday’s solid d waste regu ulations in T Tangsel. Fig gure 5.4-10 shhows that onnly 26% of the responddents knew the fact that solid wastte managem ment is one of goovernment responsibili r ities. RESPON NDENTS W WHO KNEW W GOVERNM M ENT'S RESPONS SIBILITY ON N M ANAGING SOLID D WASTE
Ye es 26% %
N No 74 4%
[F Figure 5.4 – 10] Respondents whoo knew gov vernment’s responsibiility on managing solid waste w 5-156
5.5 Leegal Stud dies 5.5.1 IImprovem ment of wa aste collecction systtem DKPP inn South Tanggerang city takes respoonsibilities of o waste colllection / traansport but it has some prooblems. Theerefore thesee will be im mproved as follow; f In case oof transferrinng of contro ol over colleection / tran nsport to Disstrict, travell time in waaste whole coollection tim me could be reduced efffectively (D DKPP car gaarage to colllection poin nt of each disttrict) and coost of collecction or num mbers of collection car. Also, strenggthen of wo ork effectiveeness or reduucing of bud dget could bbe expected d by suitablee system forr local characterristics of Diistrict by rissing of effecctive work system. s
5.5.2 M Measure for f waste collector inside lan ndfill It's practical situatioon to give waste w collecttor in landfiills a means of living affter compossition of intermeddiate treatmeent facility by b middle-tterm target years. y Locaal governmeent needs establishhment of plaans by which h waste col lector authoorized officiially can coollect waste and make theeir income for f their liviing and folloows can be conditions. Fulfill w waste collecttion or transsports law annd act as an n authorized d individuall of waste co ollector. Recomm mend to do other o work as a contract w with cleanliiness Servicce Companyy instead off waste collecting and search to find oth her income measures for f their living Exploit them t as site keeper or others o after operation of o intermediate treatmennt facility.
House conditioon nearby landfill(20155. 11)
Waste collector c in Cipeucang landfill(20155.11)
5.5.3 P Preparation of mea asure for nimby ph henomeno on Strengtheen recognitiion converssion of wastte treatmentt facility as eco-friendlyy facility ass not environm mental polluution facility y by continuuous educattion or prom motions.
5-157
Recover administrattion by participation off local residdents or speccialist in deccision of location of waste treatment facility. f Provide ssurroundingg influentiall area of waaste treatmen nt facility with w installaation of com mfort facility, discount d of waste treatm ment fee, annd other inccentives.
[Figure 5.5.3-1] Co onstruction n of cultura al space in waste w treatm tment faciliity
5.5.4 W Waste eneergy recov very baseement Activate remained heat h usage by b giving inncentives of energy colllection from m unstable heat h generatioon rate probblems, expannsion of rem mained heatt providing, improvemeent of facility.
[Figgure 5.5.5-1 1] Waste en nergy recovvery target and majorr process
For technnology imprrovement direction & aadvice of waste w energy y recovery ccompose of policy forum unnder cooperrative comm munity amonng industry, university and governnment to inspect & analyze iintermediatee or long-teerm technoloogy developpment or maake roadmaaps of condu ucting of policyy with improovement of law or instiitutions. By installlation of WTG W facility y (incinerati on) minimize simple laandfill wastte but maxim mize recycle & collectionn of energy, resource off waste and reduce environmental load and prrolong
5-158
period of use.
5.5.5 Proactive prevention and treatment measures for leaved waste Make pleasant environment by after-treatment action of neglected waste with institution of order to take measure to land-owner or an occupant. Make indication of confirm or duty of treatment of neglected waste in case of trade of business spot, land and buildings etc. Strengthen enforcement criteria over neglected waste owners.
5.5.6 Guidance and oversight of waste treatment contractors Enact related institution in which waste treatment facility installer should have technical manager related with maintenance or management of facility and keep records like follows for 3 years. -Situation of waste collection, transport, treatment, etc. -Record waste generation; recycle situation or record of waste, etc. Installer or operator of waste treatment facility, operator or discharger of industry waste or industry waste facility and waste treatment packer should submit annually reports to government.
5.5.7 Others Limitation of land use after closed or finished landfill site -
Central government can limit land owners aim of land use to park, trees, planting, construction grass area or physical facility when after close or finish of waste landfill it could be recognized there will be serious damages such as leak of leachate, losing of banks etc with worried results to lost health, property or environment. Central government subsidy -
Central government should be institutionalized to support whole or partial budget of waste treatment facility installation cost in appropriate ranges. Supporting of waste treatment facility installation cost -
Chief of central or local government can support applicant to install waste treatment facility when it's be needed.
5-159
5.6 In nstitution nal Studiees 5.6.1 O Organizattional Strructure, M Main Dutiies and Fu unctions DKPP is an adminisstrative orgaanization ressponsible foor cleaning and managiing of park,, graveyarrd, and roadd lighting in the South T Tangerang city, c under which w wastee managemeent related ddepartments include thee Cleanlinesss Division and the Dep partment Seecretary. The Cleaanliness Divvision is responsible foor waste colllection, tran nsport and ddisposal, and d facility innstallation. And the Deepartment S Secretary is responsible r for program m assessmeent and reportingg, financial affairs, officce work, annd personnel affairs. To providde the waste managem ment service as presenteed in the currrent masterr plan, DKP PP needs to build uup the organnizational capability off the Cleanliness Divisiion under coontrol of So outh Tangeranng City and develop itsself activelyy.
[Figurre 5.5.1 – 11] DKPP Orrganization n Diagram
5.6.1.1 Department Secrettary The Department Seccretary is in n charge of m making pay yment to cleaning relateed contracto ors and supplierss, improvingg and coord dinating the cleaning feee system, cleaning fee management, financingg constructiion of the waste w treatmeent facilities and infrasstructure, annd preparing g annual reports.
5.6.1.2 Cleanlineess Division The Cleaanliness Divvision operaates the landdfill and maanages waste disposal aand is divideed into the cleannliness serviice section, the waste pprocessing and a disposall section, annd the clean nliness infrastruccture and faacilities secttion. The cleeanliness seection is ressponsible foor waste managem ment policy developmeent and finanncing. This secttion perform ms planning g, training, aand coordination requirred for instaallation of th he 5-160
cleaning infrastructuure and faciilities, and is in charge of purchasee, maintenannce, and operation of the cleeaning infraastructure an nd facilitiess. This secttion operatees the waste treatment ffacilities, which w needs expansion w when the waste to energy faacility is inttroduced. Recommendeed organizaation of the Cleanliness C s Division iss as shown inn the Figuree 5.5.1.2-3.
[Fiigure 5.6.1.2 – 2] Cleaanliness Div vision Orga anization D Diagram
5.6.1.3 UPTD UPTD peerforms com mmunity ed ducation, waaste collection and tran nsport, and ccomprises th he waste collection/trannsportation coordinatorr and the co ommunity education/TPPS3R/wastee bank managem ment coordinator. The waste w collecction/transportation uniit also needs ds to increase the number oof field stafffs to raise th he waste coollection ratee.
[Figure 5.6.1.3 – 11] UPTD Organizatio O on Diagram m
5.6.1.4 SATPOL L PP This is a local policee unit. This unit is basiically an org ganization to enforce loocal regulations and estabblish the public order. If I reported bby DKPP off illegal wasste disposall, this unit enforces related laaws.
5.6.2 H Human Resources R DKPP haas 593 staffs fs. Some of them t are fuull timers an nd the otherss are contracct workers. In addition,, 43 of them m perform ad dministrativve services, and 550 fieeld workers are doing waste w
5-161
collection and transport, street cleaning, and facility operation.
5.6.2.1 Office staffs (Cleanliness unit) This study plans to maintain the those units having no direct relation to waste management, including the Secretariat, General Road Lighting, Cemetery, and Gardening units as it is, and add human resource only to the Cleanliness unit that involves in waste management. [Table 5.5.2.2 – 1] Yearly DKPP Personnel Plan (Cleanliness Unit) Classification Class IV Class III Class II Class I Total
Current Short term Population 2015 2016 2017 2 2 2 2 2 5 8 8 14 14 14 14 26 26 35
Mid term
Long term
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 7 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 18 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 41 47 47 47 47 47 47 47
5.6.2.2 Field Staffs With regard to field staffs, this study considered increasing the number of transport vehicles as collection rate improves, and estimated the number of drivers, driver assistants, collectors, and crew members accordingly to the increased number of vehicles In addition, considering the fact that all the collection/transport vehicles are currently kept under DKPP’s storage and move to individual districts for waste collection and thus spend much time in initial move under poor traffic conditions, this study plans to install vehicle storages in every district under DKPP’s management and plans to place 1 director and 3 management staffs per vehicle storage who will operate the storage. [Table 5.5.2.2 – 1] DKPP Field Staff Recruitment Plan Classification
Current Short term Mid term Population 2015
Supervisor Field supervisor Foreman Vehicle driver Diver assistant (Co-driver) Collector Worker Operation staff (TPA, ITF) Total
Long term
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
70
91
119 157 177
213
218
223
231
238
241
141
142 185 243 274
312
320
326
338
349
354
25 225
33 42 55 62 283 326 384 415
62 421
62 429
62 434
62 443
62 454
62 459
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
550
638 761 928 1,017 1,097 1,118 1,134 1,163 1,192 1,205
25
25
5-162
25
54
Feasibility Study on Integrated Municipal Solid Waste Management System In South Tangerang City
Chapter 6 Implementation of Plan 6.1 Components of Activities 6.2 Phases of Implementation 6.3 Implementation Schedule
Chapter 6 Implementation of Plan 6.1 Components of Activities Implementation of all programs of technology, law and regulations, social involvement, and system that are related to the solid waste management system requires preparation of a midterm investment program (RPIJM), spatial plan (RTRW), land compensation, and detailed engineering design (DED). Preparation of these is indispensable for implementation of the solid waste management programs. Purchase of collection/transport equipment and scales of the transfer depot, incinerator, and landfill will be prepared step by step considering local conditions and the result of demand estimation for the target years. [Table 6.1-1] Facility Plan for Target Years Classification
Collection and transport
Collection rate (%)
Processing facility Equipment (EA)
Facility (unit)
Short-term (2017)
․ Pick Up (2.5 ㎥) : 53 76.6% ․ Arm Roll (5.5 ㎥) : 66
․ TPS : 586
․ Landfill : 418 ton/day
Mid-term (2019)
100%
․ Pick Up (2.5 ㎥) : 80 ․ Arm Roll (5.5 ㎥) : 97
․ TPS : 921
․ Landfill : 635 ton/day
Long-term (2025)
100%
․ Pick Up (2.5 ㎥) : 92 ․ TPS : 1,119 ․ Incinerator : 790 ․ Arm Roll(5.5 ㎥) : ․ Transfer Depot : ton/day 113 7 ․ Landfill : 203 ton/day ․ Arm Roll(25 ㎥) : 36
6.2 Phases of Implementation 6.2.1 Short-term Goals (2016-2017) Install TPSs (485 units). Purchase waste collection equipment. Prepare WTE facility construction. Prepare sanitary landfill construction. Purchase land for Transfer Depot.
-1
6.2.2 Mid-term Goals (2018-2019) Install TPSs (351 units). Purchase waste collection equipment. Construct incinerator. Construct sanitary landfill. Install Transfer Depots (7 units). Reorganize cleaning division of South Tangerang city.
6.2.3 Long-term Goals (2020-2025) Install TPSs (198 units). Purchase waste collection equipment. Prepare a master plan for waste manage (2026-2035). Prepare installation of recyclables sorting facility. Prepare extension of incinerator.
6.3 Implementation Schedule The solid waste management system implementation schedule from 2016 to 2019 is as detailed below:
6.3.1 Technical aspect 6.3.1.1 Collection/Transportation Considering that the collection/transport equipment will steadily increase, they should be steadily secured till the long-term target years based on the demand estimated annually. The number of TPSs should be increased till the long-term target year (2025) based on the target collection service coverage so that, from 2019, the service can cover the whole area. Transfer depot installation requires at least 2 years including 6 months for land compensation, 6 months for detailed engineering planning, and 1 year for construction work, it should be prepared from 2018 and completed by 2019. The land required for transfer depot installation will be prepared by district referring to the site area suggested based on the transshipment scale (200 ton/day, 150 ton/day, 100 ton/day, 50 ton/day).
-2
6.3.1.2 Incinerator Incinerator installation requires at least 4 years including 6 months for land compensation, 6 months for detailed engineering planning, and 3 years for construction work, it should be prepared from 2016 and completed by 2019.
6.3.1.3 Landfill Landfill installation requires at least 3 years including 6 months for land compensation, 6 months for detailed engineering planning, and 2 years for construction work, it should be prepared from 2017 and completed by 2019. In addition, in preparation for the demand for new domestic waste landfill since 2022, facility construction should start in 2019 and end by 2021. At this time the service period of the new landfill should be at least 10 years.
6.3.2 Legal aspect Year 2016 should start preparing for supervision of waste collection/transport/processing and disposal by private developers as specified in the waste management law of the South Tangerang City, support prevention of NIMBY phenomenon, and regulation of illegal dumping.
6.3.3 Institutional aspect To attain 100% coverage of waste collection service by South Tangerang City in 2019 and to introduce the transfer depot system to individual districts, DKPP’s management staffs and site workers should be continually recruited and the human power should be built up through training on collection/transport/disposal.
6.3.4 Social involvement aspect Local community’s involvement should be expanded by means of, for example, installing a poster and flower bed in the frequent illegal dumping site, introducing a Focus Day of separate discharge of recyclables, and regulation of illegal dumping activities by help of volunteers.
-3
6.3.5 Financial aspect For the purpose of stable securing of waste management budget of South Tangerang City, the waste disposal fee should be rationalized.
-4
Program Implementation Plan (2016-2019) No I. 1
3
4
5
Program
Location
Unit
- Pick up(2.5㎥)
South Tangerang city
- Arm Roll (5.5㎥)
South Tangerang city
- Container (5.5㎥)
Implementation Schedule 2016
2017
2018
2019
65
12
13
24
16
74
16
25
22
11
South Tangerang city
836
335
150
201
150
-Land purchase
South Tangerang city
2.88ha
- Transfer depot DED preparation
South Tangerang city
1 lot
-Transfer depot construction
South Tangerang city
7
Technical aspect Procurement of truck and container
Transfer depot
Incinerator -Land purchase
South Tangerang city
2.63ha
- Incinerator construction
South Tangerang city
651 ton/day
- Land purchase
South Tangerang city
2.63ha
- Landfill DED preparation
South Tangerang city
1 lot
- Landfill construction
South Tangerang city
1.32ha
Sanitary landfill
6-5
No
Program
Ⅱ
Institutional aspect
1
DKPP reorganization
Location
Unit
South Tangerang city
1 lot
Management staff
21
Field staff
467
Capacity building
twice/year
Ⅲ Legal aspect 1
Legal preparation for supervision of private sector
South Tangerang city
1 lot
2
Legal preparation for NIMBY phenomenon
South Tangerang city
1 lot
3
Legal preparation for illegal dumping
South Tangerang city
1 lot
Ⅳ Community participation aspect 1
Regular community education to raise awareness
South Tangerang city
quarterly
2
Promotion activity
South Tangerang city
1 lot
3
South Tangerang city Expanding community participation 1 lot -Installing flower bed and warning signs in illegal 2 dumping site sites/Kelurahan -Focus day (river, valley, etc) monthly
4
Volunteer worker’s sanitary monitoring
Ⅴ
Financial aspect
1
Increasing fee collection
South Tangerang city
monthly
South Tangerang city
1 lot
-
Implementation Schedule 2016
2017
2018
2019
9
6
6
88
124
167
89
Feasibility Study on Integrated Municipal Solid Waste Management System In South Tangerang City
Chapter 7 Conclusions and Recommendations 7.1 Conclusions 7.2 Recommendations
Chapter 7 Conclusions and Recommendations 7.1 Conclusions At present, South Tangerang City urgently needs a management system to ensure stable disposal of solid waste, and must be prepared to implement the programs in accordance with the master plan for integrated solid waste treatment system (2016 - 2025). The integrated solid waste treatment system’s priority lies in securing a solid waste collection unit and a solid waste treatment facility, which needs continued budgeting and social agreement to installation of the waste treatment facility. Because the integrated solid waste treatment system is designed to offer a pleasant living environment to the community and conserve natural environment by reducing environmental pollution caused by waste, the city should encourage practices of throwing waste in a designated place and sorting recyclables from waste, promote active participation in the Waste Bank System and in the volunteer service for local environment preservation, and ensure consistency in the integrated solid waste treatment system. The study on the economic feasibility of installing waste treatment facilities in the Cipeucang Landfill extension site has found the B/C ratio at 0.83, NPV at (-)231308 Million Rp, and EIRR at 5.14%. But the analysis of the pay back period (PBP) has found that if the government subsidy is secured at least 40% then the PBP would be 14.11 years with NPV 201,040 million Rp, which showed an economic feasibility. Thus there is a need for initial investment cost support by the central and local governments for this incinerator construction project. As the electricity sales (73,498 Million Rp) is 2 times greater than the operation cost (35,910 Million Rp), the South Tangerang City was found that it could pay the operation cost by selling electricity. [Table 7.1-1] Analysis of Economic Feasibility Case
Present value of benefit
Present value of cost
Net present value (NPV)
(B/C)
4%
1,749,232
1,618,549
130,683
1.08
6%
1,394,313
1,476,285
-81,972
0.94
8% (reference)
1,128,433
1,359,741
-231,308
0.83
10%
926,085
1,262,273
-336,187
0.73
7-1
The financial feasibility study estimated the project cost and operation cost for this project and the direct benefit (waste disposal fee and electricity sales) expected to earn from this project and evaluate the present value by applying the 20 years’ period and the 8% discount rate. CASE 2 shows that NPV is –499,056Million Rp, with FIRR 2.26%, and CASE 1 shows that NPV is –244,619Million Rp, with FIRR 4.98%. The negative NPV with regard to the financing assumed in the financial analysis tells that there are no economical feasibility. However, although the profitability theory applies in determining private investments, the same can not apply to the public investment project like this waste incineration facility construction. Feasibility study on a public investment project should consider economic feasibility, rather than profitability, focusing on the cost and benefits (direct/indirect ones) and various other political priorities, and assess feasibility of the project from all angles. Specifically, a feasibility study that contains a do-or-not-do option is a complex decision making process of a highly strategic level. Therefore, this feasibility study should take all factors other than just profitability into consideration to reach a comprehensive and synthetic conclusion. [Table 7.1-2] Analysis of Financial Feasibility (Unit : Million Rp)
Classification
CASE1
CASE2
Cash Outflow(1) Direct Construction Price Total investment costs
Consulting Service Land acquisition & comp
1,166,100
1,166,100
114,000
114,000
23,716
23,716
1,303,816
1,303,816
Operating costs
719,940
719,940
Interest payment
451,322
25,424
2,475,078
2,049,180
Tipping Fee
1,422,000
1,422,000
Electric selling
1,469,960
1,469,960
2,891,960
2,891,960
416,882
842,780
Sub total
Sub Total Cash Inflow(2) Operating profits Sub Total Net Cash Flow(3=2-1) Financial feasibility Analyses FNPV Current value of cash outflow
7-2
-499,056
-244,619
1,626,047
1,371,611
Current value of cash inflow FIRR PI
1,126,991
1,126,991
2.26%
4.98%
0.538
0.773
7.2 Recommendations 7.2.1 Technical aspect As of 2012, waste collection rate is 39.1% (DKPP 13.7%, Private 25.4%). To achieve 100%, the sanitary service standard set by Indonesia’s mid-term development plan (RPJMN, 20162019), the city needs to concentrate its cleaning operation budget on securing the equipment and human resource for waste collection and transport. If the city incinerate and landfill the waste collected since 2020 the site required would be 3.12 ha, but there is not enough land available for landfill development. The city needs to excavate and sort existing landfills, incinerate combustible waste, and then landfill again to extend the service period of the landfill.
7.2.2 Institutional Studies This study recommends that the city should clearly define the roles and responsibilities of authorities, create a UPTD in the DKPP to take charge of waste collection/transport in the district and community education, and through periodic education, strengthen the organizational capability.
7.2.3 Regulatory aspect As of now, South Tangerang City has regulations on waste management but they have no provision for giving support to the areas affected by waste treatment facilities or prevention of neglected waste management. To attain community’s cooperation and prevent illegal waste dumping, the city needs to introduce provisions for community support and strict penal system to the municipal regulations for waste management. In addition, for the local community to be affected by the waste treatment facilities, incentive systems such as installation of convenience facilities or discount of waste disposal fee could be offered to earn cooperation of the community. Neglected waste could be promptly handled by providing a system such as an order of action
7-3
that requests the land owner or dweller to take required action to the waste. Chronic illegal dumping should be regulated continuously.
7.2.4 Community involvement aspect As most people currently rely on the municipal policy and service in the matter of waste disposal, it is hard to expect that the they can promptly respond to the ever growing waste generation caused by fast urbanization. By providing repetitive communication and educational programs, the city should lead changes in the way a household throw waste and the way they live. In other words, communication and education should be delivered to make people aware that they are the one who really responsible for cleanliness and voluntarily keep clean their environment every day throughout the year. Through repeated communication programs rather than a one time event, the city should help people understand the needs of waste management and help take part in the programs at their own will. The municipal government should make efforts to eradicate chronic dumping of waste illegally by putting a warning poster or creating a flower bed where illegal dumping is made frequently. In addition, incentives or benefits are also needed to motivate the community to take part in cleaning the streets and alleys where cleaning service is hard to approach. Granting award citations, prize money, or cleaning tools could motivate the community to take part in.
7.2.5 Financial aspect Providing people a waste management system of high standard will inevitably create a higher cost of waste disposal. Therefore the city should consider the causer pay principle and, through a social consensus, increase the waste disposal fee to a reasonable level and gradually raise the waste management budget of the municipal government to 4% from 1.4% (budget expenditure, 2014, South Tangerang City) of the total municipal budget. For the financially less independent cities, the central government prepare a system that allows it to support the local government with all or part of the cost of waste treatment facility construction. The central government should prepare a system that gives financial support to private contractors of the central or local government to help installation of public waste treatment facilities and thus attract active participation of the private sector.
7-4
Feasibility Study on integrated municipal solid waste management system in South Tangerang
1. Drawings 2. Economic Analysis 3. Environmental Test 4. Socioeconomic Environmental Study 5. Soil Survey 6. Topographical Survey
Report (Final Draa ft)
December 2015
Feasibility Studdy on integrated muunicipal soolid waste managem ment system m in South T Tangerangg City
F ibilityy Stuudy & Bassic Designn Feasi Repport ((Finaal Dr aft)
Deceember 2015
SO OUTH H TAN NGER RANG G CIT TY
Table of Contents Chapter 1 Project Summar y 1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Purpose and Objective ..................................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Targets .............................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.4 Types of Feasibility Study................................................................................................ 1-2 1.5 Scope ................................................................................................................................ 1-2 1.6 Systematics of Reporting ................................................................................................. 1-2
Chapter 2 Planning Ar ea Descr iption 2.1 Planning Area ................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.1 Regional Physical Condition .................................................................................. 2-1 2.1.1.1 Administrative Boundaries ........................................................................... 2-1 2.1.1.2 Geographical Location ................................................................................. 2-2 2.1.1.3 Hydrology ..................................................................................................... 2-2 2.1.1.4 Topography ................................................................................................... 2-3 2.1.1.5 Climatography .............................................................................................. 2-3 2.1.1.6 Physiography ................................................................................................ 2-4 2.1.2 Development and Spatial Policies ........................................................................ 2-10 2.1.2.1 Goals of Regional Development................................................................. 2-10 2.1.2.2 Strategy of Regional Development............................................................. 2-10 2.1.2.3 Direction of Spatial Management............................................................. 2-10 2.1.2.4 Strategies of Spatial Management ...............................................................2-11 2.1.2.5 Direction of Spatial Management ............................................................... 2-12 2.2 Existing Condition of Solid Waste Management ........................................................... 2-12 2.2.1 Sources of Waste .................................................................................................. 2-12 2.2.2 Generation, Composition and Characteristic waste ............................................. 2-13 2.2.2.1 The amount of waste generation ................................................................. 2-13 2.2.2.2 Waste composition and characteristics ....................................................... 2-14
2.2.3 Solid Waste Management ..................................................................................... 2-16 2.2.3.1 Regulation................................................................................................... 2-17 2.2.3.2 Institution .................................................................................................... 2-18 2.2.3.3 Finance ....................................................................................................... 2-21 2.2.3.4 Roles of Society .......................................................................................... 2-22 2.2.3.5 Technical and Operational Aspects ............................................................. 2-24
Chapter 3 Planning Cr iter ia 3.1 Technical Feasibility Criteria ........................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.1 Feasibility Criteria .................................................................................................. 3-1 3.1.2 Technical Content ................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Economic and Financial Feasibility Criteria.................................................................... 3-2 3.2.1 Norms of Economic and Financial Feasibility ....................................................... 3-2 3.2.2 Economic and Financial Calculation Criteria ........................................................ 3-2 3.3 Environmental Studies Criteria ........................................................................................ 3-3 3.3.1 Norms of Environmental Feasibility ...................................................................... 3-3 3.3.2 Technical Standards of Environmental Impact Analysis ........................................ 3-4 3.4 Social Studies Criteria...................................................................................................... 3-4 3.5 Legal Studies Criteria ...................................................................................................... 3-5 3.6 Institutional Studies Criteria ............................................................................................ 3-5
Chapter 4 Collection of data & Site Sur vey 4.1 Survey and Assessment of Study and Service Areas ....................................................... 4-1 4.1.1 Regional Spatial Plan (RTRW) .............................................................................. 4-1 4.1.2 Development Areas ................................................................................................ 4-1 4.2 Survey and Assessment of Sources of Waste Quantities, Composition and Characteristics ................................................................................................................................................ 4-2 4.2.1 Survey of waste sources ......................................................................................... 4-2 4.2.2 Survey of Waste Quantities .................................................................................... 4-2 4.2.3 Survey of Waste composition ................................................................................. 4-4 4.2.3.1 Survey Summary .......................................................................................... 4-4
4.2.3.2 Survey Results .............................................................................................. 4-7 4.2.4 Survey of Waste Characteristics ........................................................................... 4-19 4.3 Assessment and survey of Demography and Urban Planning ....................................... 4-21 4.3.1 Total of Population ............................................................................................... 4-21 4.3.2 Population Density ............................................................................................... 4-21 4.3.3 Distribution of the Population .............................................................................. 4-21 4.3.4 Land Use Planning ............................................................................................... 4-22 4.4 Assessment and survey of the needs for waste Infrastructure and Facilities ................. 4-22 4.5 Measurement .................................................................................................................. 4-23 4.5.1 Soil/Ground Investigation .................................................................................... 4-23 4.5.1.1 Survey Summary ........................................................................................ 4-23 4.5.1.2 Findings ...................................................................................................... 4-25 4.5.2 Status survey ........................................................................................................ 4-43 4.5.2.1 Purpose ....................................................................................................... 4-43 4.5.2.2 Survey overview ......................................................................................... 4-43 4.5.2.3 Findings ...................................................................................................... 4-43
Chapter 5 Feasibility Study and Planning of Waste Management System Development 5.1 Technical and Operational Plan ....................................................................................... 5-1 5.1.1 Waste Sorting/Storage ............................................................................................ 5-1 5.1.1.1 Waste Sorting ................................................................................................ 5-1 5.1.1.2 Storage .......................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1.2 Collection/Transportation ....................................................................................... 5-4 5.1.2.1 Amount of Waste to Collect .......................................................................... 5-4 5.1.2.2 How to Collect .............................................................................................. 5-4 5.1.2.3 Review of Transportation System................................................................. 5-6 5.1.3 Processing............................................................................................................... 5-8 5.1.3.1 Suggesting an Alternative ............................................................................. 5-8 5.1.3.2 Selecting Waste Treatment Method ............................................................ 5-10 5.1.4 Final Processing ................................................................................................... 5-13 5.1.5 Estimating Demand for Waste Infrastructure and Facility ................................... 5-15
5.1.5.1 Estimated Population .................................................................................. 5-15 5.1.5.2 Waste Generation ........................................................................................ 5-16 5.1.5.3 Estimation of Waste Collection .................................................................. 5-16 5.1.5.4 Estimating Facility Capacity ...................................................................... 5-18 5.1.6 Basic Design ......................................................................................................... 5-20 5.1.6.1 Transfer Depot ............................................................................................ 5-20 5.1.6.2 Facility Layout Plan.................................................................................... 5-45 5.1.6.3 Incinerator ................................................................................................... 5-50 5.1.6.4 Sanitary Landfill ......................................................................................... 5-88 5.2 Economical and Financial Feasibility Study.................................................................5-117 5.2.1 Estimated Cost of Investment ............................................................................. 5-117 5.2.1.1 Transfer Depot ...........................................................................................5-117 5.2.1.2 Incinerator .................................................................................................. 5-117 5.2.1.3 Landfill Facility ......................................................................................... 5-118 5.2.2 Estimated Cost of Operation and Maintenance ...................................................5-119 5.2.2.1 Transfer depot ............................................................................................5-119 5.2.2.2 Incinerator ................................................................................................. 5-128 5.2.2.3 Landfill Facility ........................................................................................ 5-131 5.2.3. Types of Economic Benefits of Waste Projects ................................................. 5-133 5.2.3.1 Benefits of Intangible Projects ................................................................. 5-133 5.2.3.2 Benefits of Tangible Projects .................................................................... 5-133 5.2.3.3 Benefits Estimated .................................................................................... 5-134 5.2.4 Projected Income of Waste Collection Fee ........................................................ 5-135 5.2.5 Study on Economic Feasibility .......................................................................... 5-136 5.2.5.1 Analysis Conditions .................................................................................. 5-136 5.2.5.2 Calculation of Payback Period ................................................................. 5-138 5.2.5.3 Calculation of Financial Net Present Value (FNPV) ................................ 5-139 5.2.5.4 Calculation of Financial Internal Rate of Return (FIRR))........................ 5-139 5.2.6 Financial Feasibility ........................................................................................... 5-140 5.2.6.1 Overview .................................................................................................. 5-140 5.2.6.2 Review Conditions ................................................................................... 5-140 5.2.6.3 Analysis Method ....................................................................................... 5-142
5.2.6.4 Financial Feasibility Study Result ............................................................ 5-143 5.3 Environmental Studies ................................................................................................. 5-145 5.3.1 Documents of Environmental Studies ................................................................ 5-145 5.3.2 Projects Which Need Environmental Studies .................................................... 5-149 5.3.3 Criteria of Environmental Studies on Waste Projects ........................................ 5-150 5.4 Social Studies ............................................................................................................... 5-152 5.5 Legal Studies ................................................................................................................ 5-157 5.6 Institutional Studies ..................................................................................................... 5-160 5.6.1 Organizational Structure, Main Duties and Functions ....................................... 5-160 5.6.1.1 Department Secretary ............................................................................... 5-160 5.6.1.2 Cleanliness Division ................................................................................. 5-160 5.6.1.3 UPTD ........................................................................................................ 5-161 5.6.1.4 SATPOL PP .............................................................................................. 5-161 5.6.2 Human Resources ............................................................................................... 5-161 5.6.2.1 Office staffs (Cleanliness unit) ................................................................. 5-162 5.6.2.2 Field Staffs ................................................................................................ 5-162
Chapter 6 Implementation of Plan 6.1 Components of Activities................................................................................................. 6-1 6.2 Phases of Implementation ................................................................................................ 6-1 6.2.1 Short-term Goals (2016-2017) ............................................................................... 6-1 6.2.2 Mid-term Goals (2018-2019) ................................................................................. 6-2 6.2.3 Long-term Goals (2020-2025) ............................................................................... 6-2 6.3 Implementation Schedule................................................................................................. 6-2 6.3.1 Technical aspect ..................................................................................................... 6-2 6.3.1.1 Collection/Transportation ............................................................................. 6-2 6.3.1.2 Incinerator ..................................................................................................... 6-3 6.3.1.3 Landfill ......................................................................................................... 6-3 6.3.2 Legal aspect ............................................................................................................ 6-3 6.3.3 Institutional aspect.................................................................................................. 6-3 6.3.4 Social involvement aspect ...................................................................................... 6-3
6.3.5 Financial aspect ...................................................................................................... 6-4
Chapter 7 Conclusions and Recommendations 7.1 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 7-1 7.2 Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 7-3 7.2.1 Technical aspect ..................................................................................................... 7-3 7.2.2 Institutional Studies ................................................................................................ 7-3 7.2.3 Regulatory aspect ................................................................................................... 7-3 7.2.4 Community involvement aspect ............................................................................. 7-4 7.2.5 Financial aspect ...................................................................................................... 7-4
■ Appendix 1. Drawings 2. Economic Analysis 3. Environmental Test 4. Socioeconomic Environmental Study 5. Soil Survey 6. Topographical Survey
List of tables [Table 2.1.1-1] South Tangerang Administrative Districts [Table 2.1.1-2] Data of temperature, humidity, rainfall, number of raining days [Table 2.1.2.4-1] The amount of waste in South Tangerang City [Table 2.1.2.4-2] Solid waste facilities needed in South Tangerang city [Table 2.2.2.1-1] Amount of waste generation in South Tangerang [Table 2.2.2.1-2] Results of waste generation sources in the survey [Table 2.2.2.2-1] The composition of the waste [Table 2.2.2.2-2] The composition and characteristics of waste [Table 2.2.2.2-3] Composition of waste [Table 2.2.3.2-1] South Tangerang DKPP Configuration personnel [Table 2.2.3.2-1] South Tangerang DKPP Configuration personnel (cont) [Table 2.2.3.3-1] DKPP budget (in 2012 ~2013) [Table 2.2.3.4-1] South Tangerang TPS3R [Table 2.2.3.4-1] South Tangerang TPS3R (cont) [Table 2.2.3.4-1] South Tangerang TPS3R (cont) [Table 2.2.3.5.3-1] Waste transportation systems [Table 4.2.2-1] Amount of waste generation in South Tangerang [Table 4.2.2-2] Results of waste generation sources in the survey [Table 4.2.3.1-1] Waste characteristics survey sampling points (residential area) [Table 4.2.3.1-2] Waste characteristics survey sampling Points (non-residential area) [Table 4.2.3.2-1] Participants’ income survey [Table 4.2.3.2-2] Education level of residents [Table 4.2.3.2-3] Waste collection types [Table 4.2.3.2.3-1] Waste generation sources in each area [Table 4.2.3.2.3-2] Waste generation depending on the income level [Table 4.2.3.2.3-3] Waste generation sources in non-residential area [Table 4.2.3.2.3-4] Composition of waste [Table 4.2.3.2.3-5] Ternary analysis result of the waste [Table 4.2.3.2.3-6] Elemental analysis of the waste [Table 4.2.3.2.3-7] Results of analysis of the waste heating value [Table 4.2.3.2.3-8] Heavy metals analysis of the solid waste [Table 4.2.4-1] The composition of the waste [Table 4.2.4-2] The composition and characteristics of waste [Table 4.2.4-3] Composition of waste [Table 4.3.3-1] Population and population density in South Tangerang [Table 4.4-1] Required Waste treatment facility in South Tangerang [Table 4.5.1-1] Survey topic· [Table 4.5.1-2] Survey positions [Table 4.5.1-3] Strata configuration [Table 4.5.1-4] The results of groundwater measurements [Table 4.5.1-5] Laboratory test results [Table 4.5.1-6] Compaction and CBR tests [Table 4.5.2–1] Reference point position [Table 4.5.2–2] Reference point calculation results [Table 4.5.2-3] GPS processing results [Table 5.1.1.1-1] Waste Containers and Uses [Table 5.1.2.1-1] Amount of Waste to Be Collected by DKPP
[Table 5.1.2.1-1] Future Demand for TPS [Table 5.1.2.1-2] Demand for TPS /3R in the Future [Table 5.1.2.3-1] Review of Transportation System [Table 5.1.2.3-2] Garage and Transfer Depots Installation Plan [Table 5.1.2.3-3] Number of Garbage Trucks Required When Transfer Depots Are Operational (unit: vehicle) [Table 5.1.3.2–1] Estimating Waste Treatment by Case [Table 5.1.3.2 – 2] Economic Efficiency by Case [Table 5.1.4 – 1] Features of Sanitary Landfill with Unsanitary Landfill in Comparison [Table 5.1.5.1-1] South Tangerang City’s Population Forecast [Table 5.1.5.2-1] Future Waste Generation (ton/day) [Table 5.1.5.3-1] Present DKPP’s Waste Collection Service [Table 5.1.5.3-2] Waste Collection Service by Private Sector (2012) [Table 5.1.5.3-3] Waste Collection Service Expansion Plan [Table 5.1.5.3-4] Waste Control Targets [Table 5.1.5.3-5] DKPP’s Waste Collection by District [Table 5.1.5.4-1] Estimation of Incinerator Facility Capacity [Table 5.1.5.4-2] Scale of Landfill Facility [Table 5.1.6.1-1] South Tangerang City’s Future Waste Generation Collectable by DKPP [Table 5.1.6.1-2] Waste Collection and Transport Vehicles Required for Transfer Depot by Facility Capacity [Table 5.1.6.1-3] Staffs Required for Operating Transfer Depot by Facility Capacity [Table 5.1.6.1-4] Summary of Transfer Depot Functional Areas [Table 5.1.6.1-5] Equipment list of Transfer Depot [Table 5.1.6.1-6] Summary Of Transfer Depot Staff & Requirement [Table 5.1.6.1-7] Estimation of Sump Pit Capacity by Facility Capacity [Table 5.1.6.1-8] Calculation of Cleaning Water Generation by Facility Capacity [Table 5.1.6.1-9] Estimation of Septic Tank Capacity by Facility Capacity [Table 5.1.6.1-10] Construction Cost [Table 5.1.6.1-11] Operation Cost [Table 5.1.6.2-1] Plan for Land Use in Expansion Section [Table 5.1.6.2-2] Internal Soil Composition [Table 5.1.6.3-1] Chemical Composition, Three Components, and Density of Target Waste [Table 5.1.6.3-2] Air Pollutant Emission Standard [Table 5.1.6.3-3] Effluent Quality Standard [Table 5.1.6.3-4] Comparing and Selecting Treatment System [Table 5.1.6.3-4] (Continued) Comparing and Selecting Treatment System [Table 5.1.6.3-5] Comparing and Selecting Treatment Technology [Table 5.1.6.3-6] Design Overview [Table 5.1.6.3-7] Key System Design Criteria [Table 5.1.6.3-8] Comparative Review of Waste Crusher and Feeder [Table 5.1.6.3-9] List of Equipment (Example) [Table 5.1.6.3-10] Comparative Review of Combustion Method [Table 5.1.6.3-11] List of Components (Example) [Table 5.1.6.3-12] Comparative Review of Waste Heat Utilization Methods [Table 5.1.6.3-13] Comparative Review of Cooling Method [Table 5.1.6.3-15] Comparative Review of Combustion Gas Treatment Processes [Table 5.1.6.3-16] List of Components (Example) [Table 5.1.6.3-17] Comparative Review of Internal Control Systems for Incinerator
[Table 5.1.6.3-18] List of Components (Example) [Table 5.1.6.3-19] Comparative Review of Bottom Ash Discharge System [Table 5.1.6.3-20] Comparative Review of Fly Ash Discharge Systems [Table 5.1.6.3-21] List of Components (Example) [Table 5.1.6.3-22] Comparative Review of Deionizer Systems [Table 5.1.6.3-23] Comparative Review of Water Supply Method [Table 5.1.6.3-24] List of Components (Example) [Table 5.1.6.3-26] List of Systems (Example) [Table 5.1.6.3-25] Wastewater Generation [Table 5.1.6.3-26] Operation and Management Organization Scheme [Table 5.1.6.3-27] Details of Project Cost (unit: 1 mil. KWN) [Table 5.1.6.3-28] Summary of operation cost (390TPD) [Table 5.1.6.4-1] Landfill Facility Scale (2020-2025) [Table 5.1.6.4-2] Sanitary Landfill Development Plan [Table 5.1.6.4-4] Comparing Liner Materials for Domestic Waste Landfill [Table 5.1.6.4-5] Comparing Liner Materials for Waste Landfill for Type 2(fly ash) [Table 5.1.6.4-6] Leachate Collection/Drain Layer Installation Standard [Table 5.1.6.4-7] Standard Coefficient of Runoff by Land Use [Table 5.1.6.4-8] General Property of Landfill Gas (0℃, 1atm) [Table 5.1.6.4-9] Waste Classification by Decomposition Rate [Table 5.1.6.4-10] Landfill Gas Generation Forecast [ZONE 1 - ZONE 3] [Table 5.1.6.4-11] Landfill Gas Generation Forecast [ZONE 3] [Table 5.1.6.4-12] General Equipment Plan Based on Waste Amount [Table 5.1.6.4-13] Equipment Procurement Plan [Table 5.1.6.4-14] Operation and Management Items [Table 5.1.6.4-15] Landfill Construction Cost [Table 5.1.6.4-16] Annual Landfill Operation Cost [Table 5.2.1.1-1] Details of Transfer Depot Investment Cost [Table 5.2.1.2-1] Details of Investment Cost for Incinerator [Table 5.2.2.2-1] Summary of operation cost (200TPD) [Table 5.2.2.2-2] Summary of operation cost (150TPD) [Table 5.2.2.2-3] Summary of operation cost (50TPD) [Table 5.2.2.2-1] Summary of operation cost (790TPD) [Table 5.2.2.3-1] Annual Landfill Operation Cost [Table 5.2.4-1] Waste Collection Fee per Short-term Target Year [Table 5.2.4-2] Waste Collection Fee per Mid-term Target Year [Table 5.2.4-3] Waste Collection Fee per Long-term Target Year [Table 5.2.5.2–1] Payback Period [Table 5.2.5.3 –1] Calculation of NPV by Discount Rate (unit: Million Rp) [Table 5.2.5.3 –1] IRR Variation with Cost/Benefit [Table 5.2.6.2.2-1] Yearly Investment Plan [Table 5.2.6.2.2-2] Estimation of Operation Cost [Table 5.5.2.2 – 1] Yearly DKPP Personnel Plan (Cleanliness Unit) [Table 5.5.2.2 – 1] DKPP Field Staff Recruitment Plan [Table 6.1-1] Facility Plan for Target Years [Table 7.1-1] Analysis of Economic Feasibility [Table 7.1-2] Analysis of Financial Feasibility
List of figur es [Figure 2.2.3-1] Flow chart of waste treatment [Figure 2.2.3.2-1] Organization chart of South Tangerang, DKPP [Figure 2.2.3.5.4-1] Flow of composting process [Figure 2.2.3.5.4-2] ITF (Composting facility) [Figure 2.2.3.5.5-1] The status of landfill operation [Figure 2.2.3.5.5-2] Cipeucang landfill development plan [Figure 2.2.3.5.3-3] South Tangerang TPS3R Location [Figure 3.3-1] Cipeucang Landfill and Extension Site Location [Figure 4.1.2-1] Area of TPA Development [Figure 4.2.3.2-1] Waste storage way replied from respondent of residential area [Figure 4.2.3.2-2] Waste collection frequency [Figure 4.2.3.2-3] Waste collection system of non-residential area [Figure 4.2.3.2-4] Waste disposal in residential area [Figure 4.2.3.2-5] Waste transportation system in residential area [Figure 4.2.3.2-6] Waste transportation frequency in non-residential area [Figure 4.2.3.2-7] Waste management system in residential area [Figure 4.2.3.2-8] types of waste classified by respondents [Figure 4.2.3.2-9] Classified waste disposal [Figure 4.2.3.2-10] Types of recyclable waste from respondents [Figure 4.2.3.2-11] Processing of recyclable waste [Figure 4.2.3.2-12] Organic Waste Management [Figure 4.2.3.2-13] Whether waste classification performance of the respondents [Figure 4.2.3.2-14] How to charging waste collection fee [Figure 4.2.3.2-15] Respondents' opinions about the waste collection fee [Figure 4.2.3.2-16] Waste collection fee types in non-residential area [Figure 4.2.3.2-17] Waste service satisfaction in residential area [Figure 4.2.3.2-18] Waste service satisfaction in non-residential [Figure 4.5.2-1] TPA Cipeucang Serpong survey map [Figure 5.1.1.2–1] Waste Containers [Figure 5.1.3.2–1] Material Balance in Waste Treatment [Figure 5.1.4-1] Concept of Sanitary Landfill [Figure 5.1.4-2] Classification of Landfills by Topography [Figure 5.1.5.1-1] South Tangerang City’s Population Forecast [Figure 5.1.6.1-1] Transfer Depot Based on Direct Discharge System (Example) [Figure 5.1.6.1-2] Transfer Depot Workflow [Figure 5.1.6.1-3] Transfer Depot Layout (200 TPD) [Figure 5.1.6.1-4] Transfer Depot Transshipment Building Layout (200 TPD) [Figure 5.1.6.1-5] Transfer Depot Transshipment Building Profile Section (200 TPD) [Figure 5.1.6.1-6] Transfer Depot Maintenance Building Layout (200 TPD) [Figure 5.1.6.1-7] Transfer Depot Maintenance Building Profile/Cross Section (200TPD) 150ton/day layout [Figure 5.1.6.1-8] Transfer Depot Layout (150 TPD) [Figure 5.1.6.1-9] Transfer Depot Transshipment Building Layout (150 TPD) [Figure 5.1.6.1-10] Transfer Depot Transshipment Building Profile Section (150 TPD) [Figure 5.1.6.1-11] Transfer Depot Maintenance Building Layout (150 TPD) [Figure 5.1.6.1-12] Transfer Depot Maintenance Building Profile/Cross Section (150 TPD)
[Figure 5.1.6.1-13] Transfer Depot Layout (50 TPD) [Figure 5.1.6.1-14] Transfer Depot Transshipment Building Layout (50 TPD) [Figure 5.1.6.1-15] Transfer Depot Transshipment Building Profile Section (50 TPD) [Figure 5.1.6.1-16] Transfer Depot Maintenance Building Layout (50 TPD) [Figure 5.1.6.1-17] Transfer Depot Maintenance Building Profile/Cross Section (50 TPD) [Figure 5.1.6.2-1] Cipeucang Landfill Development Plan in Spatial Planning (RT/RW) [Figure 5.1.6.2 –2] Location of Project Site [Figure 5.1.6.2 –3] Project Site Photos [Figure 5.1.6.2-4] Plan View [Figure 5.1.6.2-5] Section View [Figure 5.1.6.3-1] Treatment Process Overview [Figure 5.1.6.3-2] Storage and Supply System Diagram (Example) [Figure 5.1.6.3-3] Incinerator System Diagram (Example) [Figure 5.1.6.3-4] Combustion Gas Cooling System Diagram (Example) [Figure 5.1.6.3-5] Combustion Gas Treatment System Diagram (Example) [Figure 5.1.6.3-6] Air Supply/Exhaust System Diagram (Example) [Figure 5.1.6.3-7] Reprocessing System Diagram (Example) [Figure 5.1.6.3-8] Water Supply/Drain System Diagram (Example) [Figure 5.1.6.3-9] Auxiliary Systems Diagram (Example) [Table 5.1.6.3-25] Deodorization Systems in Comparison [Figure 5.1.6.3-9] Overall Treatment System Diagram [Figure 5.1.6.3-10] Mass Balance [Figure 5.1.6.3-11] Heat Balance [Figure 5.1.6.3-12] Boiler Steam Balance [Figure 5.1.6.3-13] Air Pollutant Prevention System Diagram (Example) [Figure 5.1.6.3-14] SNCR System Diagram (Example) [Figure 5.1.6.3-15] Acid Gas Treatment System Diagram (Example) [Figure 5.1.6.3-16] System Diagram (Example) [Figure 5.1.6.3-17] Wastewater Treatment System Diagram (Example) [Figure 5.1.6.3-18] Odor Prevention Plan Overview (Example) [Figure 5.1.6.3-19] 790 ton Incineration Facility Layout (Example) [Figure 5.1.6.3-20] Traffic Line Plan (Example) [Figure 5.1.6.3-21] Operation Team Staffs by Working Hour (Example) [Figure 5.1.6.4-1] Concept of Landfill Structure [Figure 5.1.6.4-2] Concept of Soil Covering [Figure 5.1.6.4-4] Domestic Waste Landfill Liner Section [Figure 5.1.6.4-5] Waste Landfill for Type 2 (fly ash) Leachate Liner Section [Figure 5.1.6.4-6] Leachate Main Line [Figure 5.1.6.4-7] Vertical Leachate Drain Sump [Figure 5.1.6.4-8] Installation Plan for Leachate Drainway [Figure 5.1.6.4-9] Rainfall Intensity (mm/hr) for 60-min duration by Pearson-Ⅲ [Figure 5.1.6.4-10] Installation Plan for Rainwater Drainage [Figure 5.1.6.4-11] Landfill Gas Trap Installation Plan [Figure 5.1.6.4-12] Concept of Leachate Recirculation System [Figure 5.1.6.4-13] Example: Leachate Recirculation System Installation [Figure 5.1.6.4-14] Example: Measuring System Operation [Figure 5.1.6.4-15] Example: Wheel-washing Facility Operation
[Figure 5.1.6.4-16] Groundwater Test Well in Detail [Figure 5.1.6.4-17] Landfill Workflow [Figure 5.1.6.4-18] Perimeter Slope Finish Plan [Figure 5.1.6.4-19] Landfill Operation and Management Organization [Figure 5.3.1 – 1] Place of Residence [Figure 5.3.1 – 2] Traffic Condition [Figure 5.3.1 – 3] Flood Occurrence [Figure 5.3.1 – 4] Community Service Activities [Figure 5.3.1 – 5] Community Service Frequency [Figure 5.3.1 – 6] Waste Bank Existence [Figure 5.3.1 – 7] Household Solid Waste Disposal [Figure 5.3.1 – 8] Solid Waste Sorting [Figure 5.3.1 – 9] Residence distance from Cipeucang TPA [Figure 5.4 – 1] Education Level [Figure 5.4 – 2] Length of Residence [Figure 5.4 – 3] The number of family member [Figure 5.4 – 4] Income Level [Figure 5.4 – 5] Frequent Diseases in Family [Figure 5.4 – 6] Source of information about TPA expansion [Figure 5.4 – 7] Opinion on TPA expansion Plan [Figure 5.4 – 8] Impact of TPA expansion for the surrounding community [Figure 5.4 – 9] People’s expectation on TPA expansion plan [Figure 5.4 – 10] Respondents who knew government’s responsibility on managing solid waste [Figure 5.5.3-1] Construction of cultural space in waste treatment facility [Figure 5.5.5-1] Waste energy recovery target and major process [Figure 5.5.1 – 1] DKPP Organization Diagram [Figure 5.6.1.2 – 2] Cleanliness Division Organization Diagram [Figure 5.6.1.3 – 1] UPTD Organization Diagram
Abbr eviation 3R
Reduce, Reuse & Recycle
AMDAL
Analisis Mengenai Dampak Lingkungan (Environment Impact Assessment)
ANDAL
Analisis Dampak Lingkungan, (Environmental Impact Assessment Study)
APBD
Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Daerah or Regional Budget
APBN
Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Negara or State Budget
B3 waste
Hazardous and Toxic Waste
BAPPEDA
Regional Government Planning and Development Agency
BAPPENAS Ministry of National Planning and Development Bio-SRF
Biomass-solid refuse fuel
B/C
Benefit/cost
CDM
Clean Development Mechanism
CSP
Collection service population
CSR
Corporate Social Responsibility
DED
Detailed Engineering Design
DKP
Dinas Kebersihan dan Pertamanan or Sanitation & Parks Agency
DKPP
Dinas Kebersihan Pertamanan dan Pemakaman or the Sanitation, Parks & Cemeteries Agency Propinsi Daerah Khusus Ibukota Jakarta (Special Provincial District of Capital of Jakarta) Economic development cooperation fund
DKI Jakarta EDCF FS
Feasibility Study
GDP
Gross domestic product
HDPE
High Density Polyethylene
HE
Heavy Equipment
ICB
International Competitive Bidding
IDR
Indonesian Rupiah
IndII
Indonesia Infrastructure Initiative
ITF
Intermediate Treatment Facility
JICA
Japan International Cooperation Agency
KSNP-SPP
National Policy And Strategy For Waste Management System Development
LHV
Lower heating value
M
Million/Mega
MBT
Mechanical Biological Treatment
M/P
Master Plan
MPW
Ministry of Public Works
NIMBY
Not In My Back Yard
ODA
Official development assistance
PPP
Public Private Partnership
SNI
Indonesian National Standard
SNS
Social network service
SPA
Stasiun Peralihan Antara or Transfer Station - Minimum area 20,000 m2 and 500 TPA
SWM
Solid Waste Management
TPA
Tempat Pemrosesan Akir or Final SW Processing/ Disposal Site
TPS
Tempat Penampungan Sementara or Temporary Waste Collection Point/Site
TPS-3R Rp
Tempat Pengolahan Sampah Dengan Prinsip 3R or Temporary Waste Collection Point/Site – 3R Principle Rupiah
RPIJM
Medium term plan investment program
RT/RW
RT (Rukun Tetangga) / RW (Rukun Warga), Spartial plan
WTE
Waste to Energy
Feasibility Study on Integrated Municipal Solid Waste Management System In South Tangerang City
Chapter 1 Project Summary 1.1 Background 1.2 Purpose and Objective 1.3 Target 1.4 Types of Feasibility Study 1.5 Scope 1.6 Systematics of Reporting
Chapter 1 Project Summary 1.1 Background South Tangerang City is located in the south of Jakarta, the capital of Indonesia, and witnesses radical increase in waste generation due to fast economic growth and population inflow while it experiences deepening environmental pollution due to lack of waste management infrastructure and illegal dumping of waste which is damaging the nature and the living environment. The study has found that, as of 2013, of all municipal waste discharge (765 ton/day, estimated) 466 tons of waste, except the 299 ton/day collected/recycled by DKPP and private developers, are being illegally dumped. Although the waste collected by DKPP is being ended in the Cipeucang Landfill, difficulties in securing the landfill site and unsanitary landfill call for the waste-to-energy transition. Therefore, the city is placed in a difficult situation where it have to prepare an integrated waste management system that can efficiently collect and safely process the municipal waste so as to provide waste collection service to the entire city South Tangerang by the last year 2019 specified in the National Mid-term Development Plan (RPJMN, 2015-2019).
1.2 Purpose and Objective South Tangerang City is placed right behind the capital of Indonesia, Jakarta, which expects gradual increase in various types of waste following its enhanced living standard and population growth due to urbanization but witnesses wide spread illegal waste dumping throughout the city due to lack of waste management fundamentals. Therefore, the purpose of this study lies in performing a feasibility study and basic designing of waste discharge/storage, collection/transport, and interim and final treatment facility construction which are required to prevent environmental pollution by household waste and improve living environment of the city and health of the citizen.
1.3 Targets This feasibility study targets the household waste collected by DKPP of all the municipal
1-1
waste generated from South Tangerang City and builds a detailed plan to ensure safe disposal of household waste in the years from 2016 to 2025 as specified in the Master Plan.
1.4 Types of Feasibility Study This feasibility study intends to prepare a feasibility study and a basic design that are required for efficient transport and disposal of the household waste collected by DKPP in South Tangerang City.
1.5 Scope This feasibility study covers South Tangerang City which is located at the east of Banten Province and consists of 7 Districts, of which the administrative boundary lies between 106°38′-106°47′east longitude and 06′13′30″-06°22′30″south latitude. The total area of the city is 147.19 ㎢. The scope of work is confined to waste management planning, and the scope of activity includes the following: - Collection and arrangement of basic data and materials related to the project - Analysis of current waste management in the project area - Estimation of the facility demand for collection, transport, and treatment of solid waste; and basic designing of key facilities - Study of economic/financial feasibility - Study of legal, social, institutional aspects - Project implementation plan
1.6 Systematics of Reporting Chapter 1 Introduction - This chapter describes the background, purpose and objective, scope, and systematics of reporting of this project. Chapter 2 General Overview of the Planning Areas - This chapter describes general overview of the project areas, spatial plan, population, socioeconomic status, city infrastructure, current waste management, etc. Chapter 3 Planning Criteria 1-2
- This chapter describes planning criteria of technology, economy and finance, environment, community participation, legality, institution, etc. Chapter 4 Survey and Data Collection - This chapter describes target area’s characteristics of waste generation, population and urban planning, and site survey results. Chapter 5 Plan Analysis of the Feasibility of Developing the Waste Management System - This chapter describes not only the technical aspects of the waste facility and infrastructure development but also economic and financial feasibility, environment, community participation, law, and institution, etc. Chapter 6 Plan of Implementation - This chapter describes the implementation plan and the implementation schedule. Chapter 7 Conclusions and Recommendations - This chapter describes conclusions and recommendations of the waste management system.
1-3
Feasiblility Study on integrated municipal solid waste management system in South Tangerang
Chapter 2 Planning Area Description
2.1 Planning Area 2.2 Existing Condition of Solid Waste Management
Chapter 2 Planning Area Description 2.1 Planning Area In this time, planning area is targeted for the entire city of South Tangerang of its seven districts, aimed at establishing the Feasible study of integrated solid waste treatment system for waste management and treatment arising from the applicable area. We provide the basic data to establish the improvement through identifying relevant sites problems, as well as the status of current waste management system.
2.1.1 Regional Physical Condition 2.1.1.1 Administrative Boundaries Administrative district of South Tangerang City has 54 villages, consisting of seven districts, and the total area of 147.19㎢. [Table 2.1.1-1] South Tangerang Administrative Districts
No
Width (㎢)
Total District
Village
Population (2012)
1
24.04
Serpong
Buaran, Ciater, Rawa Mekar Jaya, Rawa Bunta, Serpong, Cienggang, Lengkong Gudang, Lengkong Gudang Timur, Lengkong Wetan
151,899
2
17.84
Serpong Utara
Lengkong Karya, Jelupang, Pondok Jagung, Pondok Jagung Timur, Pakulonan, Paku Alam, Pakr Jaga
142,328
3
18.38
Ciputat
Srua, Jombang, Sawah Baru, Sarua Indah, Sawah, Ciputat, Cipayung
207,885
4
15.43
Ciputat Pisangan, Cireundeu, Cempaka Putih, Pondok Timur Ranji, Rengas, Rempoa
190,415
5
Pondok Benda, Pondok Barat, Pamulang 26.82 Pamulang Timur, Pondok Cabe Udik, Pondok Cabe Ilir, Kedaung, Bambu Aqus, Benda Baru
308,272
2-1
No
Width (㎢)
Total District
Village
Population (2012)
6
29.88
Pondok Aren
Perigi Baru, Pondok Kacang Barat, Pondok Kacang Timur, Perigi Lama, Pondok Pucung, Pondok Jaya, Pondok Aren, Jurang Mangu Barat, Jurang Mangu Timur, Pondok Karya, Pondok Betung
331,644
7
14.80
Setu
Kranggan, Muncul, Setu, Babakan, Bakti Jaya, Kademangan
72,727
7
54
1,405,170
Total 147.19
2.1.1.2 Geographical Location South Tangerang is located at the east of the Banten province, the east longitude of 106 ° 38 '~ 106 ° 47', south latitude of 06'13'30 "~ 06 ° 22'30". It also located at adjacent to the Jakarta in the north, South Tangerang in the east, and a buffer zone, DKI Jakarta in south. One of this area is connected the main Banten and west Java, and the other connected the Banten province and Jakarta. City boundary is shown as follows; - Northern boundary: Tangerang city and DKI Jakarta - Eastern boundary: Depok city and DKI Jakarta - Southern boundary: Bogor Regency and Depok city - Western boundary: Tangerang Regency
2.1.1.3 Hydrology Surface water comes through in some areas of rivers such as Cisadane, Angke, and Pesanggrahan. The minimum average flow per month from SWS Cisadane-Ciliwung is 2,551 ㎥/s measured at Cidurian River in 1995, the maximum is 115.315 ㎥/s measured at Cisadane river from 1991 to 1998. 2-2
Total discharge flow of Ciputat is 210L /s. There are water shortage from March to November, a glut of water from December to February. Groundwater, which is mainly used to the main road of industry and factory, is discharged into the range between 3 and 10L / sec/㎢ from Tangerang administrative district including South Tangerang. Most people are using groundwater which are digged by 5 ~ 10m in depth.
2.1.1.4 Topography The most of South Tangerang area is flat relatively. It has rugged land in the part of District Ciputat Timur, and between District Setu and District Pamulang. South Tangerang is 25 meters above sea level.
2.1.1.5 Climatography For weather conditions of temperature, relative humidity, rainfall, number of rainy days in 2009, we investigated those elements based on Stasiun Geofisika Klas I Tangerang, details are listed in table 2.1.1-2. Temperature range is between 26.6 ℃ ~ 28.5 ℃, the lowest temperature arises in February, the highest in September, and the average temperature is 27.7 ℃.
Relative humidity range is between 72-84%, the lowest humidity arises in September, the highest in January and February, and average humidity is 79%. Rainfall range per month is 15mm ~ 377mm, the lowest rainfall in August, and the highest rainfall in January. The average rainfall is 166mm. The number of raining days is 1 to 28, the minimum raining days arose in August, maximum raining days in February; the average number of rainy days is 12 days.
2-3
[Table 2.1.1-2] Data of temperature, humidity, rainfall, number of raining days Month
Average Relative Humidity temperature (℃) (%)
Rainfall (mm)
Number of raining days (day)
1
26.7
84
377
19
2
26.6
84
253
28
3
27.5
81
211
14
4
27.9
82
305
14
5
27.8
82
197
13
6
27.9
79
129
8
7
27.3
75
21
4
8
27.7
75
15
1
9
28.5
72
18
3
10
28.4
74
34
6
11
27.9
79
247
18
12
27.8
81
188
13
Average
27.7
79
166
12
Source) South Tangerang White Paper, 2010 (KOTA TANGERANG SELATAN DALAM ANGKA 2010)
2.1.1.6 Physiography The geological conditions of South Tangerang consist of generally clay, silt, sand, gravel, rock, and alluvial rock configurations. These soils let earthwork operations straightforward and can resist erosion. Geological conditions in South Tangerang are suitable for an urban construction. Depending on the distribution of soil type, there are the red and red-brown latosol soils and are suitable for agriculture / farm.
2-4
[Figure 2.1 1.1-1] Adm ministrativee Map of So outh Tangeerang
2-5
[Figu ure 2.1.1-2] Geographyy of South Tangerangg 2-6
[Figure 2.1.1-3] Hyydrology map of Soutth Tangeranng 2-7
[Figure 2.1.1-4] Top pographic map of Sou uth Tangeraang 2-8
[Figuree 2.1.1-5] G Geologic ma a p of South h Tangeranng
2-9
2.1.2 Development and Spatial Policies 2.1.2.1 Goals of Regional Development Taking into account the national strategic areas and provincial strategic areas in the city area. City Strategic Area can coincide with national strategic areas and / or provincial strategic areas, but must have different interest / specialty and there should be a clear distribution of authority. It can be an area that has a strategic value in terms of economic interests which is an agglomeration of economic activities that have:
2.1.2.2 Strategy of Regional Development City Strategic Area is part of the city of which the spatial arrangement is prioritized because it has a very important influence on economic, social, cultural and / or the environment. City Strategic Area is defined by the following criteria. -The fast-growing economic potential -Leading sectors that can drive economic growth -Potential to export -Network for supporting infrastructure and facilities of economic activity -The priority of improving the social and cultural
2.1.2.3 Direction of Spatial Management Promote the reduction of waste is carried out through the establishment of waste reduction targets in stages within a specified period, the application of environmentally friendly technologies, activities of re-using and recycling and facilitate the marketing of recycled products; Optimizing the utilization of final processing Cipeucang with a minimum area of 10 acres with appropriate technological innovations and environmentally sound; Hold a temporary shelter (TPS) integrated in every village; The content of hazardous and toxic (B3) with the technology and processing methods in accordance with the laws and regulations applicable; Develop the concept of Municipal Solid Waste Landfill pengurugan system uses a layered 2-10
clean (sanitary landfill).
2.1.2.4 Strategies of Spatial Management Until 2031 waste management needs in South Tangerang City reached 9.2 million liters per day, or 9,145 m³ per day. Waste facility planned / to be developed in South Tangerang City is a combination of several types of facilities, namely: garbage carts, TPS in the form of containers, open trucks and dump trucks. Each of these facilities has the capacity and capacity as detailed below.
-Capacity wheelie bin = 1 m³ / unit, service capacity 15% -Capacity TPS (container) = 10 m³ / unit, service capacity 85% -Truck Capacity open = 7 m³ / unit, service capacity 50% -Dump Truck Capacity = 6 m³ / unit, service capacity 50%
The amount of waste in South Tangerang City is listed in Table 2.1.2.4-1 Solid waste facilities needed in South Tangerang City are listed in Table 2.1.2.4-2. [Table 2.1.2.4-1] The amount of waste in South Tangerang City No
Criteria
1
Population
2
Number of KK
2011
2015
1,303,569 1,672,437 260,714
334,487
Division 2020
2025
2031
2,157,598
2,800,315
3,658,207
431,520
560,063
731,641
Waste generated Domestic(m³/ y)
2,444,192 3,135,819
4,045,496
5,250,592
6,859,139
1,045,273
1,348,499
1,750,197
2,286,380
3,258,923 4,181,092
Non-domestic(m³/ y) 814,731 3
Total(m³/ y)
5,393,994
7,000,789
9,145,518
Reduce(25%)(m³/ y) 814,731
1,045,273
1,348,499
1,750,197
2,286,380
Reuse(25%)(m³/ y) 814,731
1,045,273
1,348,499
1,750,197
2,286,380
Recycle(50%)(m³/ y) 1,629,461 2,090,546
2,696,997
3,500,394
4,572,759
2-11
[Table 2.1.2.4-2] Solid waste facilities needed in South Tangerang city No 1
Criteria
2011
Domestic waste (m³/ y) 2,444,192
2015
Division 2020
3,135,819
4,045,496
2025
2031
5,250,592 6,859,139
2
Cart(EA)
367
470
607
788
1029
3
TPS(EA)
208
267
344
446
583
4
Open truck(EA)
175
224
289
375
490
5
Dump truck(EA)
204
261
337
438
572
2.1.2.5 Direction of Spatial Management Promote the reduction of waste is carried out through the establishment of waste reduction targets in stages within a specified period, the application of environmentally friendly technologies, activities of re-using and recycling and facilitate the marketing of recycled products; Optimizing the utilization of final processing Cipeucang with a minimum area of 10 acres with appropriate technological innovations and environmentally sound; Hold a temporary shelter (TPS) integrated in every village; The content of hazardous and toxic (B3) with the technology and processing methods in accordance with the laws and regulations applicable; Develop the concept of Municipal Solid Waste Landfill pengurugan system uses a layered clean (sanitary landfill).
2.2 Existing Condition of Solid Waste Management 2.2.1 Sources of Waste Waste sources are a number of types, can be classified as follows; a. Residential area: general house, apartment house b. Commercial areas: Commercial areas are generally divided into commercial, entertainment 2-12
venues as well as markets, shops, hotels and restaurants and others. c. Public facilities: urban infrastructure and public facilities are used for the common good, divided into offices, school, gym, museums, parks, roads, canals, rivers, places of worship, etc. d. School e. Hospital f. Market: Traditional and modern markets g. Industrial Park: light industrial complex
2.2.2 Generation, Composition and Characteristic waste 2.2.2.1 The amount of waste generation a. Existing data Waste generation sources at small cities in Indonesia is 2.75 ~ 3.25 L / person / day, average 3.00 L / person / day based on of SNI S-04-1991-01. According to data from South Tangerang DKPP, disposal quantities that occur 1740㎥ / day in South Tangerang in 2013 has been estimated to be 27.6% in 481㎥ / day.
The amount of waste generation in South Tangerang by the master plan of Cipeucang landfill (2012) is 3.02 L / person / day, and 2.75 L / person / day according to population of South Tangerang Pictures (in 2012). Amount of waste generation, collection rate, and feed rate in South Tangerang is shown in the following [Table 2.2.2.1-1] [Table 2.2.2.1-1] Amount of waste generation in South Tangerang No
Contents
Total (㎥/day)
1
Amount of waste generation
1,740
2
Amount of waste collection
481
3
Disposal volume transported in landfill
323
4
Disposal volume transported TPS 3R
138
Source) South Tangerang, DKPP, 2013 2-13
b. This time of survey The basic unit of waste conducted waste characteristic survey during this time of research was applied to forecasting waste generation sources when establishing the master plan. Sampling was performed by dividing into residential and non-residential area, analyzed sample of residential area at 238 points and non-residential facilities at 88 points. In waste generation sources it appeared to 0.56kg / person / day (4.57L / person / day), which is 1.62 to 1.78 times higher than the value of existing research literature. [Table 2.2.2.1-2] Results of waste generation sources in the survey No
Content
Result
1
Survey target
2
Waste generation sources
residential areas of 238 points, non-residential area of 88 points 0.56 kg / person /day - Dry season: 0.60kg /person/day, Rainy: 0.51kg /person / day 4.89 L /person /day - Dry season: 4.57L / person/day, Rainy: 5.35L /person/day
2.2.2.2 Waste composition and characteristics a. Existing data Compositions of food waste, leaves, natural decomposition which are generated from household are majority of organic waste. In addition, organic waste for 51%, inorganic waste for 35%, and the residue for 14% are consisting of household waste. Table 2.2.2.2-1 shows the composition of the waste in South Tangerang.
[Table 2.2.2.2-1] The composition of the waste No
Waste composition
Percentages (%)
1 Organic 2 Mineral 3 The residue Total Source) South Tangerang, Cipeucang landfill master plan
51 35 14 100
Organic waste accounting for 51% of the total composition can be used as compost material; inorganic waste such as vinyl, plastic, textile, leather, etc. can be recycled. 2-14
Cipeucang landfill waste master plan and the composition of South Tangerang surveyed by ITF feasibility study is as Table 2.2.2.2-2 as follows; [Table 2.2.2.2-2] The composition and characteristics of waste No
Percentage (%) Data1 Data 2
Waste characteristics
1
Organic
49
2
Recyclable plastic
13
72.82
3
Non recyclable plastic
4
4
Paper
11
5
Metal
4
0.11
6
Glass
4
0.45
7
Textile
4
1.9
8
hazard waste
8
0
9
Woods/bamboo
-
9.63
9.63 3.65
10
Leather
-
0.06
11
Styrofoam
-
0.05
12
Rock/mineral
-
0
13
Rubber
-
0.07
14
Tissue/ Diaper
-
1.93
15
Residue
3
-
100
100
Total
Source) Data1: South Tangerang, Cipeucang landfill master plan Data2: ITF feasibility study b. This time of survey Samples were collected and analyzed from the residential and in non-residential areas (dry, wet season) in 2 times, and the results of this analysis are shown in Table 2.2.2.2-3. In this time of survey, it found the results are similar to the existing research literature.
2-15
[Table 2.2.2.2-3] Composition of waste (Unit: %) Residential area
Non-residential area
No.
Items
Dry
Rainy
Dry
Rainy
1
Organic
44.67
51.0
42.09
47.16
2
Plastic
7.16
8.0
5.0
7.02
3
Plastic bottle
5.11
4.0
6.45
8.65
4
Residue
12.42
12.0
16.45
11.86
5
Paper
12.59
9.0
12.3
15.4
6
Diaper/tampon
6.41
9.0
5.77
3.36
7
Styrofoam
1.87
2.0
1.52
1.46
8
Textile
2.62
2.0
1.29
1.31
9
Glass
2.27
1.0
1.69
2.04
10
Can
1.18
1.0
1.17
1.26
11
Metal
0.28
0.0
0.16
0.11
12
Woods/bamboo
1.10
1.0
3.52
0.09
13
Rock/mineral
1.78
0.0
-
-
14
Rubber/leather
0.55
0.0
0.78
0.24
2.2.3 Solid Waste Management Waste collected from South Tangerang is transported to TPS/ TPS3R as collected after RT (Rukun Tetangga) / RW (Rukun Warga) administrative units in the municipal waste, and collected to load by the Armroll truck and transport to landfills. Bring system and sources in the collection, then transported to the landfill directly Door have been made as to Door system My valuables waste (e. g. plastic, paper, cans, etc.) in the discharge stage collected by Waste Bank system, which is introduced to recycle, being implemented in RT / RW administrative units, but local communities’ participation is low. In some areas communities have been provided their efforts to reduce landfill by composting, and to recover valuables by installing the TPS 3R. 2-16
Overalll flow chart of waste management m system is shown in Fig gure 2.2.3-11. [Figu ure 2.2.3-1]] Flow charrt of waste treatment
2.2.3.1 Regulatioon Waste A Act of Indonnesia on sollid waste maanagement is based on Republic oof Indonesiaa, No. 18. (2008). The folllowing are Indonesia Government G t Regulationns The Reppublic of Inndonesia Go overnment R Regulation No. N 74/2001on the mannagement of o risks and toxxic materialss related to the t impact ((AMDAL) analysis afffected to envvironment, 2-17
including hazardous waste The Republic of Indonesia Government Regulation No. 81/2012 on the management of household solid waste and similar waste. The following are Minister Regulation Public Works of the Republic of Indonesia Minister Regulation No. 03 / PRT / M / 2013on the implementation of infrastructure and facilities for the waste management, household solid waste and similar waste. Public Works of the Republic of Indonesia Minister Regulation No. 19 / PRT / M / 2012 on the guidelines for the planning plant around landfills. Public Works of the Republic of Indonesia Minister Regulation No. 21 / PRT / M / 2006 on national policy and strategy development of waste management systems (KSNP-SPP). Energy Minister regulations No. 19/2013 on the purchasing power of the PT Perusahaan Listrik Negara Persero (national power unit)from municipal solid waste-based power plants Regional Regulations - Regulation No. 3/2013 regarding South Tangerang solid waste management
2.2.3.2 Institution South Tangerang was enacted No.07 in 2009 for clean and livable city and created a DKPP, which is a government organization in charge of parks, cemetery, roads, waste management and disposal. Waste management is in charge of Cleanliness Division and detailed DKPP chart is shown in Figure 2.2.3.2-1 below.
2-18
[Figgure 2.2.3.2 2-1] Organiization chaart of South h Tangeranng, DKPP
Source)) South Tanngerang DKPP, 2013 2-19
Configuration Personnel of South Tangerang DKPP is made up of 550 field staff employees, 43 management personnel. Detailed construction and man-power are listed in Table 2.2.3.2-1 below. [Table 2.2.3.2-1] South Tangerang DKPP Configuration personnel No
Classification
Number of people
1
Class Ⅳ
6
2
Class Ⅲ
15
3
Class Ⅱ
8
4
Class Ⅰ
14
Sub-total
Remark
Management personnel
43
Source) South Tangerang, 2015 [Table 2.2.3.2-1] South Tangerang DKPP Configuration personnel (cont) No
Classification
Number of people
1
Supervisor
54
2
Foreman
10
3
Driver
70
4
Driver Assistant (Co-Driver)
141
5
Collector
25
6
Crew
225
7
Heavy Equipment Driver
2
8
Diver Assistant
1 1
9
ITF Operator
10
ITF Security
2
11
TPA Field staff
9
12
ITF Field staff
10
Sub-total
550
Source) South Tangerang, 2015 2-20
Remark
Field staff
2.2.3.3 Finance Financing for waste management in South Tangerang has received the funding from the APBD. The budget of South Tangerang in 2012 was Rp1,985,000,000,000, and Rp 1,777,000,000,000 in 2013. DKPP budget was Rp 52,522,462,598 in 2012, Rp 63,589,090,000 in 2013. The amount of DKPP budget was 2.65% in 2012 and 3.58% in 2013 compared to the total budget of South Tangerang. Cleaning budget among DKPP is as low as 1.11% in 2012 and 1.74% in 2013 compared to total budget. DKPP in 2012, 2013 budget details are shown in Table 2.2.3.3-1. [Table 2.2.3.3-1] DKPP budget (in 2012 ~2013) No.
Waste composition
2012 (Rp)
2013 (Rp)
1
South Tangerang budget
1,985,000,000,000
1,777,000,000,000
2
DKPP (cleaning, parks, cemetery management) Budget
52,522,462,598
63,589,090,000
1) The Director General
19,222,581,402
5,202,432,600
2) General Road Lighting
4,521,413,176
19,167,682,600
3) Cemetery management
2,650,000,000
1,648,000,000
4) Parks
4,121,333,700
6,644,061,500
5) Clean
22,007,134,320
30,926,913,300
(1) Waste management infrastructure and facilities (2) Improvement of waste treatment technology (3) socialization (4) Improvement of operating waste
13,717,322,320
2,211,850,300
978,191,000
20,898,725,000
515,996,000
727,903,000
5,999,520,000
6,739,135,300
796,375,000
349,300,000
(5) community participation in waste management (6) Waste Management Policy Source) South Tangerang DKPP 2-21
2.2.3.4 Roles of Society Communities in South Tangerang enforced a small TPS3R programs in order to improve the quality of life in the communities and its families, but community overall is lacking the communities’ participation for waste management. (Roles of Society) TPS3R in South Tangerang spread rapidly to four in 2010, eight in 2011, fourteen in 2012, fourteen in 2013, and 40 units total and a footprint of TPS 3R were classified 3 types of 325 ㎡, 350㎡ and 500㎡. Location of TPS3R is shown in Figure 2.2.3.4-1, TPS3R status and specifications are listed in Table 2.2.3.4-1 also. [Table 2.2.3.4-1] South Tangerang TPS3R No
Location
Manager
Area (㎡)
Year established
1
Perumahan Griya Serpong, Kademangan
JUMADI/JUMARI
500
2010
2
Perumahan Vila Pamulang Mas
H. TARMIZI
500
2010
3
Vila Pamulang Mas
JODI SATYA
500
2010
4
Kelurahan Serua
ANWAR
500
2010
Kp. Sarimulya Kelurahan Setu
MARTA MARDJUKI
5
500
2011
6
H. DIANA Reni Jaya Kelurahan Pamulang Barat MARTAWIDJAYA
500
2011
7
RW 17 Jombang Kelurahan Jombang AMSIR/MARSIN Ciputat
500
2011
2-22
[Table 2.2.3.4-1] South Tangerang TPS3R (cont) No
Location
Manager
Area (㎡)
Year established
8
Komp. Maharta pak. Kacang Timur
BPK ISNANTO
500
2011
9
Komp. Deplu Pdk. Karya Pdk. Aren
BPK SANDIMIN
500
2011
10
Pondok Betung Pdk. Aren
SRI HARMOYO
500
2011
11
Pamulang Permai RW 12
HIKMAT WINANGUN
500
2011
12
Benda Baru
TAMIR/KATMO
500
2011
13
Jl. Jembar Jaya RT 02/05 Kp. Cilalung Kelurahan Jombang Kec. Ciputat
MUHAMMAD HATTA
350
2012
14
RW 05 Kelurahan Pamulang Barat Kec. Pamulang (Jl. Lestari Ketapang RT 07)
YUSUF
350
2012
15
Pasar Jengkol Kp. Curug Ds. Babakan Kec. Setu
KIMUNG
350
2012
16
RW 06 Kelurahan Pamulang Barat Kec. Pamulang
DIAN
350
2012
17
Jl. Ceger Raya Kav. IWAPI Jurang Mangu Barat Kec. Pondok Aren
NURSALIM
350
2012
18
Jl. H. Echo Cempaka Putih, Kec. Ciputat Timur
IBU DWI
350
2012
19
Rw 09 Jombang
KIKI
350
2012
20
Jl. Mujahidin RT 03/05 Kelurahan Perigi Baru Kec. Pondok Aren
H LI’AN
350
2012
21
Jl. Gadung Raya RT 04/03 Kelurahan Pondok Ranji Kec. Ciputat Timur
350
2012
22
Jl. Menjangan Raya RT 01/04 Kelurahan Pondok Ranji Kec. Ciputat Timur
BUDI MARHAENI BUDI MARHAENI
350
2012
23
Komplek Griya Permata Pamulang, Kelurahan Bhakti Jaya Kec. Setu
YANUAR
350
2012
24
Komplek Batan Indah, Setu
MISPAN
350
2012
25
RW 12 Kelurahan Pondok Benda Kec. Pamulang
ALEX
350
2012
26
Kelurahan Perigi Lama Kec. Pondok Aren
TASLIM
350
2012
2-23
[Table 2.2.3.4-1] South Tangerang TPS3R (cont) Location
Manager
27
RT 07/RW02 Kelurahan Sawah Baru (Jl. Cendrawasih V)
THAMRIN
325
2013
28
RW.04 Lengkong Gudang Timur
H ARIEF
325
2013
29
RW.07 Kelurahan Ciater
ROHMAN
325
2013
30
RW.01 Kelurahan Rawa Buntu
ENDANG ISKANDAR
325
2013
31
RW.03 Lengkong Gudang Timur
SABAR/NIMAN
325
2013
32
RW.04 Kelurahan Bambu Apus
TATA
325
2013
33
RW.09 Kelurahan Pondok Aren
KATIYO/MARTIN
325
2013
34
RT 03 RW.01 Kelurahan Ciputat
IBU ANAH/SINGGIH
325
2013
35
Vila Pamulang Mas 06 Kelurahan Bambu Apus
IMAM AULIA
325
2013
36
Perumahan Puri Sentosa Kel Kademangan
ISNANIAR
325
2013
37
RW.09 Kelurahan Pondok Ranji
BAHRUDIN
325
2013
38
RW.05 Perumahan Amarapura Kelurahan Kademagan
DJOKO/EDI
325
2013
39
RW.01 Kelurahan Pondok Kacang Timur
JON ARTAM
325
2013
RW.08 Kelurahan Pondok Aren
ABDULLAH/ TOBOR
325
2013
40
Area (㎡)
Year established
No
Source) South Tangerang DKPP, 2013
2.2.3.5 Technical and Operational Aspects In aspect of operational technologies, it includes the stages of final waste generation to final processing in the waste management system. Operations are conducted each course engaged, not solely progressed. Waste management operating system procedure is as follows; a. Waste sorting / storage 2-24
b. Waste collectionn c. Wastee transportaation d. Waste treatment e. Finall disposal
[Figgure 2.2.3.55-1] Waste Management Type 2.2.3.5..1 Waste Soorting / Storage Waste sorting s and storage is th he process ccarried out before b the collection c annd transporttation Waste sorting s is acchieved befo ore waste diischarge at each e home, but that thee current waaste sorting is not nearlly done. Waste bins b are usedd to preventt unauthorizzed dumpin ng of waste that t hurts thhe health, hy ygiene and aesthetically ennvironmentt. Private storage conntainers and d a commonn storage conntainer are classified c inn accordancce with waste collection. Individuual containeers such as a plastic bag, masonry cement, strructures, andd small cap pacity steel caase, and com mmonly plasstic & steel forms are used. u 2-25
The binns of fixed concrete c form using in pprivate hom mes have pro oblems to taake longer than t other foorms of binss when colleecting, so ddifferent types of bins su uch as a sim mple plastic or plastic bbag are subjject to chan nge. [Tablee 2.2.3.5-1] The type oof waste con ntainers in South Tanngerang Th he user / Classs Material Capaccity Installaation locatiion
Indiviidual homes
Brick k, Cement
10~20L
C Common Park R Roadside
Plasttics, Iron
30L~100L
C Common R Roadside Aparttment housee Shops
Co ontainer
500L~5,,000L
KEC. PONDOK P A AREN(2014.3 3)
KEC. PONDOK P A AREN(2014.3 3)
KE EC. CIPUTA AT(2014.3)
2.2.3.5..2 Collectioon Waste collection c iss being carriied out by thhe DKPP orr Private (Plastica Jayaa, Graha Ray ya, BSD, N Natural silk, Puri Serpon ng, Serpongg area). DKPP use u Amroll trucks (35) and Pickupp Truck (28)),and private is using a dump truck k as waste collection eqquipment. Accord ing to the fiindings of DKPP D in 20 13 year, DK KPP collecteed about *1 8.6% (323㎥ ㎥/ day) of the tootal generatted quantitiees discardedd from the generated g to otal waste (11,740㎥ / day) to the landdfill, which seems to reequire expannsion of thee collection personnel aand equipmeent to reach thhe minimum m service lev vel of 100% % in 2019. Waste collection c m methods in South S Tangeerang are lissted in Tablee 2.2.3.5.2-11 below. 2-26
[Tablle 2.2.3.5.2--1] Waste ccollection methods m in South Tan gerang Diivision
Direct Individual (Doorr-to-Door)
Unndirect Inddividual (Brinng System)
Waste Co ollection Ov verview
-Waste collection c vvehicle mov ve and transp port directlyy to landfilll as waste diischargers ddischarge waste. w - Applieed to cleaninng Bintaro Jaya, J Grahaa Raya, BSD D, Alam Suttera Residen ntia, Serpongg Paradise, Sutopo-BSD road, Cipputat roads, industriaal, commerccial areas, residential r areas a and roaad.
- Most applied a and collected manner m in So outh Tangerrang. - Waste dischargerss discharge waste into container c / a fixed emp pty space, waste w transpportation vehhicle collects it and trannsports to each e landfill in a certain period of tiime.
Directt/ Undirect Com mmunal
- After collecting c thhe co-wastee bins, wastee disposal uuse a cart mo oving to TPS, and transport to landfill by b using thee transport ttruck. - Applieed to Ciputaat Market, Cimanggis C Market, M andd Jombang Market M
R Road Sw weeping -South Tangerang T w waste collecction schem me - Cleaneers clean thee road, and carry the co ollected wasste to placess such as wastee collection containers that transpo orting to lanndfill.
2-27
2.2.3.5..3 Transporrtation This woork includess the steps of o transportiing from thee waste gen neration souurces, TPS, TPS3R T to landffills. Waste transportatioon systems are generallly divided into the follo owing threee methods significcantly, as shown in Figu ure 2.2.3.5.33-1.
[Figuree 2.2.3.5.3-1 1] Classificaation of thee waste tran nsportationn system Details of waste traansportation n systems arre listed in Table T 2.2.3..5.3-1 below w. [Table 2.2.3.5.3-1] 2 Waste tran nsportation n systems No..
Overview w
①
Wasste source ⇒ Waste coollection ⇒ Collecting g at Intermeediate collecction facilitties (TPS3R R) ⇒ Recycclable itemss selected ⇒ The residuee transport ⇒ TPA Afterr collection vehicles duumping andd sorting of waste, w the re residue trannsport back to t the TPA that is the difference d with w intermeediate co ollection faccilities (Traansfer statio on).
②
W Waste sourcces ⇒ Wastte collection n ⇒ Transp port ⇒ TPA A Door-to-dooor in South h Tangerang g.
③
Wastee sources ⇒ TPS ⇒ Transport T ⇒ TPA Certainn areas such h as roadsiddes designatted TPS tran nsport to TPPA after the pphase differrence Unddirect Indiv vidual (Brinng System), Undirect Communal, R Road Swe eping applicable.
Waste ccontainer traansporting method m is liisted in Table 2.2.3.5.3-2 below.
2-28
Reemarks
[Table 2.2 2.3.5.3-2] C ontainer trransportatiion schemee D Division
Oveerview
F Features Container nnumber: 1 / Branch While com ming back affter landfill, waaste storage containers are absencee.
Container methodds
A longer trransportatio on time Container nnumber: 1 / + 1 points Alternaative methodds
Waste storaage contain ners always exisst A longer trransportatio on time Container nnumber: 1 / Branch Waste storaage contain ners always exisst
Coontainer Keeping methodss
Short transsportation time Compressioon truck (sp pecially equipped vvehicles) req quired.
Waste collection c annd transporttation in Soouth Tangeraang is divided into DKP KPP service area a and private coverage seervice area. The sharingg ratio of waste w collectting service in South Tangeraang is expeccted to be th he basic uniit of Privatee 25.6%, DK KPP 13.3% estimated at a the current time based on 2013. Waste transportatioon of DKPP P waste treattment areass is made by y Arm Roll. There are a total of five woorkers for thhe Arm Roll and three w workers for Pick-up in a team whille operating g. Diivision
[Table 2.2.3.5.3-3] 2 Field Emp ployee Com mposition Driver Driver A Assistant Collector Crew w
To otal
AR RM Roll
1
1
-
3
5
Piickup
1
1
1
-
3
Source)) South Tanngerang DKPP, 2014 DKPP iis almost in charge of collection c & transportattion in the current c colleection systeems, so DKPP iinitial vehiccle travel tim me and vehiicle operatinng distance was up to 11,300km due to 2-29
being inntroduced thhese collecttion vehicles from garaage with chaarge in colleection vehiccles of DKPP. Waste transportatioon vehicles holdings annd transporttation vehicles in Southh Tangerang g are listed inn the Table 2.2.3.5.3-4, 2 Figure 2.2..3.5.3-2 below. [Taable 2.2.3.5..3-4] The sttatus of waaste transpoortation veh hicle in Souuth Tangerrang Diivision Arm Rolll (Includin ng Dump) Picck-up Tottal Ponddok Aren
6
4
Ciputtat Timur
4
3
10 0 7
Ciputat
12
5
17 7
Serpoong Utara
5
3
8
Pam mulang
3
9
12 2 4
S Setu
1
3
Seerpong
4
1
5
T Total
35
28
63 3
Source)) South Tanngerang DKPP, 2014
Arm Roll R
Piick-up
KEC. PAM MULANG (DKPP, 2014.3)
KEC. PPAMULANG G (DKPPP, 2014.3)
Dum mp
Loader L
KEC. PAM MULANG (DKPP, 2014.3)
KEC. PPAMULANG G (DKPPP, 2014.3)
[Figure 2.2.3.5.3-2]] The type of waste transportatio on vehicle iin DKPP The sttatus and moodel year off waste trannsportation vehicles v in South S Tangeerang are listed in the Table 2.2.3.5.3-5 below. 2-30
[Table 2.2.3.5.3-5] The status and model year of waste transportation vehicle Vehicle Condition Type of Vehicle Total Brand Age
Division
Armroll Truck
4
Armroll Truck Loader
2010 2011
2009
2012
Mitsubishi
5
5
Isuzu
5
1
Barata
5
Armroll Truck
2
Toyota Dyna
4
Pick-up
7
Daihatsu Grand Max
4 3
Pick-up
7
Daihatsu Grand Max
Armroll Truck
18
Isuzu NKR71 E2-2
2
Skit Loader
1
Bobcat Type S185 KSerise
4
Excavator
1
Armroll Truck
5
Hino Dutro 130HD
4 1
Dump Truck
1
Hino Dutro 130HD
1
Pick-up
15
Mitsubishi COLT T100
1
2013
Total
67
Source) South Tangerang DKPP, 2014
2-31
2.2.3.5..4 Intermed diate processing (ITF)) Waste treatment means m the red duction of w waste, treatm ment processs for reuse before final disposaal such as coomposting, recycling, r ssorting, incineration of waste and sso on. Recycliing during intermediatee processingg has been made m at the discharge ssource, Tran nsfer Depo annd the TPA.. South T Tangerang currently c hass one compoosting of orrganic wastee recycling and materiaal recoverry of recycliing has been n made on a small scale in TPS3R R. A compossting facility y is in one placce operatingg in the Pub blic Works D Dept. (MPW W), but doess not yet runn due to issu ues on licensinng problemss. There hav ve equippedd machineriees such as grading, g the grinder, etcc, requiredd for the com mposting prrocess, and compostingg process flow is shown wn in the Fig gure 2.2.3.5.4-1 below.
[Figu ure 2.2.3.5.44-1] Flow of o composting process On the other hand, in the case of Indones ia, the comp posting faciility is operaating in the most private because of the budget problem annd a regular production and sale off compost producttion does noot occur.
KEC. PON NDOK ARE EN(2014.4) [Figure 2.2.3.5..4-2] ITF (C Composting facility) 2-32
2.2.3.5..5 Final Proocessing The finaal processinng of South Tangerang is made in Cipeucang landfill, whhich operatees from 2012 inn DKPP, andd is currently operationnal scale of landfill l facilities are ass follows; - Landffill capacity: 120,000㎥ ㎥ - Landffill area: 1.772ha (in dev velopment pplan, the enttire landfill area are 11..22ha) Survey results of Cipeucang C laandfill (TPA A) operationns shows that landfill ccover soil is difficultt to obtain and a rarely performs. p Thhe current ZONA Z 1 is being b buriedd (1.72ha), but b the expiratiion date is found f to be not much leeft. In addition, the leacchate after a five-separrated tank is being b dischharged into the t Cisdanee river.
Cipeucanng landfill entrance e
Landfill L staatus
Gas emission e faccility
Leach hate treatmeent plant
Reecycling maaterial selecction facilityy
Landfill expanded e sitte (ZONE 2) 2
KEC. SERANG( Cipucang Landfill, L 201 14. 11) [Figuree 2.2.3.5.5-11] The status of landffill operatioon 2-33
Cipeucaang landfill (TPA) is pllanning to Z Zone 1 ~ Zo one 5 to land dfill sites byy the masterr plan project,, now Zone 1 is almost completed,, and the lanndfill expan nsion projecct currently underw way Zone 2 areas. a If the landfill in Z Zone 2 areaa is expandeed, possiblee landfill is consideered by 20177. On the other hand, to reliably handle the generation of waste in the long run un to the easst site, which is generatedd the Arboreetum groundds, be conveerted into state-of-the-aart waste manageement system m that is em mbedded onnly by installing a wastee-energy plaant residuess (incinerration, gasiffication, etc.). Therefoore, the instaallation of a waste-to-eenergy facility is urgentt to minimizze landfill area, a and wattermarked residues r that occurs afteer intermeddiate processsing needs tto be promo oted and processsed in landfiill of a widee area in Bannten consid dering South h Tangerangg where is difficult d for landdfill site avaailable to secure due to the urbanizzation. Cipeucaang landfill developmeent plan is shhown in Fig gure 2.2.3.5 5.5-2.
[Figure 2.2.3.5.5-2] C Cipeucang landfill dev velopment plan
2-34
[Figure 2.2.3.5.3-3] South Tan ngerang TP PS3R Locattion
2-35
Feasibility study Plan on integrated municipal solid waste management system in South Tangerang city
Chapter 3 Planning Criteria 3.1 Technical Feasibility Criteria 3.2 Economic and Financial Feasibility Criteria 3.3 Environmental Studies Criteria 3.4 Social Studies Criteria 3.5 Legal Studies Criteria 3.6 Institutional Studies Criteria
3-0
Chapter 3 Planning Criteria 3.1 Technical Feasibility Criteria 3.1.1 Feasibility Criteria Transfer Depot should be planned in detail to present facility and operation plans based on the waste collection by district and to be used as a standard model. Selection of the incinerator system should consider whether the system is applicable to various types of household waste, is technically proven by lots of practical application, or has accumulated advanced operating skills. In addition, the study should plan a large scale incinerator to ensure ease and economy of operation and maintenance and should examine how to systematize the incinerator facility to raise its operational availability. The incinerator’s capacity should be at least 200 ton/day at the minimum, considering DKPP’s current waste collection, with a planned capacity at 790 ton/day in 2020 when the facility will be introduced. The landfill construction should be made separately by the general waste and the designated waste. The cutoff layer of the designated waste landfill that is designed to process fly ash emitted from the incinerator should meet Korean standards and have a structure to cut off rainwater inflow to the inside of the landfill. The incinerator and landfill installation site should be planned to be located east of the existing landfill site (zone 1) and the facilities’ layout should consider a buffer zone (50m wide) near the Cisadang river. The boundary of the project site should be fenced to control access from outside, and be equipped with: a measuring system to weigh the waste transport vehicles and fine the exact amount of waste collection; and a wheel-washing system to keep the road clean and prevent bad smelling. In addition to these, a groundwater monitoring well installation should be planned around the landfill.
3.1.2 Technical Content The technical content should reflect the methods of waste discharge, collection/transport, processing, and final disposal, and the result of demand estimation discussed in the Master Plan, and contains the basic designs of the Transfer Depot, incinerator, and landfill facilities, as detailed below: 3-1
- Waste sorting/storage - Collection/transportation - Processing - Final disposal - Waste infrastructure and facility demand forecast - Basic design (Transfer Depot, incinerator, and landfill facilities)
3.2 Economic and Financial Feasibility Criteria 3.2.1 Norms of Economic and Financial Feasibility Calculation should present detailed investment cost and operation cost for the Transfer Depot, incinerator, and landfill facilities. Calculation of the investment cost should classify it into the costs of land purchase, detailed engineering design/supervision, construction, and equipment purchase, and calculation of the operation cost should classify it into the costs of labor, general administrative expenses, facility maintenance, electricity, fuel, service water, and chemicals. Calculation of the economic benefit of the waste treatment facility should divide it into the direct benefit and the indirect benefit as of the year 2020 when the incinerator launches. Calculation of the waste disposal fee should be presented for the planned term (2016-2025) specified by the Master Plan, based on the fee collected in 2014.
3.2.2 Economic and Financial Calculation Criteria The criteria of economic feasibility study are as follows: - The reference year for all studies is January 1 2016, the construction period is 4 years, and the operation period is 20 years considering the durability of the facility. - Do not consider the indirect benefit that is hard to translate into monetary value, and assume the government subsidy is 0%. - Calculate and present the net present value (NPV), the internal rate of return (IRR), and the pay back period for each rate of the government subsidy (80%, 60%, 40%, and 0%). - Analyze the net present value (NPV) along the changing discount rate and present the economic internal rate of return (EIRR).
3-2
- Calculate and present the variations in the net present value (NPV), B/C ratio, and IRR when the project cost, operation cost, and benefit changes. The criteria of the financial feasibility study are as follows: - The reference year for all studies is January 1 2016, the construction period is 4 years, and the operation period is 20 years considering the durability of the facility. - Do not consider the indirect benefit that is hard to translate into monetary value, and assume the government subsidy is 0%. - Present the result of financial analysis based on the financing plan.
3.3 Environmental Studies Criteria 3.3.1 Norms of Environmental Feasibility The Cipeucang Landfill is located at longitude 106˚66’047” - 106˚39’37” and at latitude 06˚32’63” - 06˚19’37”. The Landfill belongs to the administrative district Serpong, Kademangan. The Landfill is surrounded by the following: - North: Farming and fishery area and residential areas - West: Vacant lots and farming area, and residential areas - South: Residential area and the Cisadane river - East: the Cisadane river According to the spatial planning data of the South Tangerang City, the Cipeucang Landfill is suitable for a final disposal site with area of 10 Ha. The Cipeucang Landfill is surrounded by farming areas, and its location and extension site are as shown in the figure below:
3-3
[Fiigure 3.3-1]] Cipeucan ng Landfill and Extenssion Site Loocation The sociaal study shoould carry out o and pressent the resu ult of the intterview andd questionnaaire survey w with the locaal communitty (50 persoons). Enviroonmental co onditions (attmosphere, groundw water, surface water, noiise and vibrration, etc) of o and aroun nd the projeect site shou uld be presentedd respectiveely by dry season and w wet season.
3.3.2 T Technical Standard ds of Enviironmenttal Impactt Analysiss If an areaa is expecteed to have an n environm mental impacct from waste processinng facilities (incineraator and landdfill) constrruction, the study on thhe nature of project andd current environm mental status should be made for eeach issue too define the target areass considerin ng the environm mental impaact. The analysis shouldd forecast th he changes to t come afteer implementation of the prooject and deescribe the environmen e ntal impact by b atmosph here, water qquality, soil, natural ecology, and humann life respectively, and tthen suggesst how to red duce the poossible environm mental impaact after reviiewing and reflecting the t result off the intervieew with thee local communnity and questionnaire survey. s
3.4 Soocial Stud dies Criteeria This studdy has foundd that DKP currently hhas no criterria of social study estabblished. Theerefore, this studyy suggests a system thaat is applicaable to Indonesia by stu udying and aanalyzing th he system too raise comm munity’s aw wareness off waste dischharge and participationn in such pro ograms that is cuurrently in effect e in Korrea. 3-4
3.5 Legal Studies Criteria This study has found that the South Tangerang city has no criteria for legal study established. Therefore, this study will examine Indonesia’s waste management related legal system and provisions and suggest what are required.
3.6 Institutional Studies Criteria This study has found that DKPP currently has no criteria of institutional study established. Therefore, this study should examine the existing organizational system of DKPP that is responsible for cleaning in the South Tangerang city, study how to develop DKPP’s organizational system in the future, and present the human resource requirements for the planned term.
3-5
Feasibility Study on integrated municipal solid waste management system in South Tangerang
Chapter 4 Data Collection & Site Survey
4.1 Survey and Assessment of Study and Service Areas 4.2 Survey and Assessment of Sources of Waste Quantities, Composition and Characteristics 4.3 Assessment and survey of Demography of Demography and Urban Planning 4.4 Assessment and survey of the needs for waste Infrastructure and Facilities 4.5 Measurement
Chap pter 4 Data colleection & Site su urvey 4.1 Su urvey and d Assessm ment of S Study and d Servicee Areas 4.1.1 R Regional Spatial S Pllan (RTR RW) Up to S September 2015, 2 RTRW W used was the old one. In 2014, DKPP D Tangssel had reviewed the expaansion plann of Landfilll to Kranggaan. But the land has beeen owned bby residentiaal developpers, so therre is very litttle potentiaal for develoopment becaause of diffi ficulties in laand acquisittion. Thereffore, until now, there haas been no change c related South T Tangerang City C Spatial Plan concerrning wastee services.
4.1.2 D Developm ment Areass The acccurate devellopment is only o to landdfill II. The land in the north side oof landfill III could not possible. The laand in frontt of the officce will be acquired no later than 2 015 with raange of budget IDR 30 M for f 2.5 ha. Land L planneed for incinerator, with h destinationn from Land dfill I transferrred and proocessed by incinerator i iin stages. Land in frontt of the officce is deemeed to be more feeasible for constructing c g incineratorr
[Fiigure 4.1.2--1] Area of TPA Devellopment 4-1
4.2 Survey and Assessment of Sources of Waste Quantities, Composition and Characteristics 4.2.1 Survey of waste sources Waste sources are a number of types, can be classified as follows; a. Residential area: general house, apartment house b. Commercial areas: Commercial areas are generally divided into commercial, entertainment venues as well as markets, shops, hotels and restaurants and others. c. Public facilities: urban infrastructure and public facilities are used for the common good, divided into offices, school, gym, museums, parks, roads, canals, rivers, places of worship, etc. d. School e. Hospital f. Market: Traditional and modern markets g. Industrial Park: light industrial complex
4.2.2 Survey of Waste Quantities a. Existing data Waste generation sources at small cities in Indonesia is 2.75 ~ 3.25 L / person / day, average 3.00 L / person / day based on of SNI S-04-1991-01.
According to data from South Tangerang DKPP, disposal quantities that occur 1740㎥ / day in South Tangerang in 2013 has been estimated to be 27.6% in 481㎥ / day.
The amount of waste generation in South Tangerang by the master plan of Cipeucang landfill (2012) is 3.02 L / person / day, and 2.75 L / person / day according to population of South Tangerang Pictures (in 2012). Amount of waste generation, collection rate, and feed rate in South Tangerang is shown in the following [Table 4.2.2-1] 4-2
[Table 4.2.2-1] Amount of waste generation in South Tangerang No
Contents
Total (㎥/day)
1
Amount of waste generation
1,740
2
Amount of waste collection
481
3
Disposal volume transported in landfill
323
4
Disposal volume transported TPS 3R
138
Source) South Tangerang, DKPP, 2013 b. This time of survey The basic unit of waste conducted waste characteristic survey during this time of research was applied to forecasting waste generation sources when establishing the master plan. Sampling was performed by dividing into residential and non-residential area, analyzed sample of residential area at 238 points and non-residential facilities at 88 points. In waste generation sources it appeared to 0.56kg / person / day (4.57L / person / day), which is 1.62 to 1.78 times higher than the value of existing research literature. [Table 4.2.2-2] Results of waste generation sources in the survey No 1
2
Content
Result
residential areas of 238 points, non-residential area of 88 Survey target points 0.56 kg / person /day Waste generation - Dry season: 0.60kg /person/day, Rainy: 0.51kg /person / day sources 4.89 L /person /day - Dry season: 4.57L / person/day, Rainy: 5.35L /person/day
4-3
4.2.3 Survey of Waste composition Characteristic survey conducts to identify the characteristics of waste land in South Tangerang in order to assure the basis for the prediction of the current and the future generation.
4.2.3.1 Survey Summary 4.2.3.1.1 Survey positions South Tangerang; - Residential facilities: 238 (high-income, middle-income and low-income) - Non-residential facilities: 88 (shops, schools, hospitals, offices, restaurants, health center, lounge, market, industry) 4.2.3.1.2 Scope of the Survey Residential areas were selected largely based on income level such as high-income middleincome, low-income. Non-residential areas were selected retail stores, schools, hospitals, offices, restaurants, fitness center, lounge, restaurant, market. Sampling shall be performed twice, separated by Dry and Rainy season. 4.2.3.1.3 Research Methodology (1) Questionnaire (for residential, non-residential areas) In this questionnaire, we examines the awareness of people's waste problems, waste management systems, and investigate the people’s requirements for effective management of waste. The results shall be used as a resource for the prediction how much an acceptable level of burden upon government policy promoting population-level response is for waste management. The questionnaire was conducted in 238 person in residential area and 88 in non-residential of seven districts at Tangsel. (2) Waste sampling and analysis (field analysis, indoor laboratory analysis) This sampling were executed for eight days in the residential 238 points, non-residential 88 points, where completed prior coordination request. Waste performed and carried to the 4-4
Cipeucang landfill for the first analysis (scene analysis), then to produce a sample for the second analysis. Ternary analysis, elemental analysis, the elution experiment with a target sample waste shall be performed. Residential and non-residential areas’ wastes sampling and investigation procedures are shown in Table 4.2.3.1-1 as follows; Sampling points For residential area; - A total of 42 samples of low-income, 161 of middle-income, 35 of higher income were examined. Most samples were obtained from 56 in Pondok Aren, and Setu was the lowest in 12 sampling surveys. For non-residential area; - The 18 of sampling number were investigated in Serpong, and the most of survey sampling points was in 26 schools, followed by the 20 samples in Shop. [Table 4.2.3.1-1] Waste characteristics survey sampling points (residential area) No.
Sub-district
Low
Middle
High
Total
1
Setu
4
7
1
12
2
Serpong
5
14
7
26
3
Pamulang
9
35
8
52
4
Ciputat
5
25
5
35
5
Ciputat Timur
7
22
4
33
6
Pondok Aren
6
43
7
56
7
Serpong Utara
6
15
3
24
Total
42
161
35
238
4-5
[Table 4.2.3.1-2] Waste characteristics survey sampling Points (non-residential area) B2 No.
B3
Other
Type Restaurant Shop
Hotel
Office
School Market Hospital
Industry
Total
1
Setu
0
5
0
5
3
0
0
0
13
2
Serpong
8
5
3
6
3
1
0
0
26
3
Pamulang
5
4
0
3
7
0
3
0
22
4
Ciputat
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
3
5
Ciputat Timur Pondok Aren Serpong Utara
4
3
0
0
4
0
0
0
11
0
2
0
1
5
1
0
1
10
6 7
Total
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
3
17
21
5
15
22
3
4
1
88
② Performed survey procedures In residential area: - The items are divided into high-, middle- and low-income. - And then sampling will be done as following (sample of residential area); - Performing the sample analysis of waste generation, density, composition, and waste grain which are collected from residential area. - Sending the sample (2 kg) to the laboratory and subjected to ternary analysis, elemental analysis, and elution experiment. - Repeat these works for eight days. In non-residential area: - Create a sample (2) according to the characteristics of generation sources. - Performing the sample analysis of waste generation, density, composition, and waste grain which are collected from non-residential area. - Sending the sample (2 kg) to the laboratory and subjected to ternary analysis, elemental analysis, and elution experiment. - Repeat these works for eight days.
4-6
4.2.3.2 Survey Results 4.2.3.2.1 Target for survey (1) Target for survey Survey was carried for a high, medium, low income of relevant residential; the ratio is shown the in Table 4.2.3.2-1 below. [Table 4.2.3.2-1] Participants’ income survey No.
Category
Respondent
Percentage
1
Low income
43
18%
2
Middle income
161
68%
3
High income
34
14%
Total
238
100%
The educational level of the participants accounts for 65% of college graduates of the highest ratios shown in Table 4.2.3.2-2. [Table 4.2.3.2-2] Education level of residents No.
Education Level
Respondent
Percentage
1
Elementary School-Junior High School
27
11%
2
Senior High School–Diploma 4
57
24%
3
Graduate and Postgraduate
154
65%
238
100%
Total
About 79% participants of the survey do not applicable to the DKPP collection zone, 21% appeared in a door to door collection area.
4-7
[Ta able 4.2.3.2--3] Waste collection c ty ypes No
Type of collection c
Resp pondent
Percentage
1
Put on rooad side thenn picked up bby DKPP
1
0% %
2
Broughht on their ow wn to transfe fer depot
0
0% %
3
Pickked up door to t door by D DKPP
49
21% %
4
Not included in service arrea
188
79% %
238
100% %
Totall 4.2.3.2..2 Survey Results R (1) Wasste collectioon system a. In reesidential arreas
78% oof respondennts used plaastic bag as a way to stoore househo old solid waaste. In addiition, the waaste collectiion frequenccy is 49% oof survey resspondents th hat collectss waste oncee a week.
[[Figure 4.2.3.2-1] Wasste storage way replieed from respondent off residentia al area
[Fig gure 4.2.3.22-2] Waste collection c frequency f b. In noon-residentiaal area; Most reespondents of o the non-rresidential aarea were prrovided by the t DKPP. B Based on th he data, 40% off respondentts in the non n-residentiaal are found that their waste w is treatted from DK KPP as 4-8
shown iin Figure 4.2.3.2-3.
[Figgure 4.2.3.2 2-3] Waste collection system s of non-residen n ntial area (2) Wasste transporttation system m a. In ressidential areeas Residenntial area off waste treattment is 49% % handled by b DKPP, and 33% of iillegal dum mping. 64% is transpported by trruck Pick-up p truck.
[Figuree 4.2.3.2-4] Waste disp posal in residential areea
[Figgure 4.2.3.2 2-5] Waste ttransportaation system m in residenntial area b. In noon-residentiaal area; 80% off respondentts in non-ressidential areea answeredd that the co ollection andd transportaation of waste raan every daay. 4% of resspondents w were irregullar and the waste w collecction frequeency.
4-9
[Figure 4.2.3.2-6] Waste W tran nsportation n frequency y in non-ressidential arrea (3) Soliid waste maanagement system s a. In reesidential arreas; 67% off respondentts did not manage m theirr waste, only y 2% of respondents saaid that the separate collection of wastee was done at a home.
[Fiigure 4.2.3.2-7] Wastee managem ment system in residenttial area Type off solid wastee classified by the resppondent are shown in th he [Figure 44.2.3.2-8], and a the plasticss account for 31% of th he total.
[Figure 4.2 2.3.2-8] typ pes of wastee classified by responddents Waste bank b with thhe lowest level of 6% cclassified ass waste disposal, and m most is the process in differrent ways. 4-10
[Fiigure 4.2.3. 2-9] Classiified waste disposal Some oof the responndents weree recycling tthe waste affter sorting, the recyclinng wastes were w plasticss (24%), plaastic bottles (21%) and most types of plastic, the t iron • thhe aluminum m cans accountted for 24% %. 44% of reespondents aanswered th hat they sold d recyclablee waste to fllea vendor.
[F Figure 4.2.3.2-10] Typees of recycllable waste from respoondents
[Figurre 4.2.3.2-111] Processing of recycclable wastee Organicc waste dispposal withou ut treatmentt was 54% of o respondeents, only 1% % was invesstigated by com mposting.
4-11
[Figure 4.2.3.2-112] Organicc Waste Ma anagementt b. Nonn-residentiaal area Majoritty of responndents in non n-residentiaal areas answ wered that they t could nnot classify the solid waaste stream. Only 17% of responddents answerr was that th hey classifieed the categ gory of waste.
[ [Figure 4.2.3.2-13] Wh hether wasste classification perfo ormance off the respon ndents (4) Waaste Paymennt methods a. In reesidential arreas; Waste disposal d cossts to be paid on a montthly neighborhood or RT R / RW. 2% % of respon ndents paid dirrectly to thee DKPP, 58% % was paid to the neigh hborhood, and a RT / RW W, and 11% did not pay the bills. Ratess were answ wered on thee appropriatte level of 68%.
[Figure 4.2.3.2-14] H How to cha arging waste collectionn fee
4-12
[Figuree 4.2.3.2-15 5] Respond dents' opinions about the t waste ccollection feee b. In noon-residentiaal area; Waste ccharges of monthly m pay yment weree paid to neeighborhood d, local chappter, and DKPP. 12% of respoondents didnn’t pay for it i and 16% of respondeents did not know abouut the chargees.
[Figu ure 4.2.3.2-16] Waste ccollection fee f types in non-resideential area (5) Wasste Service Satisfaction S n a. In reesidential arreas 51% off respondentts were satissfied with thheir DKPP and private sector servvices, 16% of o responddents were dissatisfied. d
[Fiigure 4.2.3..2-17] Wastte service satisfaction in residenttial area b. In nnon-residenttial area; 85% off respondentts were satissfied with reespect to th he waste serv vices providded by DKP PP. 4-13
More saatisfaction than t in resid dential areass can be seeen.
[Fiigure 4.2.3..2-18] Wastte service satisfaction s in non-ressidential 4.2.3.2..3 Waste Ch haracteristtics Survey (1) Wasste generatioon sources a. In reesidential arreas; South T Tangerang was w investig gated when ccalculating waste generation sourcces in the residenttial area. A result in dry y season waas by weigh ht 0.58kg / person p / dayy, rainy season for 0.46kg / person / day. d A lot off waste geneeration occuurred during g dry seasonn. Averagee waste dennsity was inv vestigated bby the dry seeason of 135.25kg / ㎥ ㎥, and rainy y 99.76kgg / ㎥. [T Table 4.2.3..2.3-1] Wasste generatiion sourcess in each arrea Wasste generattion sources No.
Sub-d district
Weigght (kg/persoon/day)
Volum me (liter/perso ( on/day)
D Density (kg/m3)
Dry
Rainy
Dry
Rainy
Dry
Rainy R 92.54 9
1
Pondook Aren
0.46
0.40
3.09
4.44
1123.69
2
Ciputatt Timur
0.79
0.56
4.82
6.14
1150.34
96.58 9
3
Cipputat
0.70
0.42
3.30
3.52
1183.28
10 07.98
4
Serponng Utara
0.58
0.37
4.95
3.40
1111.95
10 03.86
5
Pamuulang
0.47
0.44
5.76
6.11
992.11
87.69 8
6
Seetu
0.50
0.45
2.27
4.28
1167.68
10 02.80
Serppong
0.58
0.58
5.52
5.17
1117.73
10 06.90
Tangeranng Selatan
0.58
0.46
4.24
4.72
1135.25
99.76 9
7
4-14
As seen on the waste generation sources [Table 4.2.3.2.3-2], the research shows that higher income level generated more waste according to the income level. [Table 4.2.3.2.3-2] Waste generation depending on the income level Waste generation sources No.
Weight (kg/person/day)
Income level
Dry Season
Wet Season
Volume (liter/person/day) Dry Season
Wet Season
1
High Income
0.64
0.50
5.92
5.89
2
Middle Income
0.56
0.50
3.48
4.00
3
Low Income
0.47
0.44
4.17
4.13
b. In non-residential area; In non-residential area, waste generation sources according to the type of activity are shown the in Table 4.2.3.2.3-3 as follows; [Table 4.2.3.2.3-3] Waste generation sources in non-residential area Waste generation sources No.
Class
Weight
Volume Unit
Dry
Rainy
Unit Dry
Rainy
1
Home Industry
0.56
0. 07
kg/person/day
5.00
1.79
l/person/day
2
Hotel
0.65
0.97
kg/bed/day
5.32
6.54
l/bed/day
3
Offices
0.72
0.55
kg/person/day
3.49
3.67
l/person/day
4
Market
3.03
2.94
kg/m2/day
19.11
18.72
l/m2/day
79.61
81.61 l/uni tons/day
3.33
3.65
Cafeteria
24.64
25.87
kg/unit tons/day
6
Hospital
0.36
0.46
kg/bed/day
7
Public Health Center
17.17
23.49 kg/uni tons/day 160.00 187.12 l/uni tons/day
8
School
0.04
0.25
kg/person/day
4.53
kg/unit tons/day
5
9
Shop
5.93
4-15
0.45
2.29
l/bed/day
l/person/day
148.83 130.25 l/uni tons/day
(2) The waste characteristic Waste generated in residential land area of South Tangerang which organic matter was 44.67% during the dry season, paper by 12.59%, plastics have been investigated by 7.16%. The time of the rainy season was investigated by 51.0% in organic matter, 9.0% in the paper sheet, and plastic by 8.0%. Waste generated in non- residential area of South Tangerang which organic matter was 42.09%during the dry season, and paper by 12.3%. The time of the rainy season was investigated by42.09% in organic matter, and 15.4% in the paper sheet. [Table 4.2.3.2.3-4] Composition of waste Residential area No.
Non- residential area
Items Dry
Rainy
Dry
Rainy
1
Organic
44.67
51.0
42.09
47.16
2
Plastic
7.16
8.0
5.0
7.02
3
Plastic bottle
5.11
4.0
6.45
8.65
4
Residue
12.42
12.0
16.45
11.86
5
Paper
12.59
9.0
12.3
15.4
6
Diaper/tampon
6.41
9.0
5.77
3.36
7
Styrofoam
1.87
2.0
1.52
1.46
8
Cloth
2.62
2.0
1.29
1.31
9
Glass
2.27
1.0
1.69
2.04
10
Can
1.18
1.0
1.17
1.26
11
Metal
0.28
0.0
0.16
0.11
12
Woods/bamboo
1.10
1.0
3.52
0.09
13
Rock/mineral
1.78
0.0
-
-
14
Rubber/leather
0.55
0.0
0.78
0.24
4-16
(3) Ternary Waste Ternary analysis results were found to be in Table 4.2.3.2.3-5 which solids accounted for combustible (89.11%) as the most part after water evaporation. The water content was appeared that the dry season was higher than rainy season [Table 4.2.3.2.3-5] Ternary analysis result of the waste Residential Waste No.
Non-residential Waste
Parameter Dry season
Wet season
Dry season
Wet season
1
Water (% BB5)
51.34
12.99
20.84
13.69
2
Ash (% BK6)
8.22
5.64
7.64
19.64
3
Volatile (% BK)
89.11
92.64
89.43
72.02
4
Fixed Carbon
2.67
1.70
2.92
8.32
(4) Elemental analysis Carbon content occupied commonly from 55.51 to 64.67% from elemental analysis, and residential, non-residential areas showed no significant difference. The content of Chlorine appeared high as 9.82 to 13.81%, which is much higher than Korea were examined. [Table 4.2.3.2.3-6] Elemental analysis of the waste Residential Waste
Non-residential Waste
No. Parameter Unit Dry season
Wet season
Dry season
Wet season
1
Carbon
%
63.38
64.67
55.51
65.32
2
Hydrogen
%
7.64
7.72
6.81
7.38
3
Oxygen
%
28.82
27.47
37.32
27.07
4
Nitrogen
%
0.16
0.14
0.36
0.24
5
Sulphur
%
0.14
0.11
< 0.01
< 0.01
6
Chlorine
%
13.81
13.23
10.60
9.82
4-17
(5) Heating value analysis Calorific value measurements showed relatively high calorific value to have 3,000cal / g or more, a residential area showed a relatively high calorific value than non-residential areas. In addition, the residential area was found to have a high calorific value of the waste during the dry season, but non-residential area was found to have a high calorific value of the waste during the rainy season. [Table 4.2.3.2.3-7] Results of analysis of the waste heating value No.
Parameter
Residential Waste
Unit
Non-residential Waste
Dry season Wet season Dry season 1
Calorific Value
cal/gr
6,398.09
5,378.37
Wet season
3,299,75
5,036,22
(6) Heavy metals Heavy metals for hazard assessment of waste showed that all items were found to be within specified limits. [Table 4.2.3.2.3-8] Heavy metals analysis of the solid waste Parameter
Quality Standards PP 18/99 PP 85/99 (mg/l)
Dry Season
Wet Season
Arsen (As)
5
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
Barium (Ba)
100
0.195
0.195
Boron (B)
500
0.004
0.012
TCLP (mg/l)
Cadmium (Cd)
1
0.028
0.027
Chromium (Cr)
5
0.032
0.036
Copper (Cu)
10
0.056
0.074
Lead (Pb)
5
0.026
0.039
Mercury (Hg)
0.2
0.00009
0.0001
Selenium (Se)
1
<0.001
<0.001
Silver (Ag)
5
<0.001
<0.001
Zinc (Zn)
50
2.518
2.721
4-18
4.2.4 Survey of Waste Characteristics a. Existing data Compositions of food waste, leaves, natural decomposition which are generated from household are majority of organic waste. In addition, organic waste for 51%, inorganic waste for 35%, and the residue for 14% are consisting of household waste. Table 4.2.4-1 shows the composition of the waste in South Tangerang. [Table 4.2.4-1] The composition of the waste No Waste composition 1 Organic 2 Mineral 3 The residue Total Source) South Tangerang, Cipeucang landfill master plan
Percentages (%) 51 35 14 100
Organic waste accounting for 51% of the total composition can be used as compost material; inorganic waste such as vinyl, plastic, textile, leather, etc. can be recycled. Cipeucang landfill waste master plan and the composition of South Tangerang surveyed by ITF feasibility study is as Table 4.2.4-2 as follows; [Table 4.2.4-2] The composition and characteristics of waste Percentage (%) Data1 Data 2 1 Organic 49 72.82 2 Recyclable plastic 13 9.63 3 Non recyclable plastic 4 4 Paper 11 3.65 5 Metal 4 0.11 6 Glass 4 0.45 7 Textile 4 1.9 8 hazard waste 8 0 9 Woods/bamboo 9.63 10 Leather 0.06 11 Styrofoam 0.05 12 Rock/mineral 0 13 Rubber 0.07 14 Tissue/ Diaper 1.93 15 Residue 3 Total 100 100 Source) Data1: South Tangerang, Cipeucang landfill master plan No
Waste characteristics
Data2: ITF feasibility study 4-19
b. This time of survey Samples were collected and analyzed from the residential and in non-residential areas (dry, wet season) in 2 times, and the results of this analysis are shown in Table 4.2.4-3. In this time of survey, it found the results are similar to the existing research literature. [Table 4.2.4-3] Composition of waste (Unit: %) Residential area No.
Non-residential area
Items Dry
Rainy
Dry
Rainy
1
Organic
44.67
51.0
42.09
47.16
2
Plastic
7.16
8.0
5.0
7.02
3
Plastic bottle
5.11
4.0
6.45
8.65
4
Residue
12.42
12.0
16.45
11.86
5
Paper
12.59
9.0
12.3
15.4
6
Diaper/tampon
6.41
9.0
5.77
3.36
7
Styrofoam
1.87
2.0
1.52
1.46
8
Textile
2.62
2.0
1.29
1.31
9
Glass
2.27
1.0
1.69
2.04
10
Can
1.18
1.0
1.17
1.26
11
Metal
0.28
0.0
0.16
0.11
12
Woods/bamboo
1.10
1.0
3.52
0.09
13
Rock/mineral
1.78
0.0
-
-
14
Rubber/leather
0.55
0.0
0.78
0.24
4-20
4.3 Assessment and survey of Demography and Urban Planning 4.3.1 Total of Population Population prediction in 2012 is total 1,405,170 people, consisting of 708,767 of males and 696,403 of females based on the census from 2011. A high population density caused by increase of the population tendency from time to time which are not only caused by the expansion of its naturally but also inseparable from the tendency of the influx of migrants from the South Tangerang City attraction such as the number of new residential being built as the area directly abuted on to the city of Jakarta. So it will cause the needed for adequate space with new jobs to offset the added labor.
4.3.2 Population Density Population density in the total area (147.19㎢) is predicted 9,351 people/ ㎢ in 2012. For the highest population density, it is 12,341 people / ㎢ in Ciputat Timur, for the lowest one, 4,914 people /㎢ in Setu.
4.3.3 Distribution of the Population The largest population area is Pondok Aren district. For the Setu district, its population proportion is 5%, the area of the highest growing rate is Serpong Utara, 5.26%. [Table 4.3.3-1] Population and population density in South Tangerang No
District
Population
Growth (%)
Area (㎢)
Density (㎢/ person)
1
Setu
72,727
4.05
14.8
4,914
2
Serpong
151,899
4.45
26.04
6,319
3
Pamulang
308,272
3.07
26.82
11,494
4
Ciputat
207,885
3.29
18.38
11,310
5
Ciputat Timur
190,415
2.52
15.43
12,341
6
Pondok Aren
331,644
3.87
29.88
11,099
142,328
5.26
17.84
7,978
1,405,170
3.79
147.19
9,351
7
Serpong Utara Total
Source) South Tangerang BPS, 2012 4-21
4.3.4 Land Use Planning The development of residence area is planned to be approximately 7,610.67 acre distributed in entire city consisting of vertical and horizontal residence. Distribution of High Density Housing planned in South Tangerang City in 2031 includes Pondok Aren Sub-District, Ciputat Sub-District, East Ciputat Sub-District and Pamulang Sub-District. Medium industrial activities developed in the North Serpong Sub-District, Setu Sub-District, and Ciputat Sub-District with the provisions of the industrial activity does not cause negative impacts to the environment and the surrounding zone.
4.4 Assessment and survey of the needs for waste Infrastructure and Facilities Until 2031, solid waste need to be handled in South Tangerang City will reach 9,2 million l/d or 9.145 m3 per day. The projection of Solid Waste Facility Necessity in South Tangerang City (unit) 2013 [Table 4.4-1] Required Waste treatment facility in South Tangerang Year No
Criteria 2011
2015
2020
2025
2031
1
Amount of Solid Waste
2,444,192
3,135,819
4,045,496
5,250,592
6,859,139
2
Cart
367
470
607
788
1029
3
TPS
208
267
344
446
583
4
Open truck
175
224
289
375
490
5
Dum truck
204
261
337
438
572
Source) Spatial Planning
4-22
4.5 Measurement 4.5.1 Soil/Ground Investigation Soil survey was carried out to obtain the basic data for Stability Review of planning waste treatment facility, and to determine the geotechnical characteristics of the project site.
4.5.1.1 Survey Summary Field survey was conducted in consideration of the earthwork and construction planning. It was conducted to investigate the ground configuration and the project engineering characteristics of the site geotechnical investigation, and survey content and quantity is shown in Table 4.5.1-1 as follows; [Table 4.5.1-1] Survey topic· Division Field research
Laboratory tests
Quantity of Survey
Test Method
Drilling Survey
9
Water content
25
ASTM D-2216
Particle size analysis
25
ASTM D-422
Plastic Limit
20
ASTM D-4318
Liquid limit
20
ASTM D-4318
After the site invite, taking into consideration the nature of the business, the final location reasonably was determined by planning a research topic, survey times in consideration of structure plans, earth work plans.
4-23
[Table 4.55.1-2] Surveey positions Boreehole No.
X (m m)
Y (m)
E Elevation (m m)
B BH-1
638,84 45.239
9,300 0,594.694
28.219
B BH-2
683,67 75.420
9,300 0,448.422
31.258
B BH-3
683,56 64.501
9,300 0,500.673
26.488
B BH-4
683,62 26.620
9,300 0,702.887
28.450
B BH-5
683,50 06.296
9,300 0,651.594
22.385
B BH-6
683,76 62.000
9,300 0,503.000
-
B BH-7
683,57 71.000
9,300 0,853.000
-
B BH-8
683,57 75.930
9,300 0,957.880
-
B BH-9
683,74 40.000
9,300 0,996.000
-
[Figuree 4.5.1-1] Drilling poin nts
4-24
4.5.1.2 Findings 4.5.1.2.1 The results of drilling Overall, this stratum of clay is formed with high plasticity. Drillings were executed up to 15 m for BH 1, 3, 4, and 40 m for BH-2, 5 m for BH-5, and 22m for BH -6,7 and 14m for BH-8 and 46m for BH-9 in depth. [Table 4.5.1-3] Strata configuration Borehole No.
Depth
N values
Soil conditions
BH-1
0.0~15.0
4~60
Clay of high plasticity
BH-2
0.0~40.0
17~60
Clay of high plasticity
BH-3
0.0~15.0
8~52
Clay of high plasticity
BH-4
0.0~15.0
5~20
Clay of high plasticity
BH-5
0.0~5.0
9~60
No plastic sand
BH-6
0.0~22.0
7~60
Silt of high plasticity
BH-7
0.0~22.0
7~60
Poor-distributed sand
BH-8
0.0~14.0
60
Poor-distributed sand
BH-9
0.0~46.0
4~58
Clay of high plasticity
4-25
[Figure 4..5.1-2] Drillling log (BH H-1)
4-26
[Figure 4..5.1-3] Drillling log (BH H-2)
4-27
[Figure 4..5.1-4] Drillling log (BH H-2)
4-28
[Figure 4..5.1-5] Drillling log (BH H-3)
4-29
[Figure 4..5.1-6] Drillling log (BH H-4)
4-30
[Figure 4..5.1-7] Drillling log (BH H-5)
4-31
[Figuree 4.5.1-8] Drilling D log (BH-6)
4-32
[Figure 4.55.1-8] Drilliing log (BH H-6) (cons)
4-33
[Figuree 4.5.1-9] Drilling log (BH-7)
4-34
[Figure 4.55.1-9] Drilliing log (BH H-7) (cons)
4-35
[Figure 4.5.1-10] D Drilling log (BH-8)
4-36
[Figure 4.5.1-11] D Drilling log (BH-9)
4-37
[Figure 4.5..1-11] Drillling log (BH H-9) (cons))
4-38
[Figure 4.5.1--11] Drilling log (BH-9 9) (cons) 4-39
4.5.1.2.2 The results of groundwater level measurements Groundwater level measurements were carried out during soil survey work. BH-1~9 of groundwater level are shown in Table 4.5.1-4 [Table 4.5.1-4] The results of groundwater measurements Bore Holes
G.W.L (-)
BH-1
0.82m
BH-2
4.60-5.40m
BH-3
4.35m
BH-4
11.25m
BH-5
0.85m
BH-6
NA
BH-7
3.2m
BH-8
2.2m
BH-9
9.4m
4.5.1.2.3 The results of laboratory test Soil of the business district was investigated in a unified taxonomy salty clay or clay except for BH-5, 7, 8 points. Water content is 21.66 to 64.3% range, liquid limit has been investigated in the range 42.88 to 90.65% showed an overall high plasticity clay strata properties.
4-40
[Table 4.5.1-5] Laboratory test results Hole No.
BH-1
BH-2
BH-3
BH-4 BH-5
BH-6
BH-7
Unified classification
Water content % (w/w)
1.00-1.50
CH
56.23
84.68
52.42
2.50-3.00
CH
48.07
60.53
32.41
4.00-4.50
CL-CH
40.16
50.62
24.90
1.00-1.50
CH
54.80
59.12
30.09
2.50-3.00
CH
49.88
56.11
28.06
4.00-4.50
CH
64.30
90.65
54.28
1.00-1.50
CH
50.51
54.46
28.37
2.50-3.00
CH
50.87
54.91
28.99
4.00-4.50
CL
38.97
42.88
21.00
1.00-1.50
CH
54.15
72.83
41.79
2.50-3.00
CH
53.63
83.08
51.08
4.00-4.50
CH
52.69
78.21
46.96
1.00-1.50
SM
39.16
87.83
45.49
3.50-4.00
MH
40.04
84.72
45.33 45.44
7.50-8.00
MH
42.32
84.33
11.50-12.00
MH
42.06
77.52
40.85
1.50-2.00
CH
44.44
88.66
51.99
5.50-6.00
SP
26.46
-
-
9.50-10.00
SP
25.55
-
-
1.50-2.00
SP
21.66
-
-
5.50-6.00
SP
29.42
-
-
23.88
-
-
BH-8 9.50-10.00
BH-9
Atterrberg Liquid limit Plasticity index LL % PI %
Depth
Cemented sand
1.50-2.00
CH
52.88
75.47
43.33
5.50-6.00
CH
46.91
86.7
53.37
9.50-10.00
CH
47.5
83.99
50.65
4-41
4.5.1.2.4 Compaction and CBR tests Compaction results are showed that the optimum water content ranges from 21.0 to 30.5%, and the maximum dry unit weight was measured in 1.33 ~ 1.51ton /㎥.
Results of compaction and CBR tests are shown in Table 4.5.1-6. [Table 4.5.1-6] Compaction and CBR tests Hole No.
Optimal Maximum Dry Water content Compaction density (%) (t/㎥)
CBR Value (%) 10 times
25 times
56 times
2.5㎜
5.0㎜
2.5㎜
5.0㎜
2.5㎜
5.0㎜
BH-1
29.50
1.36
3.08 ~4.29
3.29 ~4.32
5.83 ~8.74
6.04 ~7.29
8.42 ~12.06
10.69 ~12.06
BH-4
30.50
1.34
3.08 ~3.32
3.24 ~3.78
3.64 ~6.64
3.89 ~5.94
6.48 ~7.29
7.02 ~8.64
BH-5
29.50
1.33
3.40 ~5.67
4.53 ~5.13
5.51 ~7.21
5.67 ~7.21
7.37 ~9.31
7.83 ~9.44
BH-7
29
1.33
4.17
4.91
6.38
7.53
12.77
12.44
BH-8
21
1.51
13.75
14.08
26.52
26.85
42.72
45.18
BH-9
28.5
1.35
4.91
4.91
6.38
7.53
11.29
10.8
4-42
4.5.2 Status survey 4.5.2.1 Purpose Plans and detailed topographic map of Cipeucang where currently operating identify for Indonesia Solid Waste Master Plan should ever serve as the basis for establishing expansion plan in accordance with the waste treatment installations.
4.5.2.2 Survey overview (1) The investigation period 2014 May 12, 2010 ~ June 12, 2014 (2) Survey position Around Cipeucang landfills currently operating - Tangerang Selatan District Serpong Sub-District Kademangan and serpong.
4.5.2.3 Findings (1) Reference point position GPS geodetic observations were obtained from a reference point, note that the reference point of the measurement is below the Table 4.5.2 – 1 as follows; [Table 4.5.2–1] Reference point position Point No. X/E (m)
Y/N (m)
Z (m)
BM.02 683857.955
9300572.689
34.974 (results of geodetic GPS measurements)
BM.05 683702.442
9300470.831
33.407 (results of geodetic GPS measurements)
BM.06 683672.475
9300463.053
31.628 (results of geodetic GPS measurements)
(2) Reference point calculation results Baseline processing results are shown in the [Table 4.5.2 - 2] as follows;
4-43
[Table 4.5.2–2] Reference point calculation results Observation
From
To
Solution Type
H.Prec.
V.Prec.
(Meter) (Meter)
Geodetic Az.
Ellipsoid DHeight Dist. (Meter) (Meter)
BM06---BM05 BM06 (B2)
BM 05
Fixed
0.003
0.004
75°16'04 30.96 "
1.78
BM06---BM02 BM06 (B1)
BM 02
Fixed
0.003
0.004
59°13'43 215.447 "
3.35
REFER REFERENSIBI BM G---BM06 (B5) ENSIBI 06 G
Fixed
0.01
0.03
311°01'3 27683.28 -119.876 2" 4
REFER REFERENSIBI ENSIBI BM G---BM02 (B4) 02 G
Fixed
0.017
0.055 311°27'0 27616.82 -116.31 1" 3
GPS treatment results are shown in Table 4.5.2-3. [Table 4.5.2-3] GPS processing results UTM Coordinates
No.
Number Point
East
North
X Y (meter) (meter)
TM3° Coordinates East
ZO NE
North
X Y (meter) (meter)
Geodetic Coordinates
Elevation Elevation
Latitude Longitude Ellipsoide ZO NE
S/N
E/W
MSL
WGS84 EGM2008
1
683,85 9,300,57 383,913. 800,362. S6°19'30 E106°39'4 BM 02 7.945 2.689 48 125 777 48.2 .08020" 3.58706" 52.362
34.974
2
683,70 9,300,47 383,757. 800,260. S6°19'33 E106°39'3 BM 05 48 48.2 50.792 2.442 0.831 575 888 .41211" 8.53830"
33.407
3
683,67 9,300,46 383,727. 800,253. S6°19'33 E106°39'3 BM 06 2.475 3.053 48 599 108 48.2 .66841" 7.56411" 49.012
31.628
BAK2_G 704,49 9,282,21 404,554. 782,000. S6°29'25 E106°50'5 4 PS BIG 2.929 5.440 48 301 019 48.2 .32608" 7.07106" 168.85
150.46
4-44
[Fiigure 4.5.2-1] TPA T Cipeucang Serpong survey y map 4-46
Feasibility Study on Integrated Municipal Solid Waste Management System In South Tangerang City
Chapter 5
Feasibility Study and Planning of Waste
Management System Development 5.1 Technical and Oper ational Plan 5.2 Economical and Financial Feasibility Study 5.3 Envir onmental Review 5.4 Social Review 5.5 Legal Review 5.6 Institutional Review
Chapter 5 Feasibility Study and Planning of Waste Management System Development 5.1 Technical and Oper ational Plan 5.1.1 Waste Sor ting/Stor age 5.1.1.1 Waste Sor ting Waste sorting from the source of waste is a new paradigm. In accordance with SNI 03-32432008, recyclable/reusable matters should be separated from disposable waste from the very source of discharge. The recycling rate of waste increases depending on the market price of the collected recyclable material, consumer’s behavior, policies of authorities concerned, etc. Collection of recyclable materials (paper, bottles, plastics, and metals) can be made in two ways: i) collect-and-sort, and ii) sort-and-collect. It is generally more effective to separate recyclables from waste before collecting waste from the source. The current Waste Bank System in effect in Indonesia is a good system where people take part in sorting recyclable material from waste source, which requires stations for recyclables and waste sorting bins installed in designated areas of alleys to create a daily living environment for easier sorting and dumping of recyclables and waste. Education in school, home, and daily life may help raise people’s awareness of waste sorting.
5.1.1.2 Stor age The amount of waste produced and the frequency of collection have a functional relation to the size of bin. That is, the higher the frequency of waste collection is, the smaller the size of bin will be, and vice versa. In addition, the nearer the bin is to the collection equipment, the easier the collection will be. On the other hand, the farther the bin is to the collection equipment and thus the longer collection takes time, the less the efficiency of collection will be. The material and structure of the bin, too, may increase/decrease the time required for waste collection. A light-weight bin can be easily moved to the collection equipment, while a heavy or stationary bin (made of concrete, for example) that is hard to move and empty is accordingly less efficient. Considering the density of waste 0.1∼ 0.4kg/L, the reasonable weight of the bin filled with waste will be 40 to 60L.
5-1
Coloring of bins - Organic waste: dark colored (green/blue) - Inorganic waste: light colored (yellow) - Hazardous household waste: red Location of bins - Bins for individual use should be located in the front yard of house, and the backyard of hotels and restaurants for aesthetic considerations. - Bins for public use should be located near the source of waste or where they do not obstruct walkers or public utilities. - Bins in the arterial road sides should be installed at least every 100m. There should be various types of bins for individual use to meet owner’s affordability and taste. - Bins generally should be made of hard-to-break and waterproof material, in an easy-toempty form, and in highly visible color. - Form: box, cylinder, pouch, container - Material: brick, metal, plastic, and alternative material - Size: 10 - 50L for residential area and small shops, 100-500L for offices, large shops, hotels, and restaurants Public bins should be installed in such places like slum streets, parks, roads, and markets. - Form: box, cylinder, pouch, container - Material: brick, metal, plastic, and alternative material - Size: 10-100L for roadside parks, and 100-500L for residential areas and markets The following types of waste containers are used in Indonesian cities: - Vinyl bags: 30-50L - Plastic bins: 40-50L - Wooden bins: 40-60L - Plastic bins with wheels: 120L - Permanent plastic bin: 70L - Enclosed iron bin: 100L - Plastic container: 500-1000L
5-2
Enclosed irron bin (30 0-100L)
Plastic bins (40-1120L)
Vinyl bags b (10-100L)
Plastic bins (500-11000L)
[Figure 5.11.1.2–1] Waaste Contaiiner s
[Tablee 5.1.1.1-1] Waste Con ntainers and Uses Conntainer
Capaccity
Ser vice
Ser vice v life
Usee
Vinyyl bags:
10-100 0L
1 householdd
-
Individuall/public
40L L
1 householdd
2-3 3 years
Individ dual
Plastic basket
120L L
2--3 householdds
2-3 3 years
140L L
4--6 householdds
2-3 3 years 2-3 3 years
Commeercial streeet Commeercial streeet Apartm ment buildiing Apartm ment buildiing
500L L
400 household ds
1000L
800 household ds
2-3 3 years
30-100 0L
siidewalk, parrk
2-3 3 years
Container Iron ccontainer
5-3
5.1.2 Collection/Tr anspor tation 5.1.2.1 Amount of Waste to Collect As the South Tangerang City is planning to achieve 100% of the target collection by 2019 according to the National Mid-term Development Plan as revised in 2014, this study estimated the amount of waste to be collected by DKPP from each district. Of the total waste generation at present, 25.4% is generated from private development areas and is collected/transported/disposed by private developers, which is thus excluded in this study. [Table 5.1.2.1-1] Amount of Waste to Be Collected by DKPP Classification
2013
Target rate of collection (%)
DKPP collection (ton/day)
2017
2019
2025
51.2%
74.6%
74.6%
Pondok Aren
23
97
147
173
Ciputat Timur
18
73
111
130 147
Ciputat
19
83
126
Serpong Utara
6
28
42
49
Pamulang
22
95
145
169
Setu
5
20
31
36
Serpong
5
22
33
39
Total
93
418
635
743
Source) Master Plan Report
5.1.2.2 How to Collect Waste collection is a basic step toward establishing a waste management system, and it takes about 70% of the total cost of waste management. Therefore, establishing an efficient waste collection system is critical to establishing a systematic waste management system and cutting the cost of waste management. Waste collection in Indonesia is classified into types of: Direct Individual (Door to Door), Indirect Individual (Bring System), Indirect Communal, and Road Sweeping. Major part of waste in South Tangerang City is being collected by the Bring System. In this sector-based collection, RT/RW will collect waste from the source to TPS/TPS 3R, while DKPP will be responsible for collection and transportation from TPS/TPS 3R to TPA. Moreover, TPS 3R/TPS needs continuous expansion to cover increased waste to collect, but the South
5-4
Tangerang City has difficulties in securing the site for TPS 3R installation. Thus until the year 2025, TPS 3R will be maintained at the present level while TPS will be increased steadily. TPS/TPS 3R installation requirements are as shown in the following table: [Table 5.1.2.1-1] Future Demand for TPS Classification 2016 Pondok Aren Ciputat Timur
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
102
138
186
218
227
234
237
247
256
265
61
82
109
126
132
134
140
144
149
154
Ciputat
64
86
117
136
139
144
147
153
158
163
Serpong Utara
46
63
84
97
102
103
108
111
114
118
Pamulang
94
127
173
200
206
214
218
228
234
243
Setu
19
27
37
45
46
49
51
52
52
55
Serpong
46
63
86
99
103
109
109
111
119
121
Total
432
586
792
921
955
987
1,010 1,046 1,082 1,119
[Table 5.1.2.1-2] Demand for TPS /3R in the Future Classification 2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Pondok Aren
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
Ciputat Timur
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Ciputat
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Serpong Utara
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pamulang
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Setu
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Serpong
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Total
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
5-5
5.1.2.3 Review of Transportation Syystem Means off waste trannsportation is i generallyy classified by: b vehicless, railway, ccontainer raiilway, shipping, monorail, conveyors, and pipelinnes. South Tangerang T City C currentlly transportts waste by the most m common means of transportatiion, vehiclees. The propposed wastee transportattion system may minim mize such prroblems as ttraffic jam and a bad smell cauused by incrreased garbage trucks, and cut thee vehicle’s trravel by aboout 32.4%, by the year 2020. [Table 5.1 1.2.3-1] Reeview of Tr anspor a tatio on System Classifi fication
Cu ur r ent system m
Gar age/tr ansfeer depot system
Overvview
Garbage truccks move frrom a DKPP G P gaarage in Pam mulang to thhe individuaal diistricts, collect waste, aand transporrt to TPA.
Runs a transfer ddepot in a diistrict, wherre the garbaage trucks co ollect waste in i their distrrict and tran nsport it to T TPA.
Traffic line
Mileeage (km/veehicle) Numbber of 258 2112 vehicles Accum mulated 7,803 5,2276 mileage (km) Note) The T accumulated mileag ge is estimaated based on o the amou unt of wastee collected in 2020. As agreeed in the interim wo orkshop in August 19 9, 2015, traansfer depot ots and garaages are plannedd to be insttalled in ind dividual disstricts to shhorten the trravel of annd transfer waste w to large arrm roll vehhicles. Based on the amount off waste collectable froom the district, an installattion plan foor 4 types off transfer deepot will be suggested.
5-6
[Table 5.1.2.3-2] Gar age and Tr ansfer Depots Installation Plan Classification
Gar age
Tr ansfer Depot Installed Facility capacity
Pondok Aren
O
O
200ton/day
Ciputat Timur
O
O
150ton/day
Ciputat
O
O
150ton/day
Serpong Utara
O
×
50ton/day
Pamulang
O
O
200ton/day
Setu
O
×
50ton/day
Serpong
O
×
50ton/day
[Table 5.1.2.3-3] Number of Gar bage Tr ucks Required When Tr ansfer Depots Are Oper ational (unit: vehicle) Classification Pondok Aren
Ciputat Timur
Ciputat
Serpong Utara
Pamulang
Setu
Serpong
South Tangerang City
ARM(5.5 ㎥) Pickup(2.5 ㎥)
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
22 18
23 19
23 19
24 20
25 20
25 21
26 21
ARM(25 ㎥)
-
7
7
8
8
8
8
Sub total ARM(5.5 ㎥) Pickup(2.5 ㎥) ARM(25 ㎥) Sub total ARM(5.5 ㎥) Pickup(2.5 ㎥) ARM(25 ㎥) Sub total ARM(5.5 ㎥) Pickup(2.5 ㎥) ARM(25 ㎥) Sub total ARM(5.5 ㎥) Pickup(2.5 ㎥) ARM(25 ㎥) Sub total ARM(5.5 ㎥) Pickup(2.5 ㎥) ARM(25 ㎥) Sub total ARM(5.5 ㎥) Pickup(2.5 ㎥) ARM(25 ㎥) Sub total ARM(5.5 ㎥) Pickup(2.5 ㎥) ARM(25 ㎥) Sub total
40 17 14 31 19 16 35 7 6 13 22 18 40 5 4 9 5 4 9 97 80 0 177
48 17 14 6 37 20 16 6 42 7 6 2 15 22 18 7 47 5 4 2 11 5 5 2 12 99 82 32 213
49 18 15 6 38 20 16 6 42 7 6 2 15 23 19 7 49 5 4 2 11 6 5 2 13 102 84 32 218
51 18 15 6 39 20 17 6 43 7 6 2 15 23 19 7 49 5 5 2 11 6 5 2 13 103 87 33 223
52 19 15 6 40 21 17 7 45 7 6 3 16 24 20 8 51 5 5 2 12 6 5 2 13 107 88 36 231
53 19 16 6 40 22 18 7 45 8 6 3 16 25 20 8 52 6 5 2 13 6 5 2 13 111 91 36 238
55 20 16 6 42 22 18 7 47 8 6 3 17 25 21 8 54 6 5 2 13 6 5 2 13 113 92 36 241
5-7
5.1.3 Processing 5.1.3.1 Suggesting an Alter native Korea witnessed ever increasing waste generation along with radical industrialization and urbanization since 1970’s, and is dealing with the increased waste by reducing the volume, sanitary treatment, collecting and recycling waste, etc. South Tangerang City at present landfills all the household wastes collected and is experiencing difficulties in securing the site. The city needs transition to a new waste processing system away from the existing landfilling system, which may minimize the amount of final waste disposal (landfill). Reviewing the possible alternatives that are applicable to the project site, this study suggests a new, forward thinking way of waste processing system that meets the local environment. Case 1 (Sanitar y Landfilling) This system constructs a sanitary landfill and buries all wastes there. Case 2 (Inciner ation) This system incinerates brought-in wastes after a simple crushing process and generates electricity using the heat generated from combustion. - Processes wastes in an incinerator, produces electricity using the heat, and then implements the CDM project. - Landfill remainders of incinerator in a sanitary way. CASE 3 (Crushing + Sor ting + Drying+ Gasification + Sanitar y Landfilling) This system processes the wastes brought into the waste treatment plant in a pre-treatment facility which includes the 1st crushing process, the 2nd crushing process, and the trommel screening and drying process, and then produces electricity using the synthetic gas generated from a gasifier. - As a means of pretreatment in the gasifier, total 651 ton/day of brought-in waste all goes through crushing, trommel screening, and drying processes to meet such requirements as: grain size not greater than 150mm, and water content not greater than 20%. - The pre-treated wastes (with grain size not greater than 150mm, and water content not
5-8
greater than 20%) are used to produce electricity using the synthetic gas generated from the gasifier. Then the CDM project is implemented. - Remainders after crushing and grain sorting, char or melt generated from the gasifier will be sanitarily landfilled. CASE 4 (Sor ting + Or ganic Waste Composting + Inciner ation + Sanitar y Landfilling) Having passed the simplified processes including crushing and trommel screening, wastes with grain size not greater than 80mm are carried to a composting facility, and those greater than 80mm are carried to the incinerator. This system uses the heat generated from the incinerator to produce electricity and buries remainders of incineration in a sanitary landfill. - Organic matters segregated after crushing and trommel screening are processed in a composting facility to produce compost. - Combustible wastes segregated after trommel screening are processed in the incinerator, producing electricity using the heat and then implementing the CDM project. - Remainders of trommel screening, composting, and incineration are landfilled. CASE 5 (MBT + Or ganic Waste Composting + Incineration + Sanitar y Landfilling) Based on the MBT system which consists of unpacking, crushing, trommel screening, and sorting organic matter from waste, this system establishes organic matter collection, organic waste composting, incineration and power generation, and sanitary landfill facilities in the project site. - After trommel screening the waste, the MBT system mechanically sorts out recyclables including plastic, metal, and bottles, which will be reused. Then the composting facility processes the sorted organic waste into compost. - Combustibles are processed in an incinerator, producing electricity using the heat, before starting the CDM project. - Remainders from sorting, composting, and incineration in the MBT system will be buried in the sanitary landfill. CASE 6 (Incineration (Chosen Areas) + Sanitar y Landfilling) Only the waste collected from some areas in the South Tangerang City will be incinerated as a model project. - Incinerate wastes collected from the chosen areas, produce electricity using the heat, and then implement the CDM project. - Then bury remaining waste and remainders of incineration in the sanitary landfill.
5-9
5.1.3.2 Selecting Waste Treatment Method 5.1.3.2.1 Capacity of Facilities Capacity of the waste treatment facilities for each case is estimated based on the amount of waste brought in the year 2020 (year of operational index), and the operational hours of the facilities are estimated based on the following: Operational index year: year 2020 Waste collection: 651 ton/day (based on 365 days/year) Operational hours of facilities - Sorting/pre-treatment facility, MBT, incinerator (gasifier): 300 days/year - Organic waste composting facility: 330 days/year [Table 5.1.3.2–1] Estimating Waste Treatment by Case Facility
Unit
CASE 1 CASE 2 CASE 3 CASE 4 CASE 5 CASE 6
Sorting ton/day 790 Sorting/ facility pre-treatment pre-treatment facility ton/day 790 facility MBT ton/day 790 Organic waste composting ton/day 181 345 Gasifier ton/day 424 Incinerator ton/day 790 592 300 238 Landfill ton/day 651 111 189 99 73 489 Note) CASE 1 : Landfill all CASE 2 : Incinerate all CASE 3 : Sorting + Drying + Gasification + Sanitary Landfilling CASE 4 : Sorting + Organic Waste Composting + Incineration + Sanitary Landfilling (incineration: 70% of waste collection) CASE 5 : MBT + Organic Waste Composting + Incineration + Sanitary Landfilling (incineration: 70% of waste collection) 50% of waste collection) CASE 6 : Incineration + Sanitary Landfilling (incineration: 30% of waste collection)
5-10
5.1.3.2.2 Mater iall Balance by Case The following f shhows mass balance by case: [unit: ton/day]
[Figure 5.1.3.2–1] M Mater ial Ballance in Waaste Treatm ment ※ Rem mainders geenerated fro om the incinnerator/gasiifier are estimated 17% % of the pro ocessing capacityy.
5-11
5.1.3.2.3 Economic Efficiency by Case The following table shows a general review of construction cost, operation cost, operational profit, etc. [Table 5.1.3.2 – 2] Economic Efficiency by Case Year 2020 CASE2 Classification
Facility capacity (ton/day) Estimated heat generated after treatment (kcal/kg) Impurities Landfill (ton/day)
CASE 3
CASE 4
CASE 5
CASE 6
(Pr eOr ganic Or ganic Inciner ate tr eatment Inciner ate Inciner ate matter Inciner ate matter all + 70% 30% composting composting gasification) 790
790
592
1,800
3,000
2,100
181
300
345
238
2,800
-
1,800 455
0
130
0
0
0
0
Ashes
110
59
83
16
42
31
33
Subtotal
110
189
83
16
42
31
488
-
4,512
-
3,564 460
Total Incineration (gasification) Construction Turbine cost Sorting facility (0.1 billion Composting Rp) facility Subtotal Operational staffs (person) Fixed cost Operation Variable cost cost (0.1 billion Subtotal Rp/year) Subtotal Electricity generated (kWh) Electricity used (kWh) Electricity purchased (kWh) Electricity selling price (Rp/㎾) Valuable material selling price (Rp/kg) Compost selling price (Rp/ton) Electricity sales Profit Valuable (0.1 billion material sales Rp/year) Compost sales Subtotal
110
189
11,880
6,359
99
73
8,887
488
920
920
920
-
460
-
-
5,544
1,500
-
5,544
-
-
-
-
-
155
-
295
-
12,800
12,823
45 65
45 65
25 8
38 35
11,462 40 54
10,811
4,024 37 15
36 30
343
343
284
2
183
5
157
408
408
338
10
218
20
187
-
5,000 1,600 3,400
-
2,200 1,200 1,000
-
302
-
89
408
408
11,400 2,600 8,800
17,700 2,800 14,900
348 9,100 2,000 7,100
238
187
1,450 Refer to Table Free 781
1,322
630
-
-
-
-
215
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
781
1,322
630
Source) Master Plan Report
5-12
517
89
5.1.3.2.4 Selectingg Waste Treeatment Meethod Having analyzed a conditions of the proposeed site of th he waste treaatment facillity from vaarious points off view and having h closeely consulteed with locaal sharehold ders based oon the wastee treatmennt method annd the estim mated facilityy capacity, this study selected a w waste treatmeent method tthat is optim mal to South h Tangerangg City and ensures efficciency, econnomic feasib bility, reliabilityy, and stability. The wastte control taarget of the project site South Tanggerang City is to minim mize the finaal disposal.. This studyy recommends the incinneration metthod (Case 2) that has rrelatively lo ow rate of energyy recovery but b minimizzes final dissposal and ensures e stable treatmennt.
5.1.4 F Final Proccessing The 18thh Law of Inddonesia (2008) providees two typess of landfill: sanitary laandfill and controlleed landfill, which w can be b chosen coonsidering the t local con nditions. Considerring that thee project sitee is located near the Ciisadang riveer and resideential areas, in order to ensure e stablle processin ng of wastess and protecction of the environmennt, the sanittary landfill will w be usedd.
[Figu ure 5.1.4-1]] Concept of o Sanitar y Landfill Table 5.11.4-1 showss features off the sanitarry landfill an nd the unsan nitary landffill in comparison:
5-13
[Table 5.1.4 – 1] Features of Sanitary Landfill with Unsanitar y Landfill in Compar ison Classification
Sanitar y landfill
Open dumping
Construction
Step-by-step facility construction of reasonable scale through engineering design
Uses vacant land or bed excavation relying on experiences without engineering expertise
Liner system Landfill method Soil covering
Installed using geotextiles and clay
None
Compaction to reduce volume
Open dumping
Yes
Leachate
Discharge after processing
No Uncontrolled discharge without processing
Is there landfill gas discharge facility?
Yes
No
Management type
Continuous management
No management
Sanitary landfills differ each other in their waste storage structure and catchment/drainage facilities for leachate and rain water based on the topography of the site, and therefore designing of the landfill needs full consideration of these. The topography of the project site is mostly a plane except the area adjacent to the Cisadang river. The project site is a plane with the largest difference in altitude about 6m [EL (+) 27-35 m]. Mountain landfill
Land landfill
Canyon landfill
Plain landfill Landfill Inland water landfill Water area landfill Sea area landfill [Figure 5.1.4-2] Classification of Landfills by Topogr aphy
5-14
5.1.5 E Estimatin g Deman d for Wasste Infr asstructure and Facillity 5.1.5.1 Estimatedd Populatiion South Taangerang Ciity’s populattion increasses every yeear, and the planned poppulation in 2015 is set 2,1000,000, aboutt 49% increase from 20012. Regionallly, Pondok Aren has th he largest poopulation 49 97,700, folllowed by Paamulang, Ciputat, Ciputat T Timur, Serpong, and Seetu in order.. [Ta ble 5.1.5.1--1] South T Tanger ang City’s C Popu ulation Forrecast Estim mated Popu ulation
Distr ict
Cur r ent Pop pulation (2012)
2015
2020
2025
P Pondok Arenn
33 31,644
364,269
425,652
497,7000
Ciputat Timuur
19 90,415
205,958
240,664
281,4000
Ciputat
20 07,885
225,939
264,012
308,7000
Seerpong Utarra
14 42,328
158,311
184,988
216,3000
Pamulang
30 08,272
335,066
391,528
457,8000
Setu
72,727 7
79,924
93,392
109,2000
Serpong
15 51,899
167,533
195,764
228,9000
Total
1,4 405,170
11,537,000
1,796,000
2,100,00 0
Rem mar k
[Fiigure 5.1.5..1-1] Southh Tanger angg City’s Population Foorecast
5-15
5.1.5.2 Waste Generation A study of South Tangerang City’s unit waste generation by source revealed that wastes are generated by 0.60kg/person/day in the dry season and 0.51kg/person/day in the rainy season, averaged to 0.56kg/person/day. Future waste generation estimated by multiplying this unit waste by population of each district is as shown in the following table: [Table 5.1.5.2-1] Future Waste Gener ation (ton/day) Unit waste by sour ce (kg/capita/d)
Distr ict
2015
2020
2025 234
Pondok Aren
0.47
171
200
Ciputat Timur
0.73
150
176
205
Ciputat
0.62
140
164
191
Serpong Utara
0.54
85
100
117
Pamulang
0.50
168
196
229
Setu
0.52
42
49
57
Serpong
0.62
104
121
142
Total
0.56
860
1,006
1,175
Remark
5.1.5.3 Estimation of Waste Collection Referring to the Cieucang Landfill Waste Collection Data, South Tangerang City’s waste collection service by DKPP is estimated to cover 23.3 % as of 2014. [Table 5.1.5.3-1] Present DKPP’s Waste Collection Service Distr ict
2012
2013
Waste generation (ton/day)
747
765
782
(㎥/day) Density (ton/㎥) (ton/day)
233
350
607
0.30
0.30
0.30
70
105
182
9.4%
13.7%
23.3%
DKPP collection
Collection service coverage (%)
2014
This study expects that if DKPP’s collection service is expanded by 30% every year it will reach 74.6% by 2019, and if the collection and transport service by private sector 25% (estimated based on the area of collection) is added, waste collection service may cover the
5-16
entire South Tangerang City. [Table 5.1.5.3-2] Waste Collection Service by Pr ivate Sector (2012) Distr ict
Population (2012)
Pr ivate sector
Pr opor tion (% )
Pondok Aren
331,644
88,689
26.7
Ciputat Timur
190,415
6,954
3.7
Ciputat
207,885
-
-
Serpong Utara
144,328
72,779
51.1
Pamulang
308,272
70,190
22.8
Setu
72,727
21,253
29.2
Serpong
151,899
97,328
64.1
Total
1,405,170
357,188
25.4
Remark
To achieve 100% service coverage by 2019 as demanded by the Indonesian government, the waste collection service expansion plan and waste control targets are established as shown in the following table: [Table 5.1.5.3-3] Waste Collection Ser vice Expansion Plan Unit: % Classification Public sector (DKPP) Private sector Total
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
39.4
51.2
66.6
74.6
74.6
74.6
74.6
74.6
74.6
74.6
25.4
25.4
25.4
25.4
25.4
25.4
25.4
25.4
25.4
25.4
64.8
76.6
92.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
[Table 5.1.5.3-4] Waste Control Tar gets Classification Waste generation Recycle Throughput (ton/day) Non-Handle (ton/day) Collection rate TPS’s collection (ton/day) TPS3R’s collection (ton/day) - Recycle (ton/day) - Remainder (ton/day) Private sector’s collection/transport (ton/day) DKPP’s collection/transport (ton/day)
Tar get (ton/day) 2017
2019
2025
915 85 830(100%) 194(23.4%) 76.6% 405 20 7 13
975 116 859(100%) 100% 621 20 6 14
1,175 171 1,004(100%) 100% 729 20 6 14
211
218
255
418
635
743
5-17
[Table 5.1.5.3-5] DKPP’s Waste Collection by District Future collection (ton/day) District
2017
2019
2025
Pondok Aren
97
147
173
Ciputat Timur
73
111
130 147
Ciputat
83
126
Serpong Utara
28
42
49
Pamulang
95
145
169
Setu
20
31
36
Serpong
22
33
39
Total
418
635
743
Remark
5.1.5.4 Estimating Facility Capacity 5.1.5.4.1 Incinerator The incinerator is planned to be launched in the year 2020 taking account of the administrative procedure and construction period. As of 2020, the amount of incineration will be 651 ton/day (assuming 365 days/year). The operating day of the incinerator is set at 300 days/year considering the period of facility maintenance and repair. Considering the operational index year and the operating days, the facility capacity of the incinerator is estimated 790 ton/day as detailed below: [Table 5.1.5.4-1] Estimation of Incinerator Facility Capacity Classification
Year 2020
Waste generation (ton/day)
1,006
Remark
Incineration (ton/day)
651
A
Operating days
300
B
Facility capacity (ton/day)
792
C=A×365÷B
Value used
790
5-18
5.1.5.4.2 Landfill Facility If all waste collection is landfilled, securing the site will be a problem. Thus this study plans that from the year 2020 when the incinerator starts operation, only the remainders after incineration will be landfilled. Landfill area is estimated based on the following: - Landfill density: incineration 1.0 ton/㎥, domestic waste 0.7 ton/㎥ - Landfill height: 15 m - Amount of covering soil (㎥) is 15% of the volume of waste (㎥). Landfill site area is 12.36 ha as shown in the following table: [Table 5.1.5.4-2] Scale of Landfill Facility Classification
2016-2019
2020-2025
Total
Amount of waste brought in (㎥)
1,153,111
389,533
1,542,644
Landfill area (ha)
9.24ha
3.12ha
12.36ha
5-19
5.1.6 Basic Design 5.1.6.1 Tr ansfer Depot 5.1.6.1.1 Over view A transfer depot is needed for long distance transport of wastes in large vehicles transferred from small garbage trucks, whose system is classified into direct dumping, storage-anddumping, and direct storage and dumping. As of 2013, the waste collection in South Tangerang City uses the direct transport system where a garbage truck starts from DKPP garage, goes to its own district, collects wastes, and transports to the landfill. Considering the transport cost and environmental aspects, this study suggests installing and operating a transfer depot by district. In the “Master Plan On Integrated Municipal Solid Waste Management System In South Tangerang City (2015),” South Tangerang City revealed that it would be economically and environmentally advantageous to install and operate a transfer depot by district including garbage truck garages. This feasibility study suggests a model of installation and operation of the transfer depot for South Tangerang City. 5.1.6.1.2 Tr ansfer Depot Review Cr iter ia Indonesian laws and guidelines for transfer depot Study results and suggestions for transfer depots as detailed in the “Master Plan On Integrated Municipal Solid Waste Management System In South Tangerang City (2015)” Review of transfer depots including garbage truck garages Proposal for a model of transfer depot installation and operation 5.1.6.1.3 Tr ansfer Depot Basic Design (1) Estimation of Facility Capacity This FS estimated the facility capacity of the transfer depot model, based on the waste generation forecast by district, DKPP’s collectable amount of waste, and the number of garbage trucks/transport vehicles as detailed in the “Master Plan On Integrated Municipal Solid Waste Management System In South Tangerang City (2015).” As shown in the following Table 5.1.6.1-1, the future waste generation collectable by DKPP is estimated around 36-173 ton/day as of 2025. Therefore this feasibility study estimated the
5-20
facilityy capacity of o the standaard model oof South Tanngerang City for 3 casees: 200 ton/d day, 150 ton/dayy, and 50 toon/day. [Table 5.1.6.1-1] South S Tang ger ang Cityy’s Future Waste W Geneer ation Colllectable by y DKPP (unit: ton/day) Claassificationn 2016 201 17 2018 20019 2020 2021 2 2022 2023 20244 2025 Rem mar k Poondok Aren 73 97 7 Cipputat Timurr 55 73 3 Ciputat 62 83 3 Serrpong Utaraa 21 28 8 P Pamulang 72 95 5 Setu 15 20 0 Serpong 16 22 2 Total 314 418
129 97 110 37 127 27 29 556
1447 111 1226 442 1445 331 333 6335
151 114 129 43 148 32 34 651
155 117 132 44 152 33 35 668
159 120 135 45 155 34 36 684
163 124 139 46 160 34 37 703
168 126 143 48 164 35 37 721
173 130 147 49 169 36 39 743
200 15 50 15 50 50 5 200 50 5 50 5 -
(2) Treaatment Proocess Considerring Indonesia’s hot and humid cliimate and high proportion of organnic matters in wastes, this FS sugggests the dirrect dischargge system for fo the transffer depot onn the basis of o transfer aand ship out wastes colllections wiithin 24 hou urs.
[ [Figure 5.1.6.1-1] Tra nsfer Depoot Based on n Direct Disschar ge Sysstem (Exam mple) In this syystem wastee collectionss by small ggarbage truccks are transsferred to laarger vehicles, spread evvenly and hardened, h an nd shipped oout to the laandfill when n the load iss full. The workflow w is as below w:
5-21
[Fig gure 5.1.6.1 -2] Tr ansfeer Depot Wor W kflow ① Waaste carry inn Southh Tangerangg City’s pick kup trucks ((2.5 ㎥) annd arm roll trucks t (5.5 ㎥) collect and transpoort wastes to the transffer depot. ② Traansfer wastee to large arrm roll Dum mp the wastee in an arm roll r (25.0㎥ ㎥) waiting inn the waste transfer deppot. ③ Spread & hardden waste Usingg a backhoee, spread an nd compact w waste dump p in the arm m roll (25.0㎥ ㎥). ④ Waaste carry ouut Whenn the arm rooll (25.0㎥) is filled upp with wastees, a standby y arm roll trruck mounts the arm rooll (25.0㎥) and carries to Cipeucaang TPA. (3) Layyout Considdering the trransshipmen nt facility, tthe essentiall facility of the transferr depot, mainteenance buildding for opeeration stafffs, parking lots l and trafffic line of ggarbage trucks//transshipm ment vehicles, this FS foormed a layout plan. This sttudy estimaated 200 ton ns/day, 150 ttons/day, annd 50 tons/d day as the caapacity of th he standaard transfer depot d based d on South T Tangerang City’s C futuree waste genneration colllectable by DK KPP from individual disstricts and ccalculated th he area requ uirements coonsidering the t numbeer of garbagge trucks/traansshipmentt vehicles annd staffs req quired.
5-22
[Tablee 5.1.6.1-2] Waste Colllection andd Tr anspor t Vehicles Required R foor Tr ansferr Depot by F acility Cappacity Classsification
Picku up tr uck (2.5㎥)
Ar mr oll t r uck (5.5㎥ ㎥)
Arr mr oll tr uck k (25.0㎥)
Sum m
200 ton/day 25 30 9 (667 ㎥) 150 ton/day 18 23 7 (500 ㎥) 50 ton/day 7 8 3 (167 ㎥) Note: on the basis of 3 times/v vehicle/day of waste coollection and transfer
64 48 18
Armrolll truck 25.0 0㎥ Arm mroll truck 5.5 5 ㎥ Piickup truck 2.5 ㎥ Transsfer depot operation o staaffs includinng the direcctor are estim mated as 2000 ton/day - 8, 150tonn/day - 7, 500ton/day - 5 persons, ass detailed below: [Tabble 5.1.6.1-33] Staffs Reequired for Oper ating g Tr ansfer Depot D by F acility Cap pacity St aff
2 00 TPD
150 TPD T
50 TPD
Direector
1
1
1
G General affaiirs/accountin ng
1
1
1
Backhoee operator
1
1
1
T Traffic contrrol within th he faciility
2
2
1
Cleaner
3
2
1
Tootal
8 staffs
7 staaffs
5 staffs
5-23
200 tonn /day layouu t
[Figure 5.1.6.1-3] T Tr ansfer Depot Layou u t (200 TPD D)
5-24
[Figure 5.1.6.1-4] Transfer Deppot Tr ansshh ipment Bu u ilding Layyout (200 TP PD)
5-25
5-26
[F F igure 5.1.66.1-5] Tr anssfer Depot Tr ansshipm ment Build ding Profilee Section (2 200 TPD)
[Figure 5.1.6.1-6] Tr T ansfer Deepot Mainttenance Building Layoout (200 TP PD)
5-27
Maintenancee Building Profile/Crosss Section (20 00TPD) [F F igure 5.1.66.1-7] Transsfer Depot M
5-28
1500ton/day layyout
[Figure 5.1.6.1-8] T Tr ansfer Depot Layou u t (150 TPD D) 5-29
[Figure 5.1.6.1-9] Transfer Deppot Tr ansshh ipment Bu u ilding Layyout (150 TP P D)
5-30
[Figgure 5.1.6.11-10] Tr anssfer Depot Tr ansshipm m ent Build d ing Profilee Section (150 TPD) 5-31
[Figure 5.1.6.1-11] Tr ansfer Deepot Maintenance Buiilding Layoout (150 TP P D)
5-32
[Figure 5.11.6.1-12] Transfer Deppot Maintennance Build ding Profille/Cross Secction (150 TPD D)
5-33
50ton/dd ay layout
[Figure 5.1.6.1-13] Tr ansfer Depot Layo out (50 TPD D) 5-34
[Figure 5.1.6.1-14] Tr ansfer Deepot Tr anssshipment Building Laa yout (50 TP P D)
5-35
[Fiigure 5.1.6.1-15] Tr ansfer Depot Tr ansshipm m ent Build d ing Profilee Section (5 50 TPD)
5-36
[Figure 5.1.6.1-16] Tr ansfer D Depot Maintenance Bu u ilding Layyout (50 TP P D)
5-37
[Figure 5.11.6.1-17] Transfer Deppot Maintennance Build ding Profille/Cross Secction (50 TPD D) 5-38
(4) Constr uction Over view and Floor Planning ■ Constr uction Over view 200ton/day Classification
About 5,300.0 ㎡ (76.2m×69.6 m)
Site area Building area Extended area Scale
50ton/day
About 4,600.0 ㎡ (76.2m×60.4 m)
About 3,000.0 ㎡ (76.2m×39.4 m)
665 ㎡
324 ㎡
665.00 ㎡
324 ㎡
525 ㎡
192 ㎡
665 ㎡
324 ㎡
665.00 ㎡
324 ㎡
525 ㎡
192 ㎡
1 floor over 1 floor over 1 floor over 1 floor over 1 floor over 1 floor over the ground the ground the ground the ground the ground the ground
Max. height Structure
150ton/day
Tr ansshipment Maintenance Tr ansshipment Maintenance Tr ansshipment Maintenance Building Building Building Building Building Building
4.5 m
4.4 m
4.5 m
4.4 m
4.5 m
4.4 m
Reinforced Reinforced Reinforced Reinforced Reinforced Reinforced concrete concrete concrete concrete concrete concrete
ㆍ Pickup x 25 ㆍ Arm roll (5.5 ㎥) x 30 Parking plan ㆍ Arm roll (8 ㎥) x 4 ㆍ Passenger car x 26 (for staffs)
ㆍ Pickup x 23 ㆍ Arm roll (5.5 ㎥) x 18 ㆍ Arm roll (8 ㎥) x 7 ㆍ Passenger car x 21 (for staffs)
ㆍ Pickup x 8 ㆍ Arm roll (5.5 ㎥) x 7 ㆍ Arm roll (25 ㎥) x 3 ㆍ Passenger car x 11 (for staffs)
■ Planning Cr iteria Facility building planning focuses on: - Installation of perimeter shielding wall (2m) - Installation of trench and sump pit, septic tank to collect cleaning water and domestic wastewater Maintenance building planning focuses on: - Steel concrete structure considering economic feasibility - Director’s office
5-39
■ Floor Planning Transfer depot’s spatial areas and uses are as follows, where the free spaces offer a buffer zone for traffic line, parking lots for waste collection/transshipment vehicles and staff’s cars, and a storage for 25㎥ arm rolls in the transfer depot. [Table 5.1.6.1-4] Summar y of Tr ansfer Depot Functional Areas Classification 200 TPD 150 TPD 50 TPD Maintenance 324 ㎡ building Transshipment 665 ㎡ building
192 ㎡ ㆍ Office and resting place for management staffs
665 ㎡
525 ㎡ ㆍ Waste transshipment area
ㆍ Parking lots for waste collection/transshipment vehicles and others ㆍ Buffer zone for traffic line, arm roll’s temporary storage, etc. 5,300 ㎡ 4,600 ㎡ 3,000 ㎡ ㆍ Entire site area
Parking lot
1,332 ㎡ 1,102 ㎡
Free space
2,979 ㎡ 2,509 ㎡ 1,822 ㎡
Total
Descr iption
324 ㎡
461 ㎡
(5) Equipment List Running the transfer depot will require such equipment wheel-type backhoes for waste spreading/hardening, as detailed below: - Backhoe: Wheel type, bucket capacity 0.175㎥, max. digging radius 6,110㎜ [Table 5.1.6.1-5] Equipment list of Tr ansfer Depot Classification
200 TPD
150 TPD
50 TPD
Backhoe (bucket capacity 0.175 ㎥)
1
1
1
5-40
5.1.6.1.4 Tr ansfer Depot Oper ation Plan (1) Oper ational staffs Operating the transfer depot will require, by facility capacity, 8 staffs for 200 ton/day, 7 for 150 ton/day, and 5 for 50 ton/day. Their responsibilities would be as detailed below: [Table 5.1.6.1-6] Summar y Of Tr ansfer Depot Staff & Requirement Staff
200
150
50
Director
1
1
1
ㆍ Direct transfer depot
Responsibilities
General affairs/accounting
1
1
1
ㆍ General affairs/accounting
Backhoe operator
1
1
1
Traffic controller
2
2
1
ㆍ Managing 2n floor of transshipment facility, spreading and hardening transshipment waste ㆍ Transfer depot vehicle access management
Cleaner
3
2
1
ㆍ Keep the transfer depot clean
Total
8 persons 7 persons 5 persons
(2) Wor kflow ① Car r y in waste Garbage trucks including pickup trucks (2.5 ㎥) and arm roll trucks (5.5 ㎥) leave the garage in the transfer depot, collect waste in a district, and carry into the transfer depot. ② Tr ansfer waste to lar ge ar m roll The garbage truck enters the 2nd floor of the transshipment building as instructed by a traffic controller, goes to the dumping site as directed by the backhoe operator, and dumps the waste to the arm roll (25.0㎥) that is on standby. Once transshipment is finished, the garbage truck parks at the parking lot in the transfer depot, rests for a while, and then leaves for waste collection in another district. In the transshipment area, special precautions should be taken to avoid fall of vehicles due to frequent forward/backward driving for waste dumping and collision of backhoes and garbage trucks, because the area is where heavy machines and human work together with lots of waste in a limited space.
5-41
③ Spread & har den waste The backhoe operator pushes the transshipped waste toward inside the the arm roll (25.0㎥) to make room for the next garbage truck to dump waste, and compacts the waste load to use the arm roll (25.0㎥) more efficiently. ④ Car r y Out Waste Once an arm roll (25.0㎥) is fully loaded with waste by work of the backhoe, a standby arm roll truck loads the arm roll and transfers it to Cipeucang TPA. Then another arm roll truck moves an empty arm roll to this vacancy to continue to the next transshipment of waste. To minimize odor and other environmental problems, waste retention in the transshipment site should be minimized, i.e., waste should be transshipped and shipped out in 24 hours.
(3) Counterplan for Environmental Pollution As the waste transshipment space is where garbage trucks and transshipment vehicles frequently access and backhoes work, the inside of the transfer depot will not be visible from outside, and the waste transshipment building will be a partly open structure to ensure proper ventilation and lighting. Trenches, sump pits, and septic tanks will be installed to collect cleaning water and domestic wastewater and thus to avoid direct discharge to rivers and streams. This plan will: install a net at the frond end of the sump pit to prevent piping from being clogged by vinyl and other domestic wastes and impurities; process the cleaning water temporarily drained in the sump pit by interlocking with the septic tank; and drain domestic wastewater directly to the septic tank. The overlying water in the septic tank will be discharged through a sewer or sanitary sewer. Sediment in the sump pits and the septic tank will be cleaned periodically to ensure proper treatment of cleaning water and domestic wastewater. The sump pit acts as a buffer zone that segregates household waste and impurities, and soil that can be introduced with cleaning water, and the capacity requirement was estimated on an assumption that the cleaning water will stay 4 hours.
5-42
[Table 5.1.6.1-7] Estimation of Sump Pit Capacity by Facility Capacity Facility Cleaning water Building (㎥/use) Transshipment 200ton/day 4 building Transshipment 150ton/day 3 building
Classification
Sump pit capacity
Remark
1.0 ㎥(1.0m×1.0m×1.0 m)
Excess rate 1.0 ㎥(1.0m×1.0m×1.0 m) considered Transshipment 50ton/day 1 0.343 ㎥(0.7m×0.7m×0.7 m) building In the above, estimation of the cleaning water requirements assumed: cleaning water 0.02 ㎥ /ton of waste, washing twice a week, and part of waste dropped on the floor in the course of transshipment of waste from small trucks to large ones in the transfer depot. [Table 5.1.6.1-8] Calculation of Cleaning Water Gener ation by Facility Capacity Classification
Capacity of Facility (ton/day)
Cleaning water (㎥/use)
200
4
150
3
50
1
Transshipment building Cleaning water
Remar k
ㆍ Water 0.02 ㎥/ton of waste ㆍ Washing twice a week
Source) Guideline and Description of Waste Treatment Facility Structure (1991, Ministry of Environment, Korea) Domestic wastewater includes toilet water and other domestic wastewater used by Transfer Depot staffs and was estimated assuming that 120 L/person/day would be generated from each source. Estimation of the capacity of the septic tank considered the amount of the above cleaning water and domestic wastewater generated. [Table 5.1.6.1-9] Estimation of Septic Tank Capacity by Facility Capacity Capacity Number of Domestic Cleaning Septic tank Classification of Facility staffs wastewater Remar k (ton/day) (person) (㎡/day) water (㎥/use) Capacity (㎥) Septic tank
200
8
0.96
4
150
7
0.84
3
8 6
50
5
0.60
1
3
Source) Guideline and Description of Waste Treatment Facility Structure (1991, Ministry of Environment, Korea)
5-43
5.1.6.1.5 Constr uction Cost and Oper ation Cost (1) Constr uction Cost 7,081 million Rp is expected to used as construction cost for the transfer depot, and the details by work are as below: [Table 5.1.6.1-10] Constr uction Cost Classification
200 TPD
150 TPD
50 TPD
Mechanical work
858
858
858
Civil work Building work Electrical work Total
3,363 5,340 1,011 10,572
2,817 5,340 1,011 10,026
1,752 3,872 599 7,081
Remar k Vehicles and equipment purchase
(2) Oper ation Cost ① Calculation Cr iter ia Overhead expenses are 20% of the labor cost. Repair cost is 0.75% of the net construction cost. Electricity charge = standing charge + usage fee Service water charge is calculated based on the usage of cleaning water and tap water. Other expenses are 1% of the variable cost. ② Calculation of Oper ation Cost [Table 5.1.6.1-11] Oper ation Cost Classification Labor cost Overhead Fixed expenses cost Subtotal Repair Variable Electricity Fuel cost Service water Others Subtotal Total
200TPD 168,600,000
150TPD 150,600,000
50TPD 118,200,000
33,720,000
30,120,000
23,640,000
202,320,000
180,720,000
141,840,000
61,890,000
58,740,000
41,752,000
123,456,000 55,440,000 5,737,000
123,456,000 46,200,000 4,595,200
74,137,000 39,960,000 2,314,000
2,465,000
2,329,000
1,551,000
248,988,000 451,308,000
235,320,200 416,040,000
159,714,000 298,554,000
5-44
Remar k 20% of Labor cost 0.75% of purity Construction cost
1.0% of Variable cost
5.1.6.2 Facility Layout L Plaan 5.1.6.2.1 Project Site S Over view Accordinng to the spaatial plan (R RT/RW) of tthe South Tangerang T ciity, the currrently operaating Cipeucanng Landfill is located in n Serpong, Cipeucang Serpong, an nd Cetu Kaddemangan. Waste lanndfill is divvided into 3 zones, wheere Zone 1 is 1.72 ha an nd currentlyy operating, Zone 2 is 2.0 ha and is consstructing a new n landfilll, and Zone 3 is 7.5 ha but b is experriencing diff fficulty in securinng the site, according to t the consuultation with h DKPP. At presennt, DKPP iss planning to o secure a ssite located in the east of o Zone 1, oof which 4.1 13 ha may accoommodate the t waste management m facility, considering th he buffer zoone (50 m wide) w along thee Cisadang river. Moreover, takingg account off an incinerator and intternal roads, the planned llandfill site in the mastter plan (3.112ha, 2020--2025) seem ms hard to seecure. Thereforre, the Southh Tangerang g city needss to either seecure an add ditional landdfill site to bury waste inccluding botttom ash since 2022 neaar the projecct site or cooperate witth other citiees in the Banten province. p
[Figure 5.1.6.2-1] Ciipeucang L Landfill Dev velopment Plan in Spaatial Plann ning (RT/R RW) 5.1.6.2.2 Facilitiess Layout The projeect site has existing lan ndfill, manaagement and d auxiliary facilities, f annd a few houses, located aat EL(+) 20..0 - 35.0 m, and consistts of plane with w slope below b 5% eexcept somee areas adjacent to the Cisaddang river.
5-45
[Figgure 5.1.6.22 –2] Locattion of Projject Site
Zone 1 Landfill L (View 1)
Whole W View of Pr oject Site (View 2)
[Figure 5.1..6.2 –3] Prooject Site Photos
Facilitiess to be instaalled in the project p site can be classified into a landfill, ann incinerato or, and managem ment and suupport facilitties. Incinerrator is locaated near thee entrance, aand for easy y access to the faccility by largge trucks, an a 8m wide road inside the facility y and a 5m w wide road arround the landffill are constructed. The dom mestic waste landfill is located l nearr Zone 1 forr the purposse of securinng the landffill capacity as large as possible thrrough intercconnection with w Zone 1, 1 and a 50 m wide bufffer zone is locatedd between the Cisadangg river and the landfill.. The landfill for Type 22(fly ash) iss
5-46
located in the south of the incinerator, having a roof structure to avoid rainwater inflow. Considering that leachate generated from this extension landfill is planned to be transferred to and processed in the existing leachate treatment facility (zone 1 and 2), this is excluded from the layout plan. Since there is no measuring system in the Cipeucang Landfill, the layout plan considered the traffic line. - The true height of the project site is planned to be EL (+) 27-35 m considering accessibility from external approach ways, safety from natural disasters, and harmony with the terrestrial environment. Plans for using the project site are as shown in the following table: [Table 5.1.6.2-1] Plan for Land Use in Expansion Section Item
Ar ea (㎡)
Pr opor tion
Domestic waste landfill
10,028
19.0%
Waste landfill for Type 2(fly ash)
3,150
6.0%
Incinerator
13,373
25.4%
Auxiliary facilities (road, buffer zone, etc)
11,984
22.7%
Buffer Zone
14,169
26.9%
Total
52,704
100%
Remar k
-The bed of the proposed landfill site is found silty clay (SC) that is relatively hard according to the result of a standard penetration test, 5 to 50 times. And the groundwater level is GL(-) 4.6-5.3m in average, therefore it is right to excavate 2m below the surface of the ground, but to secure landfill capacity within the limited site, this study plans to excavate 5.0m below the surface ground, with 5m-high layers. Earthwork criteria are as shown in the following table. [Table 5.1.6.2-2] Inter nal Soil Composition Item
Foundation facility
Applicable cr iter ia Banking slope
1 : 1.8 (install 1m-high banquett every 5m in height)
Cut slope
1 : 1.5 (install 1m-high banquett every 5m in height)
Landfill slope
1 : 3.0 (install 3m-high banquett every 5m in height)
Landfill floor slope
2%
5-47
Remar k
[Figur e 5.1.6.2-4]] Plan View w
5-48
[Figure 5.1.6.2-5] Section Vieew
5-49
5.1.6.3 Inciner ator 5.1.6.3.1 Design Cr iter ia Incinerator design was made based on the result of study on the characteristics and the emission standards for household waste in the South Tangerang city. (1) Proper ty of Household Waste Chemical composition, three components, density, low calorific value, etc of the target waste is estimated based on the result of waste property study in the master plan, of which the low calorific value of the waste is set at 1,800 kcal/kg based on the standard quality. [Table 5.1.6.3-1] Chemical Composition, Three Components, and Density of Tar get Waste Classification
High quality C H O N S Cl
Chemical composition (wt%)
Total Water Combustibles Ash Low calorific value (kcal/kg) Waste density (ton/㎥)
Three components (wt%)
17.43 6.24 20.80 0.20 0.13 0.70 45.50 36.40 45.50 18.10 2,100 0.22
Standar d quality 23.00 2.50 11.40 0.20 0.10 0.30 37.50 46.50 37.50 16.00 1,800 0.22
Low quality 18.09 2.70 11.28 0.44 0.20 0.40 33.11 55.49 33.11 11.40 1,400 0.22
(2) Air Pollutant Emission Standar d To meet Indonesian and Korean emission standards for major air pollutants including SO2, HCl, NO2, and Dioxin that emit from incinerators, an air pollution prevention system is planned. [Table 5.1.6.3-2] Air Pollutant Emission Standar d Pollutant
Unit
Standar d
SO₂ ppm HCl ppm NO₂ ppm Dust mg/Nm³(12) Dioxin ng-TEQ/S ㎥ Source) Standard Quality of Incinerator Emission 5-50
< 250 < 70 < 300 < 20 < 0.1
Remar k Indonesian standard Korean standard
(2) Efflluent Qualiity Standarrd • A waastewater treeatment faciility is plannned to treat organic waastewater inncluding dom mestic wastew water and innorganic waastewater inncluding boiiler blowdow wn water annd back wasshing water that t are gennerated from m incineratoor operation so as to meeet the efflue uent quality standaard. [Table 5.1.6.3-3]] Effluent Quality Q Standard Con ntaminant
Unit
Standard
BOD
mg/L
< 150
COD
mg/L
< 300
SS
mg/L
< 400
T-N
mg/L
< 60
Remark k
Inddonesian staandard
Source)) Environmeental ministtry regulatioon No _5_2014 5.1.6.3..2 Selectingg Incineratiion System m and Numb ber of Systeems (1) Seleecting Incin neration Sy ystem • The iincinerationn system wid dely used inn incinerato ors are stokeer type, fluiddization, an nd pyrolyytic gasificattion, and their features are as beloow: [Tab ble 5.1.6.3-4 4] Comparring and Seelecting Treeatment Sysstem Classifi fication
Stokeer
Fluiidization
Pyroolytic gasifiication
Systtem
Incineration mechaanism
Applicability
·In a hypoxic state, s ·Inccineration comprises 3 combbustion, pyrrolysis, steeps (dry, combustion, ·Waste iss compound ded and ggasification n arise, annd post-com mbustion) with hot fluid sand by b andd waste is bu urnt at whhile the mottor driven force, and d instantly dried highh temperaturre over firee grate conv veys waste and d burned. 1,000 0℃ in a sec condary in the incin nerator. com mbustion chaamber. Household d waste
Househoold waste an nd s sludge
5-51
Hoousehold waaste, sluddge, and industrial waste
[Table 5.1.6.3-4] (Continued) Compar ing and Selecting Treatment System Classification
Stoker
Fluidization
Pyr olytic gasification
Combustion efficiency
Normal
High
High
Pre-treatment
not required
required
required
Incineration residue
15 ∼ 20%
5 ∼ 8%
around 5%
Ignition loss
around 5%
around 3%
around 5%
Construction cost (relative)
1.0
1.1 - 1.2
1.4 - 1.5
Strength
·Used long and widely ·Wide calorific range ·No need for pre·Suitable for incinerating treatment liquid, high water content ·Incinerates various waste types of household waste ·Suitable for intermittent ·Easy to operate and operation maintain
Weakness
·Needs refilling loss of ·Relatively large amount fluid medium (fluid sand) of exhaust gas ·Not suitable for large ·Produces a lot of bottom waste or tar-like melting ash wastes ·Produces a bit much ·Not suitable for high calorific waste impurities from pretreatment
Selected
·Suitable for small and
medium size wastes
·Relatively small
discharge of environmental pollutant
·Construction record
lower than stoker system ·Produces a bit much impurities from pretreatment
◎
This study selected the stoker system because the system is applicable to various types of household waste, is technically proven by lots of practical application, and has accumulated advanced operating skill.
5-52
(2) Number of Inciner ator Units ① Matter s to Consider The number of units refers to the number of facility systems that can be operated as another incinerator when an incinerator is shut down for the purpose of maintenance or others. Thus the layout should consider affordability of the proposed site. ② Estimation of Number of Inciner ator Units This study found that installing two or more units, rather than a single one, would be reasonable to raise availability of the incinerator unit when the amount of combustible waste is large. The following shows Korea’s guidelines on the number of units classified by target waste amount to incinerate: [Table 5.1.6.3-5] Compar ing and Selecting Treatment Technology Tar get 50 100 200 250 300 400 Capacity of 150ton/day ton/day ton/day ton/day ton/day ton/day ton/day Inciner ator
- 50
50 - 100 100 - 200 200 - 300 300 - 400
Remar k Less than 50 ton/day: to be processed by incinerators with capacity at least 50ton/day
1 unit
1 unit 2 units 1 unit 1 unit 2 units
1 unit
50 300ton/day: install with the optimum capacity
2 units 300-500 1 unit ton/day: installed with excess capacity
2 units 2 units
400 - 500
2 units
500 ton/day or Combination of 200, 250, 300, or over: combination of 400 ton/day (2 units or more) capacities 400 ton/day or less Source) A Handbook of Guidelines on Domestic Waste Treatment Facility Installation and 500 -
Operation (Oct 2012, Ministry of Environment, Korea) To raise availability and stability of incinerator operation, this study planned to configure the facility with 395 ton/day×2 units on the basis of 790 ton/day (facility capacity). 5-53
5.1.6.3.3 Design Over view and Cr iter ia (1) Design Over view Designing of this facility intends to secure stability, reliability, ease of operation and maintenance, and economic efficiency of the facility by selecting the proven method and system to ensure detoxification and downsizing of waste and thus to minimize environmental pollution through stable treatment of domestic waste. [Table 5.1.6.3-6] Design Over view Item
Descr iption
Remar k
Target
Household waste 651 ton/day
Facility capacity
790 ton/day (395 ton/day×2 units)
on the basis of operating 300 days/year
Electricity
Waterpower generation : 2.6MW Electricity generation : 8.8MW
Generator : 11.4MW
Plant configuration
Incinerator + power generation facility
Incinerator
Consecutive combustion stoker (water cooling fire grate)
Boiler
Type: Natural circulation Capacity: 72.5 ton/hr x 40 kg/㎠.G, 400 ℃
Steam turbine
Type: Extraction condenser type Steam Condition: 40kg/㎠.G × 400℃
Condenser
Type: Air Cooled Condenser Capacity: 95 ton/hr
System configuration
Carry-in and feeding unit + incinerator + power generator + semi-dry reactor + bag filter + smokestack
SNCR : urea water Semi-dry reactor: activated carbon spray
Air pollution prevention system
SNCR → Semi-dry reactor → activated carbon spray → bag filter→ induced draft fan → smokestack
Conform to emission standards
5-54
(2) Inciiner ator Deesign Cr iter ia Designning choosee the optimaal capacity oof the compponent systems of the inncinerator by b considdering the duurability of material, m mechanical stability, s easse of mainteenance and econom mic efficienncy. [Tablee 5.1.6.3-7] Key System m Design Cr C iter ia Systeem
Design n cr iter ia ·Com mbustion cap pacity : 3955 ton/day x 2 units (24 hrr/day
Incinerr ator
· Incinnerator typee · Outllet temperatture · Stayy time · Igniition loss ·Typee
Boileer
Semi-ddr y r eacttor
Filter bag
Activaated car boon feedeer
Inducced air bllow
· Cappacity: · Opeerating presssure · Outllet temperatture · Opeerating meth hod
· Cappacity: · Inlett/outlet tempeerature · Spraay type · Opeerating meth hod
· Cappacity: · Inlett/outlet tempeerature · Opeerating meth hod
·Typee · Cappacity: · Opeerating meth hod
· Cappacity: · Inlett/outlet tempeerature · Opeerating meth hod
5-55
operration) : Continuous com mbustion sto oker type (watter-cooling fi fire grate) : 850 0℃ or over (solid : 950℃ ℃) : 2 sec or over : 5% % or below : Naatural circulat ation water piipe boileer : 72..5 ton/hr : 40 kg/㎠.G × 4400℃ : 200 0℃ or below w : Waater supply, ssteam, and drum d wateer level are aautomatically y conttrolled by a th three-factor control c systeem : 75,,000Nm3/hr ((standard quality) : 200 0℃/160℃ : 2-ffluid nozzle sspray : Au utomatic conttrol of slaked d lime slurrry based on H HCI concenttration of TMS S system : 77,,800Nm3/hr ((standard quality) : 160 0℃/159℃ : Perriodic pulsinng by differen ntial pressure
: Scrrew feeder tyype : 6 m3 : Au utomatic activvated feed co ontrol interrlocked withh gas flow of TMS systeem : 2,8 800A ㎥/minn x 600mmAq : 159 9℃ : VV VVF + Autom matic dampeer conttrol (inside thhe incinerato or)
5.1.6.3.4 Inciner attion Processs Plan (1) Inciiner ation Process P Oveer view Incinneration process is conffigured as shhown in thee Figure 5.1.6.3-1: Proveen combusttion gas treaatment proc ess configu uration (SNC CR+spring ddry reactorr+activated carbon spraay+back filtter+smokesstack) Proceess should meet m the “A Air Pollutantt Emission Standard S an nd Effluent SStandard” Use remaining r h from in heat ncineration ffor power generation g and condenssation waterr recycliing
[Figu ure 5.1.6.3-11] Treatment Process Over view
5-56
(2) Storr age and Suupply Facilities ① Systeem Configuur ation The transsport and suupply facilitties consistss of a waste storage tan nk that storees waste carrried into the ffacility for incineration i n, a large waaste crusherr, and a cran ne.
[Figuure 5.1.6.3--2] Stor agee and Supplly System Diagr D am (E Example) ② Systeem Over vieew A waste metering syystem is intrroduced to ccheck the am mount of waste input. The plannned number of waste feed f inlets aare 9, considdering the waste w feed tiime to avoid d garbage truck’s t trafffic jam in peeak hours, aand the wasste storage tank capacity ty is calculaated as below: -V=(G×d)÷r where,, V = volum me of waste storage (m33) G = daaily waste inncineration (ton/day) : 790 ton/dayy d = stoorage periodd (day): 3 daays r = meean specific gravity of waste w in thee waste storaage tank (to on/m3): 0.222 ton/㎥ (u used)
This studdy secured ease e of operration by auutomating thhe crane and d a space foor crushing large l waste (fuurniture, etcc) in the wasste storage ttank.
5-57
③ Key Systems Reeview This studdy planned to t adopt a separate typee of waste crusher c that requires a rrelatively laarge area of innstallation but b is capab ble to crush and feed waaste with staability. [Table 5.1.6.3-8] 5 Compar C ativve Review of o Waste Cr usher andd Feeder Classifi fication
S Separ ate Crr usher -Feeeder Type
Cr usher -Feeder C Combined Type
Systtem
Featuur es
·Cruusher is insttalled separaately from the waste feedeer ·Reqquires a larg ge installatiion area ·Enssures operational stabillity
·Crusher and waste ffeeder are combined d into one ·Requiress a small insstallation arrea ·When the crusher faails, the who ole process stops.
◎
Seleccted
④ Stor age a and Su pply Faciliities Configgur ation Key com mponents off the storage and supplyy facilities are a as shown n below: [Table 5.1.6.3-9] L List of Equ ipment (Ex xample) Classifi fication
Item m
Q’ty
Capacity C
Load d (kW)
1
Waste meter m
2
Waste feed d door
1
50 ton
0.8 0
9
7,350 0H x 3,700W W
-
3
Waste crrane
2 (1 sparee)
12 m³
156 1
4
Waste crrane m maintenanc ce hoist
1
5Ton
4.95 4
5
L Large waste crusher
1
5Ton/hr
150 1
5-58
(3) Inciiner ator ① Systeem Configuur ation An incinnerator is a system s that burns up w waste fed by a crane and d consists off a waste feeder, refractories, auxiliarry burner, fiire grate, etcc.
[Figure 5.1 1.6.3-3] Inciiner ator Sy ystem Diagr am (Exam mple) ② Systeem Over vieew Instaall a safety door d to prev vent backfiree caused byy pressure ch hanges wheen waste is fed f The feeder f is of a hydraulicc reciprocatiing type and d automatically controlls waste feeed. The system s is caapable to co ontrol air floow by fire grate g (flexible response to changes) when primarry combustiion air is fed d to ensure complete co ombustion of o waste in the incineraator. Tanggential nozzlle is installeed to maxim mize agitatioon by secondary combuustion air feeeding. Moduularized steepped reciprrocating firee grate enab bles individu ual control oof combustiion state. Maxiimized dioxxin decompo osition ensuured by maintaining combustion chhamber outlet temperrature at 850℃ or over and gas sttay time at 2 sec or long ger.
5-59
③ Key Systems Reeview Incinerattor’s combuustion metho od will be oof an alternaating current system whhich is prov ven stable byy numerous practical ap pplications aand highly responsive r to changes iin waste pro operty. [Tab le 5.1.6.3-10] Comparr ative Review of Combustion Meethod Classifi fication
Alter natin ng cur r ent system
Paar allel cur r ent system m
Systtem
Mechaanism
Featuur es
·Maaximize mix xing of secoondary com mbustion airr with exhauust gas
·Incompleetely burnt ggas stays lo ong at top of thee drying unitt
·Higghly respon nsive to channges in wasste property ·Waater pipe in the side waall of the inciinerator exteended
·Local overheat in thhe current slope plate and damages too refractoriees causes cliinkers ·Thermal damage to the fire gratte caused by y high radiaant heat
◎
Seleccted
④ Incinner ator Sysstem Config gur ation Key com mponents off the incineraator are as llisted below w: [Table 5.1.6.3-11] L List of Com mponents (E Example) Classifi fication
Item
Q’ty
Capacity C
1
Incineraator
2
395Ton
-
Auxiliary Burner B
2
9 MW
25 25
2
Load d (kW)
Ignition Burner B
2
9 MW
3
Chute co ooler
2
688Mcal 6
-
4
C Chute coolin ng pump
2 (1 spare)
50 ㎥//hr x 5kg/㎠ ㎠.G
15
5
C Chute coolaant tank
2
2㎥
-
6
Leeachate spraay nozzle
4
550L/hr
19
7
Hydraulic system s
2
600L
19
8
Hopper gate g
1
3,000 0L x 1,500W W
-
5-60
(4) Coombustion Gas G Coolin ng System ① Systeem Configuur ation A combuustion gas coooling systeem consists largely of a waste heatt recovery bboiler, blow wdown tank, higgh pressure steam s headeer, low presssure steam header, air preheater, ssteam turbin ne, low pressure steam conddenser, deaeerator feed ppump, deaerrator, boilerr feed waterr pump, etc.
[Figuree 5.1.6.3-4] Combustioon Gas Coo oling System m Diagr am m (Examplee) ② Systeem Over vieew Use high h temperrature comb bustion gas tto produce steam requiired for pow wer generatiion and ensuree stable pow wer generatio on even whhen the steam m productio on fluctuatess. Instaall a chute bllower in thee electric heeater and thee economizer of the booiler to imprrove gas coolingg efficiencyy by preventting fly ash settlement and minimiize conditioons for dioxin resynthhesis. Enabble controlling the amou unt of steam m inflow to the turbine in order to maintain stteady steam pressure onn the entrancce of turbinne. Adoppt an inverteer control sy ystem to conntrol tempeerature of the rear end ccondensation water in the steam conddenser. Maxiimize feed water w recycle rate by coondensing ③ Key Systems Reeview ■ Turbbine This sttudy selecteed an extracction-backprressure typee of turbine that allows adjusting the rate of pow wer generatiion and heatt supply andd offers a beetter econom mic efficienncy than a 5-61
backprressure typee as it produ uces more ellectricity. [Table 5.1.6.3-12] Com mpar ative Review of Waste Heaat Utilizatioon Methodss Classiffication Exxtr action-b backpr essu r e tur bine
Backpr B essuur e tur bine
Systtem
·Thhis type mak kes the needded steam too vaccuum in con ndenser. Incrrease the Mechaanism genneration efficiency by eenlarging a heaat head. Feattur es
·Using the added steam annd maxximum pow wer generatioon. ·Sm mooth for alttered steam m.
·This typee features eaasier operation as the steam pressure diischarged frrom the outlet of the t steam tuurbine is hig gher than atmo ospheric preessure and th he flow of exhaust steam andd condensatiion water is smooth. ·Installatio on cost is loow. ·Operation n and mainttenance are easy.
◎
Selected ■ Coolinng System
This studdy selected an air cooliing condensser that requuires larger site and inittial investm ment cost, but is freee from the problems of securing ccooling wateer and proceessing heat exchange water. w [Taable 5.1.6.3 3-13] Comppar ative Reeview of Co ooling Methhod Classifi fication
Air A cooling
Water ccooling
Systtem
Mechaanism
Featuur es Seleccted
·Usee air to reco over surpluss steam and ·Use cooliing water too recover su urplus prodduce conden nsation watter. steam and d produce coondensation n water. ·Creeates noise by b an air bl ower ·Wiide installatiion area ◎
5-62
·Needs continuous suupply of coo oling water ·High inveestment cosst for piping g and pumps
④ Combustion Gas Cooling System Key components of the combustion gas cooling system are as listed below: [Table 5.1.6.3-14] List of Components (Example) Classification
Item
Q’ty
Capacity
Load (kw)
1
Waste heat boiler
2
72.5Ton/hr x 40kg/㎠.G, 400℃
-
2
Blow down tank
2
1.5 ㎥
-
3
High pressure steam header
1
72.5Ton
-
4
Low pressure steam header
1
12Ton
-
5
Air preheater
2
910Mcal/hr
-
6
Steam turbine
1
11.4 MW
37
7
Low pressure steam condenser
1
95Ton/hr
150
8
Deaerator feed pump
2 (1 spare)
105 ㎥/hr
40
9
Deaerator
2
92Ton/hr
-
10
Boiler feed water pump
4 (2 spare)
45 ㎥/hr
168
5-63
(5) Com mbustion Gas G Treatm ent Facilityy ① Systeem Configuur ation A combuustion gas trreatment faccility consissts of a Seleective Non-C Catalytic Reeduction (SNCR), spring drry reactor, activated a carrbon feederr, bag filter, and smokesstack.
[Figure 5.1.6.3-5] 5 Combustion C n Gas Treattment System Diagr am m (Examp le) ② Systeem Over vieew This system feedds urea solu ution througgh a nozzle located l in th he entrance of the boileer and reducees NOx conttained in thee exhaust gaas into harm mless nitrog gen and wateer. This system spraays slaked lime slurry tto a spring dry d reactor to neutralizze acid gas, and increasses the efficciency of rem moval by opptimizing thhe spray disstribution frrom a choseen optimaal nozzle poosition and by b minimiziing the grain diameter of slaked lim me slurry when w sprayinng. Remooves dioxinn by absorbiing to a bag filter by acctivated carb bon injectedd before exh haust gas infflows to thee bag filter.
5-64
③ Key Systems Reeview This studdy plans a syystem consiisting of “S NCR+SDR R+A/C+B/F”” which is eeasy to hand dle chemicalls, meets airr pollutant emission e staandards, and d needs lesss cost for insstallation an nd operationn. [Taable 5.1.6.3-15] Comp ar ative Reeview of Coombustion Gas G Treatm ment Processses Classifi fication
SNCR+ +SDR+A/C C+B/F
SDR+A A/C+B/F+d uct bur nerr +SCR
Systtem
Mechaanism
·Rellatively low w pressure looss and easee of chemical c han ndling ·Staable efficien ncy in removving acid gas
·Highly efficient e in rremoving accid gas and nitrog gen oxides ·Needs a SCR front ccombustion n gas preheaterr
Featuur es
·Cloogging and wear in pipping caused by slaked s lime slurry
·Low pressure loss aand high eneergy consumption ·High cosst of chemiccal handling g and initial inv vestment
◎
Seleccted
④ Com mbustion Gaas Treatment System C Configur attion Key com mponents off the combusstion gas treeatment system are as listed l below w: [Table 5.1.6.3-16] L List of Com mponents (E Example) Classifi fication
Item
Q’ty
Capacity C
Loa d (kw)
1
Urea water solution U s injection nozzle n
16
100kg/hr 1
-
2
S Spring dry reactor r
2
75,0 000N ㎥/hrr
-
2 (2 spare))
1.5 1 ㎥/hr
0.75 0
2 (1 spare))
1.5 ㎥/min
1.5
3 4
Sllaked lime injection i pump p Acctivated carbon feed bloweer S Spring dry reactor r C Cooling watter feed pump p
3 (1 spare))
4 ㎥/hr
0.75 0
6
Bag filtter
2
77,8 800N ㎥/hrr
-
7
Smokesttack
2
60M
-
5
5-65
(6) Airr Supply/E xhaust Sysstem ① Systeem Configuur ation This studdy planned that t the air required r forr burning waste w inside the incineraator will be supplied by a forcedd air fan and d a second aair fan, and the induced d draft fan w will be instaalled at the front of a chimnney to emit combustion c air.
[Figuure 5.1.6.3--6] Air Suppply/Exhau st System Diagr D am (E Example) ② Systeem Over vieew The forced f air blower is plaanned to actt as a suppliier of oxygeen required ffor combustion in the inccinerator. To maximize m combustion effficiency, innjected air will w go to a steam type air preheateer to heat upp to 120℃ and then will w be suppllied to the lo ower part off the incinerrator. A seccondary air blower willl completelyy burn up thhe incompleetely burnt ggas and supply air througgh a nozzle to t adjust tem mperature inn the incineerator. Combustion gass will go through a induuced draft faan and a chiimney to thee atmospheere. A dam mper will be installed to t keep con stant pressu ure inside th he incineratoor to facilitaate combuustion.
5-66
③ Key Systems Reeview This studdy planned a combinatiion of “speeed conversioon (VVVF) + automatiic damper opening o control system whicch requires a large initiaal investment cost but has h outstandding air flow w control reesulting in reduced r electricity costt, has a widde range of total t volumee control an nd ease of fine addjustment of o pressure, and thus ennsures contin nuous operaation. [Tabble 5.1.6.3-117] Comparr ative Reviiew of Interr nal Contr ol Systems for Incinerr ator Speed con nver sion (V VVVF) + pening Classifi fication auttomatic dam mper open ing contr oll Pole chaanging andd damper op contr ol ssystem system Incine erator
Incinerator
Systtem
·Controls the am mount of aiir by means of frequency f co onversion bby an ·Controls the amountt of air by adjusting Mechaanism inveerter and ad djusting dam mper damper op pening opening Featuur es
·Has a wide ran nge of contrrol and high h ·Control range r is narrrow. preccision ·Starting torque t is sm mall. ·Staarting torquee is small. ·Relatively cheap ·Inittial investm ment cost is hhigh. ◎
Seleccted
④ Air Supply/Exh S haust System Configu r ation Key com mponents off the air supp ply/exhaust system are as listed beelow: [Table 5.1.6.3-18] L List of Com mponents (E Example) Classifi fication
Item
Q’ty
Cap pacity
Load d (kw)
1
F Forced air blower b
2
910A ㎥/min n x 250mmA Aq
80 8
2
Seecondary airr blower
2
40 00A ㎥/min x 1000mm mAq
120
3
Induced draaft fan
2
2,8 800A ㎥/miin x 600mm mAq
410 4
4
Stack k
2
∅1400 x H 60m
5-67
(7) Reeprocessingg System ① Systeem Configuur ation Ash gennerates from m the incineerator, wastee heat boilerr, spring dry y reactor, annd bag filterr. Ash will be reemoved as planned p as follows: f Bottom m ash dispo osal
Fly F ash dispposal
[F Figure 5.1.6.3-7] Reprrocessing System S Diag gr am (Exam mple) ② Systeem Over vieew Bottom m ash will bee transferred d to and keppt in a storaage using a concealed c cconveyor wiithout direct contact of thee operator. And A the botttom ash disccharge systeem will has a concealed d structuree in the form m of a tank. The botttom ash stoorage tank will w have a capacity for 5 days’ sto orage to enssure maintaainability. Plan to discharge the t bottom ash a at the geeneral waste landfill. A fly assh storage taank (for 3 days) d + a tonnbag storage (for 3 day ys) will ensuure stability y. Fly ashh will be burried in a waaste landfill for Type 2 (fly ash). ③ Key Systems Reeview ■ Bottom m Ash Dischharge System m This stuudy plannedd a chain tan nk type connveyer that best b fits the medium-too-large stokeer type incinerattor and is hiighly effectiive in coolinng.
5-68
[Table 5.11.6.3-19] Co ompar ativee Review off Bottom Ash A Discharr ge System Classifi fication
Chain flight tankk type
Ram feeeder type
Systtem
Featuur es
priate when there are no ot more ·Suiitable for medium-large m e incinerato or ·Approp than two o ash outletss like small ·Cooling effectt (200℃ → 60℃) is incinerators highh. ·Cooling g effect is loow. ◎
Seleccted ■ Fly Assh Dischargee System
This stuudy selectedd a separatee storage sysstem that prrevents fly ash a from stiicking and binding b and ensuures efficiennt discharge and prolongged storagee. [Table 5.1.6.3-20] 5 Compar C ativve Review of Fly Ash Dischar ge Systems Classifi fication
Separ at e stor age syystem (stor agee tank + tonnbag)
Stor age tannk system
Systtem
Featuur es
·Putts in tonbag g and ships oout all to Typpe 2 waste landfill by trrucking. ·Preevents fly assh from sticcking and bindding togetheer.
·Prolongeed storage ccauses fly assh to stick to th he storage taank. ·Hard to discharge d annd thus needs frequent maintenanc m ce.
◎
Seleccted
④ Ash Processing P System Co onfigur atioon Key com mponents off the ash pro ocessing sysstem are as listed l below w: [Table 5.1.6.3-21] L List of Com mponents (E Example) Classifi fication
Item
Q’ty
Capacity C
Load d (kw)
1
Ash extraactor
2
4Ton/hr 4
2.2 2
2
F ash storaage tank Fly
2
26 ㎥
1.5 1
5-69
(8) Watter Supply//Dr ain Systtem ① Systeem Configuuration Water is classified innto process water, dom mestic waterr, recirculation water, annd cooling water, w and all arre planned to t be processsed in the w wastewater treatment plant p exceptt the waste leachate l that is spprayed and processed p in n the incinerrator. And a deionizer (2B3T) ( willl be installeed to refill blow down waater and sup pply chute coooling wateer.
[Figuure 5.1.6.3--8] Water S Supply/Dr a in System Diagr D am (E Example) ② Systeem Overview Ensure stable boileer water sup pply when w water quality and flow changes. Introduuce deionizeer to improv ve quality off cooling water and exttend the serv rvice life of waste heat recoovery boilerr. Supply cooling waater to indiv vidual equippment from a cooling to ower for proocess. Install a wastewateer treatmentt facility to reuse waterr after passing a series oof physical,, chemicall treatment. ③ Key Systems Reeview ■ Deioniizer This studdy selected a 2B3T type deionizer which requuires relativeely large sitte but is hig ghly stable annd easy to opperate.
5-70
[Tabble 5.1.6.3--22] Compaar ative Rev view of Deio onizer Systtems Classifi fication
2B3T T (double beed)
R/O R (r ever sse osmosis)
Systtem ·Higghly efficien nt in removving green algaae and SS ·Eassy to operattion ·Reqquires largee installationn site ◎
Featuur es Seleccted
·Removess 95% or ovver ·Takes a long time foor cleaning ·Requires small instaallation site
■ Water Supply Metthod This studdy planned an a overhead d tank whichh is easy to maintain water w pressuure and allow ws to use water for a certaain period ev ven in the ooutage of waater and pow wer. [Tablee 5.1.6.3-23 3] Compar aative Revieew of Waterr Supply M Method Classifi fication
Oveerhead tankk
Booster pump
Systtem
Featuur es Seleccted
·Waater supply is i available for a certtain time du uring water ooutage. ·Eassy to maintaain water prressure
·Eases insstability of ssupply wateer pressure ·Prevents water polluution caused d by stagnant water w
◎
④ Wateer Supply/Drain System m Configuraation Key com mponents off the water supply/drainn system aree as listed beelow: [Table 5.1.6.3-24] L List of Com mponents (E Example) Classifi fication
Item
Q’ty
Capaccity
Loa d (kw)
1
Coolling tower
2
650R RT
20
2
Ovverhead tank k for processs water
1
7㎥
-
3
Process waater supply ppump
2 (1 spare))
14 ㎥//hr
3.7 3
4
O Overhead taank for houssehold water w
1
7㎥
-
5
H Household water w supplyy tank
2 (1 spare))
14 ㎥//hr
3.7 3
5-71
(9) Auxxiliar y Syst ems ① Systeem Configuuration Auxiliaryy systems innclude a deo odorizationn system, airr compressio on system, aand auxiliarry fuel system. This T study planned p thatt bad smell will be suckked by a suction bloweer and proceessed in a deodorrization tow wer when thee incineratorr does not operate, o com mpressed airr will be sup pplied to the feeeders for insstruments and processees respectively, diesel will w be usedd as auxiliarry fuel, and the wastewater w treatment sy ystem will pprocess the blowdown water from m incineratorr, leachate,, and cleaninng water. Air Compr esso or
Wastewateer Tr eatmennt System
[Figure 5.1 1.6.3-9] Au xiliar y Sysstems Diagrr am (Exam mple) ② Systeems Overvieew A plaan will be made m to remoove odor froom the wastte dumping site and thee storage tank, or the inccinerator whhen it is in abnormal a opperation. Compressed air required for each systeem will be supplied s to instrumenta i ation & control system ms and to proocessing sy ystems separrately. The compressor c will be of a screw typee that produ uces less noise and vibrration. Dieseel will be ussed as auxilliary fuel foor the incineerator and th he emergenccy generator. 5-72
Wastte water from m the incineerator will ggo through physiochem p mical treatm ment and then will be disccharged or reused r as it has low conncentration of pollutants. ③ Revieew of Systeems ■ Deodoorization System This studdy plans an activated caarbon-basedd deodorizaation tower that t producees no wasteewater, has simpple constructtion and easse of mainteenance. [Table 5.1..6.3-25] Deeodor izationn Systems in i Compar ison Activated Car bon-Baseed A Deodor iza tion Towerr
Ch emical Waash Tower
System m
·Effective on low co oncentrated odor ·Needs no n drainage Featur ees ·Simple mechanical m structure ·Needs reecycling and d refilling oof activatedd carbon
·H Highly efficcient ·A Applicable to t comprehhensive rang ge of o odor ·P Produces wastewater ·C Consumes chemicals c
◎
Selecteed ④ Auxiiliary System ms
A list of the systemss are as prov vided in thee table below w: [Tablee 5.1.6.3-266] List of Syystems (Exaample) Item 1 2 3
Deodoorization tow wer Air coompressor for f processing system ms Air coompressor for f instrumenntation & co ontrol systems
Q’ty
Cap pacity
Load (kw)
1
660N N ㎥/min
-
4 ((1 spare)
8.0N N ㎥/min
55
2 ((1 spare)
9.0N N ㎥/min
45
4
Deehumidifier
1
9N ㎥/min
0..4
5
Dieseel storage tan nk
1
19 ㎥
-
6
Dieseel feed pum mp
2 ((1 spare)
1 ㎥/hr
0.7 75
5-73
5.1.6.3.5 Process F low Diagr am
[Figure 5.1.6.3-9] 5 O Over all Treaa tment System Diagr a m
5-74
5.1.6.3.6 Mass & Heat H Balan n ce (1) Masss Balance
[Figure 55.1.6.3-10] M ass Balan n ce
5-75
(2) Heaa t Balance
[Figure 55.1.6.3-11] H eat Balan n ce
5-76
(3) Boiller Steam Balance
[Figure 5.1.66.3-12] Boileer Steam Balance
5-77
5.1.6.3.7 Counter plan p for En nvironmenttal Pollutio on (1) Couunter plan for f Air Pollution ① Faccility Over view v This feassibility studdy (FS) sugg gests plans tto prevent air a pollution n from two ppoints of vieew, i.e., preventioon of generaation and reemoval. Prevvention of hazardous h gas g generatioon involvess completee combustioon of waste and maintaiining approopriate temp perature by hheating or cooling c taking innto account of temperatture based ccharacteristiics of hazard dous gas. R Removal of hazardouus gas involves chemical, physicall removal off such gas by b using SN NCR, SDR, A/C A feed systtem, bag filtter, etc. Regardinng air polluttants, NOx will w be rem moved by sprraying urea solution froom SNCR, and acid gas (HCl and SOx) S will bee removed bby spraying slaked limee slurry from m the spring g dry reactor after a quenchhing combusstion gas doown to 200℃ ℃ in the economizer too avoid gen neration of dioxinn.
[Figuree 5.1.6.3-13]] Air Polluttant Prevenntion System Diagr am m (Examplee)
(2) NOxx Treatmennt Plan ① Faccility Over view v Ammoniia and urea solution can n be used foor denitrification reaction. Ammonnia is more reactive than ureaa solution, but b seen from m chemicall stability annd economy y (ammoniaa slip) urea solution s is deemeed better.
5-78
Non-cataalytic denitrrification inv volves spraaying urea so olution direectly into ann incineratorr and remove N NOx by redducing down n to nitrogenn and waterr, where urea selectivelly reacts to NOx N without a catalyst iff there is oxy ygen. The kkey reaction n formula is as follows:: 4NO + 4NH3 + O2 -----------〉 〉 4N2 + 6H H2O(1) 6NO2 + 8NH3 ------------〉 7N2 + 12H2O O(2) 6NO + 4NH3 ------------〉 5N N2 + 6H2O(33) Denitrification reacttion removees about 60--70% of NO Ox 5, which requires: ooperation at 850~9500℃, retentionn time 1 secoond, and ureaa solution injjection 1.5 tim mes the NOxx generation. 8 sets of S SNCR nozzlee will be insttalled in twoo steps insidee the incineraator to allow fine spraying g when spraying with w compreessed air and to be protectted from deterioration by y cooling air..
[Figure 5.1.6.3-14] 5 S SNCR Systtem Diagr am a (Exampple)
5-79
(3) Acidd Gas Trea tment Plan n ① Faccility Over view v Acid gass emitted froom an incinerator makees a gas/liqu uid reaction n when slakeed lime slurrry is injected tto the reactoor and makees a gas/sollid chemicall reaction when w the liquuid slurry dries d so that it turrns into watter and a callcium comppound that is harmless to human. Ca(OH)2+2HCL-〉C CaCl2+H2O+ +H2O Ca(OH)2+2HF-〉Ca aCl2+2H2O Ca(OH)2+SO2-〉Ca aSO3+H2O CaSO3+1/2O2+2H20-〉CaSO 0 4 +2H2O Ca(OH)2+2HCL-〉C CaCO3+H2O
The reactant fall on the hopper located undder the sprinng dry reacttor, and partt of this is moved m to the bag filter and collected in n the hopperr placed und der the bag filter for diisposal. In addition, a by forming a layer of o activated carbon andd slaked lim me on the surrface of the filter, dioxiin and acid gas can be filtered one more time.
[Figuure 5.1.6.3-1 15] Acid Gaas Treatmeent System Diagr am ((Example)
5-80
(4) Dioxxin and Duust Removaal Plan ① Faccility Over view v Althoughh it is subjecct to types of o system annd operating g conditions, after incinneration of waste, usually 22 6 g/N㎥ of dust and non-combuusted carbon n powder in n the combuustion gas reeact with chloorides to generate dioxin. To remoove these, th his system adopts a the baag filter meethod. As dust iin the combbustion gas passes p the ffilter insiderr the bag filtter, it formss an absorpttion layer of fly f ash, reacction produccts, unreactted slaked liime, activated carbon, eetc., and passing through tthis layer it makes a second-order reaction wiith the unreacted slakedd lime to geet rid of harmful aid a gas, whhile remainin ng heavy m metal and diooxin, and fin ne dust are ttrapped in the activatedd carbon miccropores.
[Figu ure 5.1.6.3-116] System Diagr am (Example) (
5-81
(5) Wasstewater Trreatment P lan ① Faccility Over view v Wastewaater generateed from thiss facility inccludes: orgaanic wastew water includi ding dishwatter and ash water; and inorgganic wastew water includding boiler blowdown water, incinnerator clean ning water, baackwash waater, and lab boratory wasstewater. Ass there is no o wet cleaniing to be done in the incinnerator and accordingly a y no wastew water of high h concentrattion will be produced, a physiochhemical treaatment meth hod is selectted. This treeatment metthod collectts wastewater in a wastewater tank, neutralizes, an nd settles it using a coaagulant to reemove contaaminants. As the w waste leachate is highly concentrateed and thus is hard to treat in the w wastewater treatmennt facility off the incinerrator, it will be disposed d by sprayin ng inside thhe incinerato or. Ash wateer is reused in the ash extractor, e buut in emergeency it will be processeed in the wastewater treatmennt facility.
Wastew water tr eatm ment systeem diagr am
Leachhate tr eatm ment systeem diagr am
[Figur e 5.1.6.3-17 7] Wastewaater Treatm ment System m Diagr am (Example)) ② Estim mation of Wastewater W Generation G This faccility is exppected to pro oduce wasteewater of ab bout 34㎥/d day containiing BOD 17 79mg/L, COD 2366mg/L, andd SS 265mg//L, and this study madee a plan meet the legal standards of o wastewater dischargge. 5-82
[Table 5.1.6.3-225] Wastewater Generr ation Am mount (㎡/day)
BOD B (m mg/l)
C COD ((mg/l)
SS (mg/l)
Household wastewaterr
9 9.6
150
300
400
Ash A Effluennt
4 4.57
900
900
900
Boiler blowdoown water
133.42
20
20
20
Cleaning
2 2.4
150
300
400
Back k washing w water
3.43
20
20
20
Laboratoryy
1 1.2
100
100
100
344.62
17 79.21
2236.06
265.85
Claassification n
Orgaanic
Incineraator Inorganic
Total
(7) Odoor Preventiion Plan In the inccinerator, thhe main sou urce of odor is the wastee dump and d the waste sstorage tank k. Odor in the waaste storage tank is plan nned to be uused as com mbustion air in the incinnerator by th he forced drraft fan wheen the incineerator is in nnormal opeeration. In caase of wastee dump, a power p driven shhutter will be b used to issolate odor ffrom outsidde, and the odor o inside w will be indu uced to the incinnerator and burnt b up theere. When thee incineratoor is shut do own for a reason such as a regular maintenance, m , odor in thee waste storage taank is plannned to be removed by uusing activaated carbon in an odor rremoval tow wer.
[Fiigure 5.1.6..3-18] Odorr Preventio on Plan Over view (Exxample)
5-83
5.1.6.3.8 Facility Layout Plan (1) Inciner ation Facility Building Layout
[Figure 5.1.6.3-19] 790 ton Inciner ation Facility Layout (Example) 5-84
(2) Tr a ffic Line Pllan By liinking the faacilities including the w weigh bridg ge and the laandfill and bby separatin ng the traffic lines by funnction, no innterference will occur among trafffic lines of ggarbage truccks, bottom m ash (generral waste) trransport vehhicles, Typee 2(fly ash) transport veehicles, and d passennger cars.
Security buildin ng
Weig gh bridg ge
Pa
ars
Ga
ck
Fly Ge
Parkiing lot
In cinerator bu uilding
Genera al waste Fly ash
[Figu re 5.1.6.3-220] Tr affic Line L Plan (Example) (
5-85
te
5.1.6.3.9 Oper ation and Management Plan (1) Oper ation and Management Or ganization The waste incinerator will be operated and maintained 24 hours without interruption, and the operation organization will consist of a director, management team, operation team, and maintenance team. Incinerator operation staffs will work on the basis of 3 shifts by 4 teams a day (24 hours), and maintenance and routine management work will be done in the daytime. The number of operation staffs will be total 73 including the director, as detailed in the following table: [Table 5.1.6.3-26] Oper ation and Management Or ganization Scheme Head manager (1)
Management Team (8)
Operation Team (54)
Maintenance Team (10)
Group Manager
1
Group Manager
1
Group Manager
1
Manager
1
Manager
4
Manager
1
General affair
2
Control operator
8
Mechanical
3
Accounting
1
Local operator
32
Electrical
2
Cleaning
2
Crane operator
8
Ash handling
1
Ash Crane operator
1
Laboratory
3
Group Manager A
Individual
C
D
Manager
1
1
1
Control operator
2
2
2
1 2
Local operator
8
8
8
8
Crane operator
2
2
2
2
Working hours
06:0014:00
14:00-22:00
22:0006:00
Rest
[Figure 5.1.6.3-21] Oper ation Team Staffs by Working Hour (Example)
5-86
5.1.6.3.10 Cost of Constr uction and Oper ation (1) Constr uction Cost The cost for constructing the incinerator of 790 ton/day capacity is estimated 128 billion KWN. [Table 5.1.6.3-27] Details of Project Cost (unit: 1 mil. KWN) Classification
Inciner ator (790ton/day)
Item
Machine work Electricity, instrumentation & control work Construction work Civil work Construction cost Survey Cost Design Cost
Remar k
76,200 19,800 17,400 3,200 400 5,200
Construction Inspection
5,800
Subtotal
128,000
4.5% of Purity Construction cost 5.0% of Purity Construction cost
(2) Oper ation Cost Operation cost for running the incinerator facility of 790 ton/day capacity will use 35,996 mil Rp and the details are as follows: [Table 5.1.6.3-28] Summar y of oper ation cost (390TPD) Classification Labor cost Overhead Fixed cost expenses Subtotal Major repair Repair
Cost(Rp/year )
Description
1,474,440,000 ㆍ 73 persons 294,888,000 ㆍ 20% of labor cost 1,769,328,000 16,156,800,000 ㆍ 1.65% of construction cost 7,344,000,000 ㆍ 0.75% of construction cost
Electricity Fuel
6,240,000,000 ㆍ Fixed charge and usage rate 385,178,000 ㆍ Incinerator and emergency generator used
Chemicals
3,160,356,000 ㆍ Expenses for chemicals used in facilities
Variable Service water 601,959,000 ㆍ Process water cost Others Sub total Total
338,882,000 ㆍ 1.0% of variable cost 34,227,175,000 35,996,503,000
5-87
5.1.6.4 Sanitar y Landfill 5.1.6.4.1 Over view The sanitary landfill aims at final disposal of wastes that is safe and reliable, free from environmental pollution. For this purpose, the facility plan should consider the following features so that individual facilities may work independently but have organic relations to each other. Facilities in the landfill consists largely of road, liner system, leachate collection and drainage facilities, rainwater drainage facility, leachate treatment facility, landfill gas collection facility, and auxiliary facilities. 5.1.6.4.2 Landfill Facility Scale This study found that, to landfill incinerated wastes from 2020 to 2025, at least 330,000㎥ of landfill capacity should be secured. [Table 5.1.6.4-1] Landfill Facility Scale (2020-2025) Classification
Waste
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Total
ton/day
111
128
144
136
181
203
ton/year
40,395
46,600
52,440
59,375
65,945
73,975
338,727
㎥/year
40,395
46,600
52,440
59,375
65,945
73,975
338,727
Covering soil required (㎥)
2,827
3,262
3,670
4,156
4,616
5,178
23,709
Total landfill (㎥)
43,222
49,862
56,110
63,531
70,561
79,153
362,439
Landfill after settlement (㎥)
39,182
45,202
50,866
57,593
63,966
71,755
328,564
Note) 1. Covering soil is 15% of landfill waste. 2. Landfill after settlement = Landfill waste×(1-settlement rate)+covering soil, where the settlement rate is 10%. This study found that landfill capacity available in the project site is 120,000㎥ for general waste and 17,700㎥ for waste landfill for Type 2(fly ash), where the waste landfill for Type 2(fly ash) can be used until the long term target year 2025 while the general waste landfill needs additional site at least 310,000㎥ before it can be used until 2025 but it is hard to secure within the project site.
5-88
[Table 5.1.6.4-2] Sanitar y Landfill Development Plan Item Daily landfill
Domestic waste
Type 2 (Fly ash)
(ton/day)
101-193
10
(㎥/day)
101-193
10 2,573(65m×40m)
Landfill area (㎡)
10,499
Landfill capacity (㎥)
120,000
17,700
Service from
year 2020 2020-2021 (2.5 years)
year 2020 2020-2025 (6 years)
Duration
Remar k
Compaction density: 1.0ton/㎥
5.1.6.4.3 Landfill Facility Plan (1) Landfill Method ① Landfill Str ucture Method of sanitary landfill is classified into an improved anaerobic sanitary landfill, semiaerobic sanitary landfill, and aerobic sanitary landfill, by water content and oxygen concentration that depend on micro-organic environment inside the landfill. Although there are other methods that use individual landfill structure, this study found that the semi-aerobic sanitary landfill is feasible considering that the topography of the project site is plane with slow slopes. covering soil
waste
covering soil
waste
covering soil
waste
drain pipe drain pipe
water sealing layer
water sealing layer
Impr oved anaer obic sanitar y Semi-aer obic sanitar y Aer obic sanitar y landfill landfill landfill [Figure 5.1.6.4-1] Concept of Landfill Str ucture ② Landfill Method Landfill method can be classified into a sandwich method and a cell method and should be selected considering the topography, location, daily landfill, exposure area, etc. As this landfill deals with incineration ash and there is hardly a problem related to inhabitation of harmful
5-89
insects, flying of waste, and bed smell. Accordingly this study selects the sandwich method which can save cover soil. F inal Cove r
Middle Cove r
Middle Cove r
F ina l Cove r
2%
2%
2%
2%
~ WAS T E ~
~ WAST E ~
~ WAS T E ~
Daily Cove r
~ WAS T E ~ Le achate Line r Sy s te m
Le ach ate Line r Syste m
Le a chate Colle ct ion P ipe
Sandwich Method
Le achat e Colle c tion Pipe
Cell Method
[Figure 5.1.6.4-2] Concept of Soil Cover ing (2) Landfill Constr uction Plan ① Leachate Liner System Installation of a leachate liner system intends to prevent contamination of public water, groundwater, and soil by leachate produced from a landfill and harmful impact on the environment, which requires careful planning and designing by reviewing the topography and soil. As the cost of liner system construction takes large portion of the total construction cost of a landfill, selection of the liner system should consider economic, environmental aspects of the system. The liner system installation standard as per Indonesian waste landfill technology standard provides as follows: Liner system for landfill construction - Clay: minimum thickness 0.6m, coefficient of permeability 1x10-8 m/sec or below - Geomembrane: minimum thickness 1.5 mm In Korea, as it is hard to secure large amount of clay having a low coefficient of permeability, leachate liner system construction generally uses a clay liner mixed with geo-membrane and bentonite at 5-10% of the total weight.
5-90
Liner system for domestic waste landfill construction - Clay: minimum thickness 1.0 m - Geo-membr ane: clay 0.5m+Geo-membr ane 2.0 mm Liner system for specified waste landfill construction - Clay: minimum thickness 1.5 m - Geo-membr ane: clay 1.0m+Geo-membr ane 2.5 mm This study found that the lower stratum of the project site has fully developed silty clay having relatively low permeability which means that leachate leak will not create large scale contamination of soil and groundwater, and thus the study plans to use geo-membrane (t=1.5㎜) as per Indonesian standard in the domestic waste landfill, and, in the landfill for Type 2(fly ash), apply Korean standard to lower the possibility of leachate leak. As for the landfill liner material, this study has examined the following three options and takes the second option that can prevent secondary contamination for at least 15 years after landfilling. [Table 5.1.6.4-4] Compar ing Liner Mater ials for Domestic Waste Landfill Classification
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Liner section
HDPE sheet(t=2.0㎜)
HDPE sheet(t=1.5㎜)
CCL(t=0.6 m) (k≤1×10-9m/s)
Applicable to: · All ground bed
· All ground bed
· Slow slope
·Cut off water for 31.7 ·Cut off water for 17.8 ·Cut off water for 4.4 years years years Impermeability · Permeable period: Tv = d2/(k(d+h)) where,. d: thickness of liner (m), h : leachate level (2.0m), k : coefficient of permeability (m/s) Unit cost of · 20 USD/㎡ · 16 USD/㎡ · 39 USD/㎡ construction Applicable
O
As for the waste landfill for Type 2(fly ash) liner material, this study has examined the following three options and takes the first option that can prevent secondary contamination for at least 50 years after landfilling.
5-91
[Tabble 5.1.6.4-55] Compar ing Liner M Mater ials for fo Waste Landfill L for Type 2(fly ash) Classiffication
Optio on 1
O ption 2
Option 3
Secction
HDP PE sheet(t=2 2.5 ㎜) CCL(t=1 1.0 m) (k≤1×10 0-9m/s)
H HDPE sheett(t=2.5 ㎜)
C CCL(t=1.0 m) ((k≤1×10-9m/s) m
Applicable to:
· All grou und bed
· All ground g bed
·Appliicable to slo ow slope
·C Cut off wateer for 69.9 ·Cut off water for 49 9.5 ·Cut off water fo or 20.4 yearrs years years 2 Imperm meability · Perrmeable perriod: Tv = d /(k(d+h)) w where,. d: th hickness of liner (m), h: h leachate level (2.0m)), k: coefficiient of permeaability (m/s) Unit ccost of · 88 US SD/㎡ · 23 3 USD/㎡ · 65 USD/㎡ ㎡ constrruction Appliicable O In the doomestic wasste landfill, compact c at least 95% of o soil in thee site and paave the site with 50cm thiick layer, paave the top with w non-w woven fabricc and then ag gain with H HDPE sheet.. On top of it, lay nonwoven fabric (1,00 00g/㎡) to pprotect the lining materrial from thee material (ccrushed stone) ussed in the leeachate drain n layer.
Bottom
Slope
[Figure 5.1 1.6.4-4] Domestic Wasste Landfill Liner Secction
Considerring that thee waste land dfill for Typpe 2(fly ash)), which con ntains large amount of heavy metals annd dioxin, leeachate run noff may cauuse serious environmen ntal hazard. Therefore the plan applied the t Korea’s leachate lin ner installatiion standardds as follow ws: Mix the site s soil witth bentonitee powder, coompact it at least 95%, spread in 1 00cm thick k, and
5-92
lay HDPE sheet (t=22.5mm) on top of it. Onn top of it, lay l nonwov ven fabric (11,000g/㎡) to t protect thhe lining maaterial from m the materiaal (crushed stone) used d in the leacchate drain layer. l
Bottom
Slope
[Figure 5.1.6.4-5] Waste W Landffill for Typee 2 (fly ash)) Leachate Liner Secttion ② Leaachate Colleection/Dr aiin System A leachaate collectionn/drain systtem is to quuickly collecct rainfall peenetrations to the wastee landfill laayer and thee leachate produced p froom waste deecompositio on and transsfer them to o the leachate treatment facility. fa Prev venting soil and ground dwater contamination rrequires insttallation of a linerr system andd an efficien nt leachate ddrain system m. Leachatee collection//drain layer installationn standard iss as shown in the follow wing table: [Table 5.11.6.4-6] Leaachate Colllection/Dr ain a Layer In nstallation Standar d Classificaation
Installatioon standar d
Drain layer thickness (㎝) Coefficiennt of peermeability (㎝/sec)
Pllanned
R Remar k
30∼ 50 ㎝
30 3 ㎝
Fast draain of leach hate
-
10-2 ㎝/sec ㎝ or over
Fast draain of leach hate
Drrain layer sllope (%)
2.0 or oveer
2.0 0 or over
Fully uuse the natu ural toppography
D Drain intervval (m)
20∼ 50 m
40m or below
Minimizze leachate leak
Layout of o the leachaate collectio on/drain linees lays the main m line an nd branch liines from up p to down strreams in ordder, locates in the centeer line of thee area where the groundd level is lo owest so as to ensure gravity flow to the flow controol tank, insttalls branch lines at an interval of 40 m or lower, w with the miniimum diameeter 300 mm m for the main line, 200 mm for brranch lines,, so that the system can quickkly collect and a drain leeachate and keep the in nside of the llandfill layeer semiaerobic.
5-93
[F Figure 5.1. 6.4-6] Leacchate Main n Line This studdy plans to drain d the leaachate to a rreservoir by y installing a pump in a vertical su ump pit inside thee landfill. The T vertical leachate drrain sump innstalled in th he lowest pooint will be at least 1.2m in ddiameter annd be made of o polyethyylene pipes.
[Figurre 5.1.6.4-7]] Ver tical Leachate L Dr ain Sumpp
5-94
[Figure 5.1.6.4-8] Insttallation Plan for Leacchate Drainn way
5-95
③ Rainwater Dr ainage When rainwater in the neighborhood flows into the landfill, the amount of leachate in the landfill drastically rises and accordingly overloads the leachate treatment facility’s capacity, and moreover makes the flow and the water quality too much fluctuate to process. To avoid this, this study recommends to: drain away the rainfall near the landfill to the outside; isolate rainwater from waste in the facility where landfill is still not started; and in the zone where landfill completed, install a drain way on the surface of the final soil cover to drain the surface run-offs and thus reduce leachate generation as much as possible. In addition, the rainwater drainage should not only lessen the leachate treatment load but also systematically maintain the entire rainwater drain system. The rainwater runoff is estimated based on the ground surface in the project site (land use), d area, and rainfall intensity. This study uses a rational formula for this calculation as below, considering that the external basin area is smaller than 4㎢: Q
1 360
C
I
A
where, Q: rainwater runoff (㎥/sec) C: coefficient of runoff I: rainfall intensity (mm/hr) A: drainage area (ha) This study uses 0.4 as the coefficient of runoff considering that the topography of the external drainage area in the project site is slow slope. [Table 5.1.6.4-7] Standar d Coefficient of Runoff by Land Use Classification
Coefficient of r unoff
Roof
0.85-0.95
Open ground
0.10-0.30
Road Other impermeable surfaces Water
0.80-0.90
Park with lawn and trees
0.05-0.25
0.75-0.85
Slow slope
0.20-0.40
1.00
Steep slope
0.40-0.60
Classification
Coefficient of runoff
Source: Standard of Sewerage System (2005), Korea Water and Wastewater Works Association Referring to the Rainfall Intensity Duration Frequency (IDF) Analysis for the Asia Pacific Region, November 2008, this study assumes that the rainfall intensity (I25) is 121.4 mm/hr for the period of 25 years.
5-96
The rainwater runoff in the project site is estimated as xx ㎥/day, which is reflected in establishing the plans for perimeter drain and the landfill inside drain. Q50 = 1 / 360 ․ C ․ I ․ A = 1 / 360 × 0.4 × 121.4 × 3.85 = 0.519㎥/s where, Q = rainwater runoff (㎥/s) A = 3.85ha (drain area) C = 0.4 (coefficient of runoff in the gentle slope) I = 121.4 mm/hr Cross sectional area of the waterway outside the project site that is required for stable drain of the rainwater runoff is calculated at least0.27㎡. A = Q25 / V = 0.519 / 2.0 = 0.26㎡ where, Q25 = rainwater runoff (㎥/s) V = flow rate in the conduit line (m/s, 1.0-3.0 m/s) To prevent rainwater from flowing into the landfill, this study plans to install a drainway around the facility (U-type side gutter, width 0.6m×height 0.8m) to reduce generation of leachate, and drain the surface runoff generated in this project site toward the Cisadang river using the gravity flow.
5-97
[[Figure 5.1..6.4-9] Rain nfall Intenssity (mm/hrr ) for 60-m min dur ationn by Pear so on-Ⅲ Source)) Rainfall Inntensity Du uration Freqquency (IDF) Analysiss for the A Asia Pacific Region, November 2008
5-98
[F F igure 5.1.6 6.4-10] Insttallation Pllan for Rain n water Dr a inage
5-99
④ Grooundwater Dr ainage Rainfall on the grouund surface are mostly ddrained by surface runoff, but som me of it infilltrates into soil and forms groundwate g er. Althoughh this landfilll will cut off inflow/ouutflow of groundw water by form ming a wateerproof layeer under the landfill, it seems that tthe rainfall infiltratioon into soil from aroun nd the landfiill will form m groundwater and flow w down the waterprooof layer in the lower ground insidde the landfiill. If ground dwater flow ws through the t lower groound and thhe embankm ment for an eextended peeriod, the so oil particles will flow out o with groundw water to causse erosion and a safety prroblems in the t body off embankmeent. Therefo ore, it is required to examinee the stratigrraphy of thee cutoff bedd after excav vation and innstall a dum mmy ditch or dabalbin d pippe to drain away a grounndwater wheere it gushes out. ⑤ Lanndfill Gas Tr T apping an nd Processiing Generally, gas generrates from landfill l conssists largely y of methanee (CH4) andd carbon dio oxide (CO2), w which takes 98% of the total gas geeneration, and a a small amount of hhydrogen su ulfide, hydrogenn, and otherrs. Methane and hydroggen contained in landfill gas is infl flammable and a explosivee, while hyddrogen sulfiide and amm monia causee malodor, which w may affect the environm ment when leak. l Draining gas geneerated from landfill as soon as posssible will not n only prevent danger d but also a accelerrate decompposition insiide the landfill and enhhance stabiliization of the lanndfill. A lanndfill can bee seen as an anaerobic reactor, r having a decom mposition mechanissm as detailled below:
[Tabble 5.1.6.4-8 8] Gener al Proper ty of o Landfill Gas G (0℃, 11atm) P operty Pr
Measur M emeent
Temperature (℃ ℃)
37.7 - 48.88
Specific gravity y
1.02 - 1.066
Waater content
Saturated
Higher heaating value (㎉/㎥)
3,560 3 - 4,4550
Source)) Integrated Solid Wastte, George T Tchobanoglo ous and 2 others, 1993 Landfill gas generattion from th he sanitary l andfill shou uld be assessed taking iinto accoun nt all inclusiveely of the am mount of org ganic wastee that is the source of laandfill gas aand how lon ng the waste haas been burieed. Landfilll gas generaated by an anaerobic a reaction mechhanism can be expressed as CaHbO OcNd in thee form of geeneral organ nic matter th hrough chem mical properrty analysis of the wastee brought in nto the landdfill, and thee total volum me of the poossible land dfill 5-100
generatioon can be esstimated usiing the folloowing formula.
Organic matters thatt generate laandfill gas ccan be classsified into faast, intermeediate, and slow s decompoosing matterrs based on the decompposition ratee as detailed d below: [Tabble 5.1.6.4-9] Waste C Classificatioon by Decom mposition R Rate Matter
Tim me r equir ed d for deecompositio on
food, newspaper, n fallen leavees, sludge, etc e
3m months∼ 5yeears
Paper, w wood, textilee, etc
5yeears∼ 50yeears
rubbeer, leather, etc e
500 years or ov ver
Claassification Fast ddecomposinng matter Inttermediate decom mposing mattter Slow decomposin d ng matter
Landfill gas generattion is foreccasted usingg the EPA Model. M The estimation e oof landfill gaas generatioon in the Cipeucang Laandfill foundd that the maximum m lan ndfill gas geeneration will w be 21.51㎥//minute (yeaar 2020), bu ut after the iincinerator launches in 2020, it wiill drasticallly fall. [Table 5.11.6.4-10] Laandfill Gas Gener ation Forecast [ZONE 1 - ZONE 3] Year
L Landfill gaas gener atioon
Year Y
Landfill gas gener ation a
㎥/yr
㎥/miin
㎥/yr
㎥/m min
20113
505,537
0.96
2021 2
8,533,2955
16.24
20114
1,083,062
2.06
2022 2
6,527,6788
12.42
20115
2 2,070,853
3.94
2023 2
5,070,471
9.65
20116
3,243,443
6.17
2024 2
4,006,1666
7.62
20117
4 4,695,476
8.93
2025 2
3,224,0166
6.13
20118
6 6,541,059
12.444
2026 2
2,645,5255
5.03
20119
8 8,930,888
16.999
2027 2
2,199,2855
4.18
20220
111,306,697
21.511
2028 2
1,859,4822
3.54
As the laandfill gas generation g from fr zone 3 landfill to be b installed this time iss estimated at 0.30 ㎥/min (22025), no additional a gaas trap will be installedd.
5-101
[Table 5.1.6.4-11] Landfill Gas Generation Forecast [ZONE 3] Landfill gas generation
Year
㎥/yr
㎥/min
2021
20,041
0.04
2022
42,472
0.08
2023
67,029
0.13
2024
94,182
0.24
2025
123,661
0.30
2026
156,109
0.29
2027
150,740
0.28
2028
145,556
0.27
The largest landfill gas generation in the Cipeucang Landfill is estimated at 21.51㎥/minute and thus introducing a landfill gas recycle system has some feasibility. From 2020 when the incinerator starts running, the figure would drastically fall, and if soil covering is not made, the content of methane gas that generates from anaerobic decomposition could be low. Moreover, if waste collection rate fails to reach 2019’s target the landfill gas generation is likely to be smaller than expected. Therefore, it seems reasonable to establish a plan for landfill gas recycle after checking waste collection trend in 2016-2018 and performing a landfill gas extraction test. Power generation from landfill gas is estimated as follows: - Annual landfill gas collection (50% of average generation in 2019-2028) 5.17 ㎥/min × 60 min/hour × 24 hours/day × 365 days/year = 2,717,352 ㎥/year - Landfill gas generated: 4,500kcal/㎥/household - Total energy available: 2,717,352㎥/year × 4,500kcal/㎥ = 1.22×1010kcal/year - Maximum power production (Assume the efficiencies of the gas engines is 40% of the ideal) (
5.17 ㎥/min × 4,500 kcal/㎥ × 60 min/hr
)×0.4=649kWh≒ 0.65 MWh
860kcal/kWh
Landfill gas trap installation is divided into vertical and horizontal traps. The horizontal gas trap features early trapping and thus can be an active measure against odor and possible complaint from the community, but it has problems including possible breakdown of trapping pipe and lowered trapping efficiency due to inundation of leachate. 5-102
The trappping well coonstruction to collect laandfill gas from f existin ng landfill (zzone 1 - zon ne 2) will incluude: excavaating 80% of the landfilll height usiing a verticaal excavatorr (e.g., Augar) where lanndfill has been done to o a certain leevel (at leasst 10m), securing an eff ffective widtth of trapping using graveel or others having a hiigh permeabbility, installing a perfoorated drain pipe (150-2000 mm) for trrapping or transfer, insttalling vertiical trapping g wells at evvery 50m consideriing that a veertical trapp ping hole noormally cann trap gas 0.2 2-1.0 ㎥/m min, and, if it is hard to recyclle, connectinng a simple incineratorr to the vertiical trapping well to buurn away the gas generatedd.
Examp ple: Simplee Inciner ato or Installattion [Figure 5.1.6.4-11] 5 L Landfill Gaas Tr ap Installation Pllan
Ver ticall Tr apping System
5-103
⑥ Leaachate Reciirculation System S The leachhate recircuulation systeem is a U.S..-developed d and widely y used technnique that recognizes landfill as a a giganticc biologicall reactor discarding the traditional concept of sanitary landfill, gives g wastee a condition ning similarr to an anaerobic reacto or so as to m maximize physiochhemical, bioological puriification ability of the landfill l and d secure alteernative energy productioon and earlyy stabilization. In otherr words, thiss system shortens the tiime taken for f waste decomposition, previouslly 20-30 yeears from lan ndfilling, deecomposes w waste at a super s high ratee, quickly sttabilizes waste and effeectively prod duces biogaas, and conttrols leachatte and landfill gas g managem ment more actively.
[F igure 5.1.6.4-12] Con cept of Leaachate Reciirculation SSystem
A leachaate recirculaation system m is divided into a horizzontal system m and a verrtical system m. Korea’s eexperiencess found that it is recomm mendable to o introduce the system m to a sanitarry landfill where w dryinng process iss done and tthus water content c is lo owered to beelow 30% on o the volume bbasis, and too feed up to o 20㎥/ha/daay by increaasing the waater contentt of landfill waste by 5 to 10% to keepp it around 30 3 to 35%. A leachaate recirculaation system m consists off a leachate collection tank t (using existing pond), a leachate transfer sysstem (installling pumps and transfeer lines), and d a feeder (vvertical/horrizontal type). In case of Cippeucang Lan ndfill, this sstudy recom mmends thatt a leachate recirculatio on system shhould be introduced to facilitate early stabilizzation in thee landfill Zoone 1 that will w be fully filleed up by 20015.
5-104
Hor izzontal Feeeder
Ver tical Feeeder
[Figure 5.1.6.4-13]] Example: Leachate Recirculati R ion System m Installatio on
⑦ Auxxiliar y Faciilities ■ Managgement Faciilities This studdy plans thaat the curren nt Cipeucanng Landfill’ss maintenan nce buildingg will be useed as a facility too efficientlyy direct and control varrious landfilll managem ment activitiees including g landfill waste w managgement, lan ndfill work m managemen nt, and faciliity managem ment. ■ Measuuring System m A measuuring system m will be insstalled at thee entrance of o the facilitty to measurre garbage trucks t and calcuulate the preecise amoun nt of waste brought in, which will be a digitall system buried undergroound and abble to weigh at least 50 tons.
Measur M em ent Display befor e Display after a sto or age and ooutput measur in ng measur ing i system [ [Figure 5.1..6.4-14] Ex ample: Meeasur ing Sy ystem Operr ation
Lo aded vehiccle
5-105
■ Wheel-washing Facility When a waste w transpport vehiclee enters the landfill, a wheel-washi w ing facility will wash off o contaminnants remainning in the wheels w and waste and dust remain ning in the bbody of the vehicle to keep the access rooad clean an nd prevent bbad smell.
② Wash W off fr ont ③ Wash off r ear wheeels and low wer wh heels and lo ower ④ The veh hicle front of o the vehiccle at back k of the vehicle at leaves a time a time [Figgure 5.1.6.4 4-15] Exam mple: Wheeel-washing Facility F Opper ation
① A vvehicle ent er s
■ Grounddwater Testt Well The purppose of instaalling a grou undwater teest well arou und the land dfill is to chheck if water barrier in the lanndfill workss and, when n it was dam maged, moniitor how farr contaminan ant outflow spreads s into grouundwater annd affects hu uman livingg environmeent. The gro oundwater teest well will be installed at 3 places and 20 m deep d consideering the direction of groundwater g r flow so that it can be possibble to determ mine wheth her the grounndwater is contaminate c ed by leachaate leak. Groundw water monitooring will be b done quarrterly and will w examinee pH, BOD,, COD, NH3-N, NO2-N, nitric n nitroggen, SS, groundwater leevel, etc. ■ Fence Fence wiill be installled around the t border oof the projecct site to control humann access and d raise efficienc y of managgement. Fence will be aat least 1.5m m high and installed aroound the borrder of the projeect site.
5-106
[Figure 5.1.6.4-16]] Groundwater Test Well in Detaa il
5-107
5.1.6.4.3 Landfill Wor k Plan (1) Landfill Wor k Over view An efficient landfill work plan is essential to minimizing the environmental impact by bad smell and leachate caused during waste landfilling and securing a sanitary work environment. Unlike general construction works, waste landfill features manual works for which work plans are made as waste is brought in and a series of repetitive and interconnected works including unloading, conveying, spreading and compacting, carrying of cover soil, grading, and compaction. ① Waste Unloading Clear designation of where the waste will be unloaded and checking if unloading is done as instructed in accordance with the landfill work plan are basic to the unloading work management. Unloading site designation should consider the following: - Unloading should be done in a place where soil cover is done and compacted so that no garbage truck’s tire is damaged or no wheels are stuck. - No transport vehicles should be let into the landfill work places to avoid crash with landfill machines. - Bulky waste should be unloaded onto a fully compacted place for easier crushing before dispersing and grading. ② Disper sing, Cr ushing, and Compacting Waste Unloaded waste from garbage trucks should be spread and graded in the landfill area using a dozer or compactor, and then crushed and compacted. The following notes and cautions should be followed if these works are to be done safely and efficiently: - If crushing and compression are essential, a compacting machine will be required that has larger crushing and compression capability than dozers. - Considering workability and safety, the slope gradient in a horizontal plane or slope should range around 1:3∼ 1:10. - The optimal thickness of the scattered and graded waste ranges from 30 to 50㎝. Rolling back and forth 5 to 6 times over the waste will get sufficient crushing and compaction. - In case of waste that is likely to fly and scatter, mix with other wastes before burying or spray water to prevent dust rising in dry season. This will prevent flying of waste and work well in compaction, as well.
5-108
Ship in waste
Ship in cove er soil
M Measure
Transshipmen nt (cover
Move and unload to
Measurre
Transp port and scatter
M Move and un nload to Repeatt
C Compact Transp port and grad de co over soil (daily//intermediate e co over soil) Comp pact cover so oil
[Figure 5.11.6.4-17] Laandfill Worr kflow (2) Lanndfill Methood Review Waste lanndfill is gennerally donee in two direections: upw ward landfilll that burie s unloaded and carried inn waste from m lower to upper u layerss using a coompactor, do ownward laandfill that buries b waste froom upper too lower layeers. Althouggh the downward landfiill has a weaakness, i.e., the compactiion density is low, but it can be ussed when eq quipment’s access a is diffficult becau use of possible damage to fundamentaal facility inn an early phhase of land dfill. This sttudy, too, pllans to apply thiis method only to the 1st landfill laayer (bottom m layer of th he fundameental facility y), and from the second layer and upwaard (upper llayers of lan ndfill) the upward u landdfill method seems feasible bbecause thiss method co ompacts bettter.
5-109
(3) Landfill Facility Operation Standard This study set a standard for landfill facility operation based on Korea’s accumulated waste landfill operation skills, and planned the waste carry-in time and landfill time by taking account of the waste collection and transport system, workability, traffic impact, and aesthetic factors, etc. ① Standar d Carr y-in Time Waste carry-in time should be operated flexibly considering the collection time, waste collection system, traffic conditions, etc., so that the carried-in waste can be buried and covered with soil as soonest as possible to ensure efficient landfill management. Standard daily waste carry-in time: 8 hours (AM 7:00 - PM 3:00) - 06:30 - Site inspection should check the site for: : Preparedness for guiding garbage trucks to the work site : Lighting units for night work if required - 06:50 - Check operation of waste landfilling equipment - 07:00 - Start carrying in waste - 14:00 - Start conveying cover soil and unload to the soil covering work site - 15:00 - Start covering soil over waste - 16:00 - End carrying in waste and clean work site (guide and information staffs) - 17:00 - Finish waste landfill, soil covering, and work site cleaning - 18:00 - Perform final inspection and prepare a site checklist ② Waste Landfill Planning Criteria Planning should ensure that the minimal function of rainwater drain can be maintained after waste landfill and differential settlement and waste landfill volume can be maximized. To protect fundamental facility and perform systematic landfilling, the waste landfill planning should include a downward landfill for the 1st landfill layer that contacts the fundamental facility, and an upward landfill for 2nd and higher layers, and set standards of waste layer compaction, working slope, daily average landfill work volume, referencing the following figure.
5-110
- Waste layer com mpaction thicckness: 0.5 m - Waste layer com mpaction cou unt: 4 timess - Waste layer com mpaction den nsity: 1.0 toon/㎥ or over - Waste landfillingg work slop pe standard: 1:3 on averrage Daily llandfill voluume is as sh hown below w: - Dailyy average laandfill volum me in the w waste landfill facility wiill be calcullated using the t amounnt of daily waste w carried d in and thee waste layeer compactio on density. Dailyy waste carrried in: averrage 111tonn/day (2020)) Com mpaction dennsity : 1.0ton/㎥ Landdfill height: 4.7m (if staandard interrim soil covver is
0.3m m thick)
Dailyy landfill work area = Daily waste carrried in ÷ co ompaction ddensity ÷ Waaste landfilll height for each layer = 111ton/day÷1.0ton/㎥ ÷ 4..7 m ≒ 233.6㎡ ∴ Caalculation off daily landffill work areea found that
25㎡ will w be feasiible consideering the
factorss affecting the t waste caarry-in amouunt in the fuuture. - Dailyy average am mount of co overing soil is calculateed as follow ws: Dailyy landfill work area: 23 3.6㎡ Lenggth of one siide of wastee : Interrim soil covver: 4.9 m × 4.9 m × 0.33 m = 7.2㎥ ㎥ ∴ Daaily averagee amount of covering sooil is calculated about 7.2㎥. 7 ③ Perim meter Slope Finish Plan n A reasonnable finish to the perim meter slope should be considered c in order to ssecure stabillity of the slopee as layer-byy-layer land dfill proceedds and to redduce enviro onmental prooblems caused by exposed landfill sloppe during laandfilling. Althoughh finishing the t slope affter waste laandfill is lesss advantageeous than fiinishing by waste landfill inn terms of workability, w , stability off slope, and d environmental impactt, but it has a strength in securing landfill cap pacity and thhus is choseen.
5-111
Middle Cove r Daily Cove r Final Cove r
~ WAS T E ~
[Figure 5.1.6.4-18] Per imeter Slope Finish Plan ④ Soil Covering Plan The purpose of soil covering is to prevent waste from flying and smelling by wind; prevent inhabitation of harmful insects and animals, fire, and infiltration of rainwater; improve landscape, and preserve environment. Interim soil cover - Interim soil cover is planned at 30 cm considering the contact pressure and the bearing capacity for easy access by vehicles and in order to reduce leachate generation by rainwater infiltration and prevent diffusion of volatile organic compound in the landfill. Top of the interim soil cover may have problems in rainwater drain due to puddles created by settlement of the lower layers of waste over time and thus should be maintained periodically. - Compacting should be done right after interim soil covering is done, grading and compacting should be done on the surface of the soil cover in the landfill zone that was damaged by traffic of garbage trucks and soil covering vehicles, and grading should be done on the surface of the soil cover in order to prevent damage to the surface of interim landfill and thus to its functionality. Final Soil Cover - The final soil cover laid over where landfill is finished should be inclined by at least 2%, which should comprises from bottom to top: a gas drain layer (at least 30㎝), a cutoff layer (of clay or a mixture of clay and minerals at least 45㎝ (k=1×10-6㎝/sec or below), or at least 30 ㎝ (k=1× 10-6㎝/sec or below) of clay or clay-mineral mixed soil and on top of it a 1.5 mm or thicker cutoff membrane of synthetic polymers), a drain layer (at least 30 cm of sand and others), and a planting layer (at least 60㎝) in order.
5-112
(4) Equipment Procurement Plan Smooth and efficient collection, transport, and landfill of waste requires proper equipment and machines. Especially, equipment and machines used in the waste landfill should be planned and classified based on their use, i.e., landfilling, soil covering, or others. landfill equipment’s basic specification may not exactly fit the site conditions but it lists what should be equipped as a landfill equipment and thus a plan should be set accordingly. Applicability of landfill equipment may differ with conditions of the site, but the following basic requirements should be met in order to perfect dispersion and compaction in the landfill: [Table 5.1.6.4-12] Gener al Equipment Plan Based on Waste Amount Waste (ton/day)
Equipment
0-20
9,000 kg dozer (1) or 9,000-11,500 kg loader (1)
20-50
9,000-11,500 kg dozer or 11,500-14,000 loader (1)
50-130
14,000 kg dozer (1) or 18,000 kg loader +(18,000 kg-23,000 kg) compactor (1) 20,000 kg dozer (1) or 23,000 kg loader +(18,000kg-23,000kg) compactor (1)
130-250 250-500
36,000-40,000 kg dozer (1)+(18,000 kg-20,000 kg) compactor (1)
36,000-40,000 kg dozer (1)+(32,000 kg-36,000 kg) compactor (1)+ auxiliary equipment When the characteristics of remaining ash after incineration is considered, the dozer is deemed 500+
reasonable because it can do spreading and compacting at a time. [Table 5.1.6.4-13] Equipment Procurement Plan Classification
Use
Requir ed units
Dozer (19 ton)
Dispersion and compaction of waste; soil covering
Excavator (0.7㎥)
Cover soil excavation and loading
1
Dump tr uck (10 ton)
Cover soil transport
1
5-113
1
Remar k Use existing equipment Use existing equipment Use existing equipment
5.1.6.4.4 Oper ation and Management Plan (1) Oper ation and Management Or ganization As waste landfill transits to sanitary landfill from unsanitary open dumping, construction of landfill facility, operation and maintenance of leachate treatment facility requires professional skills and efficient organization. This study suggests the following plan for operation and management of the entire landfill facility. Gener al Manager Directs and supervises the entire landfill facility. Management Team is responsible for : Business planning Budgeting and accounting Personnel, service, security-related matters Illegal waste dumping and regulation Metering and control of waste carried into the landfill Billing and collection of municipal waste disposal fee Control of vehicle’s access to the landfill Oper ation Team Planning and execution of landfill and soil covering plans Maintenance of access road and drainage Disease control and environment cleaning Operation and management of leachate treatment facility Maintenance of management facilities Vehicles and heavy equipment management
5-114
General Manager (1)
Management (3)
Operation (13)
Administration 1 Accounting 1 Waste carry-in 1
management 1 Landfill operation 3 Leachate treatment facility 2 Field staff 7
[Figure 5.1.6.4-19] Landfill Oper ation and Management Or ganization
(2) Oper ation and Management Items Waste landfill facility operation and management should be done on fundamental facility, landfill work, and follow up management after landfilling. The following items are listed to help perform this efficiently: [Table 5.1.6.4-14] Oper ation and Management Items Classification Fundamental facility management Waste landfilling
Oper ation and management items · Road, facilities for leachate cutoff/collection/drain, groundwater and rainwater drain, leachate treatment; landfill related facility, landscaping facility, buildings, auxiliary facilities, and measuring systems · Procuring cover soil (store and use soil secured during landfill construction) · Landfilling and soil covering
Equipment and · Equipment for landfilling and soil covering machines management · Machine, electricity, and measurement control facilities Envir onment Management
· Flying ashes, groundwater contamination, noise, and others
Safety Management
· Fire prevention, perimeter fences, ground settlement, traffic safety
5-115
5.1.6.4.5 Constr uction Cost and Oper ation Cost (1) Constr uction Cost Construction cost for the landfill is estimated separately for the domestic waste landfill and the waste landfill for Type 2(fly ash), as detailed in the following table: [Table 5.1.6.4-15] Landfill Constr uction Cost Classification
Domestic waste Landfill
Waste Landfill For Type 2 (Fly ash)
Amount (Million Rp.)
Earthwork Pavement Leachate cutoff Leachate collection/drain Rainwater drain Auxiliary facilities Subtotal Leachate cutoff Leachate collection/drain Building work Subtotal Total
Remar k
3,111 8,053 3,957 774 917 1,494 18,306 2,387 246 14,301 16,934 35,240
(2) Oper ation Cost Operation cost for the waste treatment facility comprises labor cost, electricity fee, and maintenance cost, as detailed below: [Table 5.1.6.4-16] Annual Landfill Oper ation Cost Amount (Million Rp.)
Remar k
Labor cost
381
Landfill management staffs = 17
Management cost Sub-total Fuel Cover soil Etc cost Sub-total
76.2 457.2 156.42 262.8 6.82 423.412
Classification
Fixed Cost
Variable Cost
Total
880.612
5-116
Fuel for vehicle 1% of Variable cost
5.2 Economical and Financial Feasibility Study 5.2.1 Estimated Cost of Investment 5.2.1.1 Transfer Depot The investment cost by installation scale of the Transfer Depot is as detailed in the following table: [Table 5.2.1.1-1] Details of Transfer Depot Investment Cost Amount (Million Rp.)
Classification Land purchase Construction design/supervision Civil work Building work Construction Machine work cost Electrical work Subtotal Total
200TPD
150TPD
50TPD
7,950
6,900
4,500
317
301
212
3,362 5,341 858 1,011 10,572 18,839
2,816 5,341 858 1,011 10,026 17,227
1,752 3,872 858 599 7,081 11,793
Remark
3% of construction cost
5.2.1.2 Incinerator The investment cost for installing the incinerator (790 ton/day) is estimated at 1,303,716 Million Rp as detailed in the following table. [Table 5.2.1.2-1] Details of Investment Cost for Incinerator Classification
Amount (Million Rp.)
Land purchase
23,716
Construction design/supervision
114,000
Machine work Construction cost
762,000
Electricity, instrumentation & control work
198,000
Construction work
174,000
Civil work
32,000
Subtotal
1,166,000
Total
1,303,716
5-117
Remark
5.2.1.3 Landfill Facility Construction cost for the landfill is estimated separately for the domestic waste landfill and the waste landfill for Type 2(fly ash), as detailed in the following table: [Table 5.2.1.3-1] Landfill Investment Cost Classification
Amount (Million Rp.)
Land purchase
23,716
Construction design/supervision
1,057
Domestic waste Landfill
Construction cost
Waste Landfill For Type 2 (Fly ash)
Earthwork
3,111
Pavement
8,053
Leachate cutoff
3,957
Leachate collection/drain
774
Rainwater drain
917
Auxiliary facilities
1,494
Subtotal
18,306
Leachate cutoff
2,387
Leachate collection/drainage
246
Building
14,301
Subtotal
16,934
Subtotal
35,240
Total
60,013
5-118
Remark
3% of Construction cost
5.2.2 Estimated Cost of Operation and Maintenance 5.2.2.1 Transfer depot 5.2.2.1.1 Transfer Depot (200 ton/day) Operation cost for running the Transfer Depot of 200 ton/day capacity is estimated at 451,308,000 Rp/year based on 8 operation staffs, and the details are as follows: [Table 5.2.2.2-1] Summary of operation cost (200TPD) Classification
Cost (Rp/year)
Labor cost
Description ㆍ Management staffs and transshipment 168,600,000 vehicle operators
General Fixed administrative cost expenses Subtotal
Variable cost
33,720,000
ㆍ 20% of labor cost
202,320,000 ㆍ 0.75% of the net construction cost
Repair
61,890,000
Electricity
123,456,000
Fuel
55,440,000
ㆍ Diesel fuel for arm roll trucks and backhoes
Service water
5,737,000
ㆍ Cleaning water and domestic water
Others
2,465,000
ㆍ 1.0% of variable cost
Subtotal
248,988,000
Total
451,308,000
(1) Labor cost The labor cost for Transfer Depot management is estimated at 168,600,000 Rp a year. Staff Director General affairs/accounting Backhoe operator Vehicle access management Cleaner Total
Operation staff 1
Wage (Rp/month) 3,500,000
12
Cost (Rp/year) 34,200,000
1
2,500,000
12
30,000,000
1
1,800,000
12
21,600,000 Loader driver
2
1,200,000
12
28,800,000
Loader crew
3 8
1,500,000
12
54,000,000 168,600,000
Crew
5-119
Month
Remark Class II Class I
(2) General administrative expenses The general administrative expenses refers to all the expenditures for operating an entity including fringe benefits for operation staffs, utility bills, and general administrative expenses and is proportional to the number of operation staffs. This study estimated the amount at 33,720,000 Rp a year by applying 20% of the labor cost. Classification
Labor cost (Rp/year)
Rate applied
Cost (Rp/year)
General administrative expenses
168,600,000
20%
33,720,000
(3) Repair cost The repair cost incurred from operation of the Transfer Depot is estimated at 61,890,000Rp a year when applying 0.75% of the construction cost. Classification
Amount (Rp)
Rate applied
Cost (Rp/year)
Repair
8,252,000,000
0.75%
61,890,000
(4) Electricity charge Transfer Depot of 200 ton/day’s electricity consumption is estimated at 64.8 kWh, the annual charge will amount to 123,456,000 Rp combining the standing charge and the service fee (demand factor 70% applied). Classification
Price
Standing 200,000Rp/month charge Service fee 1,112Rp/kWh
Usage Operation Month Demand factor Cost (Rp/year) (kWh) hour (month) (%) 12 64.8
8
Total
12
2,400,000 70%
121,056,000 123,456,000
5-120
(5) Fuel cost The fuel cost consists of the money spent for buying fuel for that are run by the Transfer Depot and is estimated at 55,440,000 Rp a year. Classification
Operating Number Service Price Fuel hour and (Rp/L) efficiency of units frequency travel
Backhoe
5,500
5.6L/hr
6hr/day
1
-
Total
Cost (Rp/year) 55,440,000 55,440,000
(6) Service water charge The cost for the service water used in the transfer depot consists of cleaning water and domestic water and is estimated at 5,737,600Rp. Classification
Price (Rp/㎥)
Usage
Yearly usage (㎥/year)
Cost (Rp/year)
Cleaning water
8,150
4.0 ㎥/times
416
3,390,000
Domestic water
8,150
0.96 ㎥/day
Total
288
2,347,000
704
5,737,000
Remark Washing twice a week on the basis of 300 days/year
(7) Other expenses Other expenses than the above fixed cost and variable cost is estimated 2,465,000 Rp a year when applying 1.0% of the variable cost. Classification
Amount (Rp/year)
Rate applied
Others
2,465,000
1.0%
5-121
Cost (Rp/year)
5.2.2.1.2 Transfer Depot (150 ton/day) Operation cost for running the Transfer Depot of 150 ton/day capacity is estimated at 416,040,000 Rp/year based on 7 operation staffs, and the details are as follows: [Table 5.2.2.2-2] Summary of operation cost (150TPD) Classification
Cost (Rp/year)
Labor cost General Fixed administrative cost expenses Subtotal
30,120,000
Variable cost
ㆍ 20% of labor cost
180,720,000
Repair
58,740,000
Electricity
Description
150,600,000 ㆍ Full-time management staffs, transshipment vehicles and tank truck operators
ㆍ 0.75% of the net construction cost
123,456,000 ㆍ
Fuel
46,200,000
ㆍ Diesel fuel for arm roll trucks and backhoes
Service water
4,595,000
ㆍ Cleaning water and domestic water
Others
2,329,000
ㆍ 1.0% of variable cost
Subtotal
235,320,000
Total
416,040,000
(1) Labor cost The labor cost for Transfer Depot management staffs and arm roll truck operators is estimated at 150,600,000 Rp a year. Staff
Operation staff
Wage (Rp/month)
Month
Cost (Rp/year)
Remark
1
2,850,000
12
34,200,000
Class II Class I
Director General affairs/accounting Backhoe operator Vehicle access management Cleaner
1
2,500,000
12
30,000,000
1
1,800,000
12
21,600,000 Loader driver
2
1,200,000
12
28,800,000
Loader crew
2
1,500,000
12
36,000,000
Crew
Total
7
150,600,000
5-122
(2) General administrative expenses The general administrative expenses refers to all the expenditures for operating an entity including fringe benefits for operation staffs, utility bills, and general administrative expenses and is proportional to the number of operation staffs. This study estimated the amount at 30,120,000 Rp a year by applying 20% of the labor cost. Classification
Labor cost (Rp/year) Rate applied
General administrative expenses
150,600,000
20%
Cost (Rp/year) 30,120,000
(3) Repair cost This cost refers to the cost of repairing the transfer depot facilities, and is estimated at 58,740,000 Rp a year when applying 0.75% of the construction cost. Classification
Construction cost (Rp)
Rate applied
Cost (Rp/year)
Repair
7,832,000,000
0.75%
58,740,000
(4) Electricity charge Transfer Depot of 150 ton/day’s electricity consumption is estimated at 64.8 kWh, an the annual charge will amount to 124,577,000 Rp combining the standing charge and the service fee (demand factor 70% applied). Classification
Price
Standing 200,000Rp/month charge Service fee 1,112Rp/kWh
Demand Usage Operation Month factor Cost (Rp/year) (kWh) hour (month) (%) 12 64.8
8
Total
12
2,400,000 70%
121,056,000 123,456,000
5-123
(5) Fuel cost The fuel cost consists of the money spent for buying fuel for that are run by the Transfer Depot and is estimated at 46,200,000 Rp a year. Classification Backhoe
Operating Number Service Price Fuel hour and (Rp/L) efficiency of units frequency travel 5,500
5.6L/hr
5hr/day
1
-
Total
Cost (Rp/year) 46,200,000 46,200,000
(6) Service water charge Service water used by the transfer depot is estimated to cost 4,595,000Rp a year. Classification
Price (Rp/㎥)
Daily use
Yearly usage (㎥/year)
Cleaning water
8,150
3.0 ㎥/times
312
Domestic water
8,150
0.84 ㎥/day
252
Total
Cost (Rp/year)
Remark
Washing twice a 2,542,000 week 2,053,000 on the basis of 300 days/year
564
4,595,000
(7) Other expenses Other expenses than the above fixed cost and variable cost is estimated 2,329,000 Rp a year when applying 1.0% of the variable cost. Classification
Amount (Rp/year)
Rate applied
Others
2,329,000
1.0%
5-124
Remark
5.2.2.1.3 Transfer Depot (50 ton/day) Operation cost for running the Transfer Depot of 50 ton/day capacity is estimated at 298,554,000 Rp/year based on 5 operation staffs, and the details are as follows: [Table 5.2.2.2-3] Summary of operation cost (50TPD) Classification
Cost (Rp/year)
Labor cost General Fixed administrative cost expenses Subtotal
Variable cost
Description
118,200,000 ㆍ Full-time management staffs, transshipment vehicles and tank truck operators 23,640,000
ㆍ 20% of labor cost
141,840,000
Repair
41,752,000
ㆍ 0.75% of the net construction cost
Electricity
74,137,000
ㆍ
Fuel
36,960,000
ㆍ Diesel fuel for arm roll trucks and backhoes
Service water
2,314,000
ㆍ Cleaning water and domestic water
Others
1,551,000
ㆍ 1.0% of variable cost
Subtotal
156,714,000
Total
298,554,000
(1) Labor cost The labor cost for Transfer Depot management staffs and backhoe operators is estimated at 118,200,000 Rp a year. Staff
Operation staff
Wage (Rp/month)
Month
Cost (Rp/year)
Remark
1
2,850,000
12
34,200,000
Class II Class I
Director General affairs/accounting Backhoe operator Vehicle access management Cleaner
1
2,500,000
12
30,000,000
1
1,800,000
12
21,600,000 Loader driver
1
1,200,000
12
14,400,000
Loader crew
1
1,500,000
12
18,000,000
Crew
Total
5
118,200,000
5-125
(2) General administrative expenses The general administrative expenses refers to all the expenditures for operating an entity including fringe benefits for operation staffs, utility bills, and general administrative expenses and is proportional to the number of operation staffs. This study estimated the amount at 23,640,000 Rp a year by applying 20% of the labor cost. Classification
Labor cost (Rp/year) Rate applied
General administrative expenses
118,200,000
Cost (Rp/year)
20%
23,640,000
(3) Repair cost The repair cost incurred from operation of the Transfer Depot is estimated at 41,752,000Rp a year when applying 0.75% of the construction cost. Classification
Construction cost (Rp)
Rate applied
Cost (Rp/year)
Repair
5,567,000,000
20%
41,752,000
(4) Electricity charge Transfer Depot of 50 ton/day’s electricity consumption is estimated at 38.40 kWh, an the annual charge will amount to 74,137,000 Rp combining the standing charge and the service fee (demand factor 70% applied). Classification Standing charge Service fee
Price
Demand Usage Operation Month factor Cost (Rp/year) (kWh) hour (month) (%)
200,000Rp/month 1,112Rp/kWh
12 38.40
8
Total
12
2,400,000 70
71,737,000 74,137,000
5-126
(5) Fuel cost The fuel cost consists of the money spent for buying fuel for that are run by the Transfer Depot and is estimated at 36,960,000 Rp. Classification
Operating Number Service Price Fuel hour and (Rp/L) efficiency of units frequency travel
Backhoe
5,500
5.6L/hr
4hr/day
1
Cost (Rp/year) 36,960,000
Total
36,960,000
(6) Service water charge The service water charge is estimated at 2,314,000 Rp a year. Classification
Price (Rp/㎥)
Daily use (㎥/day)
Yearly usage (㎥/year)
Cleaning water
8,150
1.0
104
Domestic water
8,150
0.60
180
Total
284
Cost (Rp/year)
Remark
Washing twice a 847,600 week on the basis of 300 1,467,000 days/year 2,314,000
(7) Other expenses Other expenses than the above fixed cost and variable cost is estimated 1,551,000 Rp a year when applying 1.0% of the variable cost. Classification
Amount (Rp/year)
Rate applied
Others
1,551,000
1.0%
5-127
Remark
5.2.2.2 Incinerator Operating the incinerator costs 35,996,503,000 Rp a year as detailed below: [Table 5.2.2.2-1] Summary of operation cost (790TPD) Classification Labor cost
Cost (Rp/year)
Description
1,474,440,000 ㆍ Residential management staffs, operator team, maintenance and test team, others
General Fixed cost administrative 294,888,000 ㆍ 20% of labor cost expenses Subtotal
1,769,328,000
Major repair 16,156,800,000 ㆍ 1.65% of construction cost
Variable cost
Repair
7,344,000,000 ㆍ 0.75% of construction cost
Electricity
6,240,000,000 ㆍ Fixed charge and usage rate 385,178,000 ㆍ Incinerator and emergency generator used
Fuel
601,959,000 ㆍ Process water
Service water Chemicals
3,160,356,000 ㆍ Expenses for chemicals used in facilities 338,882,000 ㆍ 1.0% of variable cost
Others Subtotal Total
34,227,175,000 35,996,503,000
(1) Labor cost The labor cost consists of the payables to the management staffs, vehicle operator team, maintenance and test team, and other operation staffs of the incinerator facility and is estimated at 1,474,440,000 Rp a year. Classification
Operation staff
Cost (Rp/year)
Director Management Team Vehicle operator team Maintenance and test team Total
1 8 54 10 73
34,200,000 164,640,000 1,074,000,000 201,600,000 1,474,440,000 5-128
Remark
(2) General administrative expenses The general administrative expenses refers to all the expenditures for operating an entity including fringe benefits for operation staffs, utility bills, and general administrative expenses and is proportional to the number of operation staffs. This study estimated the amount at 294,888,000Rp a year by applying 20% of the labor cost. Classification
Labor cost (Rp/year)
Rate applied
Cost (Rp/year)
General administrative expenses
1,474,440,000
20%
294,888,000
(3) Major repair The cost of major repair assumes 1.65% of the construction cost and is estimated at yearly 16,156,800,000Rp. Classification
Construction cost (Rp)
Rate applied
Cost (Rp/year)
Major repair
979,200,000,000
1.65%
16,156,800,000
(4) Repair cost The cost of facility maintenance is estimated at yearly 7,344,000,000 Rp by applying 0.75% of the construction cost. Classification
Construction cost (Rp)
Rate applied
Cost (Rp/year)
Repair
979,200,000,000
0.75%
7,344,000,000
(5) Electricity charge The incinerator facility consumes 2,600 kWh of electricity and the cost is estimated is at yearly 6,240,000,000 Rp which consists of the standing charge and the service fee. Classification
Price
Standing charge 200,000Rp/month In normal 1,112Rp/kWh operation Total
Usage (kWh)
Hour of use (month / hr)
Cost (Rp/year)
2,600
12
6,240,000,000
-
6,240,000,000
5-129
(6) Fuel cost The cost of fuel for the incinerator consists of the cost of fuel for starting the incinerator and that required for operating the emergency generator, and is estimated at yearly 385,177,590Rp. Classification
Fuel consumption (㎥/use)
Number of use (use count/yr, hr/yr)
Price (Rp/㎥)
21.42 1.93
3 3
5,500,000 5,500,000
Starting incinerator Emergency generator Total
Cost (Rp/year) 353,370,360 31,807,230 385,177,590
(7) Service water charge Service water charge is estimated at 601,959,000 Rp/year. Classification Process water
Price (Rp/㎥) 8,150
Daily use (㎥/day)
Yearly usage (㎥/year)
246.2
73,860
Total
Cost (Rp/year)
Remark
601,959,000
on the basis of 300 days/year
601.959,000
(8) Chemicals cost Chemicals used in the incinerator facility includes liquefied slaked lime, activated carbon, ammonia, and wastewater treatment chemicals, and they cost 1,580,178,000Rp/year. Classification Chemicals for scale removal Deoxidizer pH regulator Slaked lime slurry (20%) Activated carbon Ammonia (25%) Hydrochloric acid (35%) NaOH(33%) sulfuric acid (98%) NaOH(20%) Alum Polymer Total Total
Price
Cost (Rp/year)
Yearly usage
Remark
48,000Rp/㎏
837 ㎏/year
40,176,000
72,000Rp/㎏ 79,200Rp/㎏ 1,440Rp/㎏ 52,800Rp/㎏ 39,600Rp/L 1,536Rp/㎏ 3,936Rp/㎏ 1,320Rp/㎏ 3,936Rp/㎏ 1,680Rp/㎏ 66,000Rp/㎏
1,581.6 ㎏/year 1,054.5 ㎏/year 214,806 ㎏/year 2,177 ㎏/year 21,165L/year 10,506 ㎏/year 14,895 ㎏/year 33 ㎏/year 23.7 ㎏/year 2,640 ㎏/year 13.2 ㎏/year
113,875,000 83,516,000 309,321,000 114,951,000 838,134,000 16,137,000 58,625,000 44,000 93,000 4,435,000 871,000 1,580,178,000 3,160,356,000
1 system 2 systems
(9) Other expenses Other expenses than the above fixed cost and variable cost is estimated 338,882,000 Rp a year when applying 1.0% of the variable cost. Classification
Amount (Rp/year)
Rate applied
Others
338,882,000
1.0%
5-130
Remark
5.2.2.3 Landfill Facility Operation cost for the waste landfill comprises labor cost, repair cost, fuel cost, and other expenses, as detailed below: [Table 5.2.2.3-1] Annual Landfill Operation Cost Classification
Fixed cost
Amount (Rp)
Remark
Labor cost
381,000,000
Landfill management staffs = 10
General administrative expenses
76,200,000
Variable cost
Subtotal
457,200,000
Fuel
156,420,000
Cover soil
262,800,000
Others
6,820,000
Subtotal
423,412,000
Total
Fuel for equipment
1% of variable cost
880,612,000
(1) Labor cost The labor cost for landfill management and operation staffs is estimated at 381,000,000Rp a year. Staff
Operation staff
Wage (Rp/month)
Month
Cost (Rp/year)
Remark
Director
1
2,850,000
12
34,200,000
Class II
Office worker
1
2,500,000
12
30,000,000
Class I
Accountant
1
2,500,000
12
30,000,000
Class I
Waste collection management
1
2,500,000
12
30,000,000
Class I
Landfill management
1
2,500,000
12
30,000,000
Class I
Backhoe operator
1
1,800,000
12
21,600,000
Loader driver
Dump driver
1
1,800,000
12
21,600,000
Driver
Dozer
1
1,800,000
12
21,600,000
Loader driver
Field staff
7
1,500,000
12
162,000,000
Crew
Total
15
381,000,000
5-131
(2) General administrative expenses The general administrative expenses refers to all the expenditures for operating an entity including fringe benefits for operation staffs, utility bills, and general administrative expenses and is proportional to the number of operation staffs. This study estimated the amount at 76,200,000 Rp a year by applying 20% of the labor cost. Classification
Labor cost (Rp/year)
Rate applied
Cost (Rp/year)
General administrative expenses
381,000,000
20%
76,200,000
(3) Cover soil cost Cost of cover soil required for operation of the landfill is estimated 262,800,000 Rp/year. Classification
Daily demand (㎡/day)
Price (Rp/㎥)
Cost (Rp/year)
Repair
7.2
100,000
262,800,000
(4) Fuel cost Cost of the fuel used for landfill is estimated at 156,420,000 Rp/year. Classification
Price (Rp/L)
Fuel efficiency
Operating hours
Backhoe Dump truck (25 ㎥) Bulldozer
5,500
Number of units
5,500
10.5L/hr
3hr/day
1
51,975,000
5,500
21.1L/hr
3hr/day
1
104,445,000
23.8L/hr
3hr/day
1
117,810,000
Total
Cost (Rp/year)
156,420,000
(5) Other expenses Other expenses than the above fixed cost and variable cost is estimated at 4,192,000 Rp/year when applying 1.0% of the variable cost. Classification
Cost (Rp/year)
Rate applied
Others
4,192,000
1.0%
5-132
Remark
5.2.3. Types of Economic Benefits of Waste Projects The benefits from operation of the waste treatment facility include a direct benefit that is easily estimated into monetary value and an indirect benefit that is hard to evaluate into monetary value due to external factors. Depending on the beneficiary of the benefit incurred, the benefit earned will vary. The easily estimated direct benefit comes from the waste disposal fee and the production and sale of electricity. The direct benefit that is hard to reduce to a monetary value due to external factors consists of the benefit from improved environment such as improved living environment and sanitary condition, and the value in use that benefits the waste throwers. Although the value in use can be used by estimating the amount willing to pay when people can not throw waste and thus want to solve the problem, the amount is hard to estimate and thus is not considered in this plan. In addition, the benefit from operation of the waste treatment facility is analyzed and reviewed based on the following criteria:
5.2.3.1 Benefits of Intangible Projects The benefit from improved environment refers to the improvement in the living environment resulted from the waste treatment facility installation, which is estimated at 100,000 Rp/person/year. Designed Population (person, as of 2020)
Per capita benefit from environmental improvement (Rp/person/year)
Yearly benefit from environmental improvement (Million Rp/year)
1,796,000
100,000
179,600
5.2.3.2 Benefits of Tangible Projects 5.2.3.2.1 Waste Disposal Fee The waste disposal fee collectable from the user for the service of waste treatment and disposal in the waste incinerator can be evaluated into a benefit. Estimation of the waste disposal fee benefit is based on 300,000Rp/ton. Waste collection (ton/day, 2020) 651
Fee/ton (Rp) 300,000 5-133
Annual disposal fee (Million Rp/year) 71,285
5.2.3.2.2 Electricity Sales The incinerator makes earnings from selling electricity that it has produced during incineration. The amount is estimated based on the power production per hour (8,800kW), operating rate (80%), and the current Indonesian electricity price 1,450vRp/kWh (medium voltage power sale). Daily power generation (kW)
Day of production (day)
Operating rate (%)
Annual power generation (kW/year)
Sales profit/kWh (Rp)
Annual earnings from power sale (Million Rp/year)
211,200
300
80%
50,688,000
1,450
73,498
5.2.3.3 Benefits Estimated The result of estimation of the benefits to be incurred after introducing this waste incinerator is as detailed in the following table: Waste disposal fee (Million Rp/year)
Electricity sales (Million Rp/year)
Benefit from improved environment (Million Rp/year)
Total (Million Rp/year)
71,285
73,498
179,600
324,383
5-134
5.2.4 Projected Income of Waste Collection Fee Based on the waste collection fee as of 2014, the waste collection fee per target year is estimated as below: [Table 5.2.4-1] Waste Collection Fee per Short-term Target Year (unit: 1,000 Rp) Short-term target year 2016 2017
Classification Waste disposal fee
2,726,520
Remark
3,657,100
[Table 5.2.4-2] Waste Collection Fee per Mid-term Target Year (unit: 1,000 Rp) Mid-term target year
Classification Waste disposal fee
2018
2019
4,908,290
5,670,500
Remark
[Table 5.2.4-3] Waste Collection Fee per Long-term Target Year (unit: 1,000 Rp) Classification
Long-term target year 2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Waste disposal 5,849,640 6,038,540 6,227,450 6,426,130 6,631,330 6,839,780 fee
5-135
Remark
5.2.5 Study on Economic Feasibility The purpose of this study on the economic feasibility is to estimate and compare the project cost and operation cost required for implementing the national priority project and the possible economic benefits incurred by them, and analyze whether the benefits exceed the cost to find whether this waste treatment facility (incinerator) project has profitability from the perspective of the body of project operation.
5.2.5.1 Analysis Conditions 5.2.5.1.1 Preconditions (1) Preconditions Preconditions for the study on economic feasibility are as follows: - Reference year of analysis: January 1, 2016 - Construction period including design period: 2016-2019 (4 years) - Facility operation period: 2020 - 2039 (20 years) - Target facility: Waste incinerator (790 ton/day) (2) Discount rate Determining the economic feasibility of an investment project requires comparing the benefits with the cost. But the cost is incurred in the early phase of the project, while the benefits come later and in the long term. But simplified calculation and comparison of the annual cost and benefits may overlook the important factor, time. Therefore, there is a need to translate the future cost and benefit into a current value, but this is possible only when we discount the flow of the future cost and benefit at a reasonable rate. Theoretically, the discount rate may be said a reasonable profit rate expected to earn from this project, but unlike in commercial projects, the market interest rate (the return on the distribution of three blue-chip corporate bonds due in in three years, for example) may not be used as the expected profit rate in public projects. Therefore, as the interest rate that serves a reference for discounting the benefit and cost to a current value, a social discount rate is used. The social discount rate is usually set below the market interest rate, because the entity that assesses feasibility of a project using the social discount rate is usually a government which wants to have its future project evaluated higher.
5-136
In most countries c thhe governmeent roughly estimates th he discount rate of its iinvestment project consideriing the natioonal econom mic growth rate, inflatiion, econom mic potential al, etc., whicch is usually set s at 7-8% in i developin ng countrie s, and 5-6% % in advanceed countriess. This studdy uses 8% as the disco ount rate, coonsidering that t the project area Inddonesia is a developing country. (3) Inflattion The cost-benefit anaalysis encou unters a probblem how to handle thee effect of iinflation wh hen it measuress the cost annd benefit th hat arise in the future, but b this stud dy ignored tthe inflation n effect by measuuring the fuuture cost an nd benefit ass a fixed priice in the reeference yeaar. The reaso on is, because it i is impossible to foreccast the futuure inflation n exactly, an nd even if aan unexpecteed inflation arises in thhe future, thee impact wiill have the same effectt on both thee cost and the benefit and a thus will have no efffect on the net presentt value. (4) Tax Considerring the natuure of the national strattegic projecct, this study y gave no coonsideration ns to taxation and it effect on operatiing cost, proofits, and deepreciation cost.
5.2.5.1..2 Analysis Method (1) Benefit-cost ratioo analysis (B/C) A benefitt-cost ratio is the preseent value of the total beenefit expected to earn ffrom projecct implemeentation diviided by the present valuue of the total cost. If B/C≥1, B thenn there existts an economic feasibilityy. Benefit-costt ratio analys sis (B/C)) =
whe ere,
: Prresent value e of benefit
: Present value of cost: c
: Discountt rate (intere est rate)
: Project duration d (terrm of analys sis)
(2) Net P Present Valuue (NPV) A net preesent value is the present value of the total beenefit expected to earn ffrom projecct implemeentation minnus the preseent value off the total co ost. If NPV≥0, then theere exists an n economic feasibilityy.
5-137
Net Present Value( NPV) N =
(3) Internnal Rate of Return (IRR R) An internnal rate of return r referss to a discouunt rate at which w the present value of the totall benefit expectedd to earn froom project operation o annd the presen nt value of the total cosst become equal e (NPV = 0). 0 If IRR iss greater thaan the sociaal discount rate, r then we can say thhat there is an a economic feasibilityy. Internal Rate of Return (IRR):
5.2.5.2 Calculatiion of Payb back Periood Calcullation of thee payback period (PBP)) of the inciinerator insttallation prooject examin ned the follow wing 4 cases of governm ment subsidyy and exclu uded consideering the inddirect beneffits (improoved living environmen nt). - Case 1 : Governnment subsid dy 80% - Case 2 : Governnment subsid dy 60% - Case 3 : Governnment subsid dy 40% - Case 4: Governm ment subsid dy 0% For each case, thee payback period is sum mmarized ass below: [Table [ 5.2.55.2–1] Payb back Period d Classsification
AL LT - 1
ALT - 2
ALT A -3
ALT T-4
Governnment subsiddy
80% 8
60%
40%
0% %
Discount rate
8%
8%
8%
8% %
Wastee disposal feee
300,00 00Rp/ton
300,000Rp p/ton
300 0,000Rp/tonn
300,000 0Rp/ton
Pow wer sales
1,450Rp/kWh
1,450Rp/k kWh
1,450Rp/kWh
1,450R Rp/kWh
NPV (Million ( Rpp)
632,713
416,876
201,040
(230,633)
IRR
34 4.84%
18.33% %
11.65%
5.15 5%
PBP
5.10 yr
9.36 yrr
14.11 yr
-
5-138
5.2.5.3 Calculation of Financial Net Present Value (FNPV) Calculation of the net present value expected as per project operation based on government subsidy 0% and excluded the indirect benefits (improved living environment). Calculation has found that the discount rate where the net present value becomes 0, that is, the economic internal rate of return where the present value of the total benefit equals that of the total cost, that is, the discount rate where B/C ratio becomes 1, is 5.14%, which is less than the applied discount rate 8% and thus is deemed economically not feasible. NPV by discount rate is as shown below: [Table 5.2.5.3 –1] Calculation of NPV by Discount Rate (unit: Million Rp) Case
Present value of benefit
Present value of cost
Net present value (NPV)
B/C
4%
1,749,232
1,618,549
130,683
1.08 0.94
6%
1,394,313
1,476,285
-81,972
8% (reference)
1,128,433
1,359,741
-231,308
0.83
10%
926,085
1,262,273
-336,187
0.73
5.2.5.4 Calculation of Financial Internal Rate of Return (FIRR)) If the project cost, operation cost, and benefit changes, then accordingly the NPV, B/C ratio, and IRR will change as below: - Case 1 : Cost increase by 10% - Case 2 : Cost increase by 20% - Case 3 : Profit - Case 4 : Profit - Case 5 : Cost increase by 10%, and profit decrease by 10% [Table 5.2.5.3 –1] IRR Variation with Cost/Benefit Case
NPV (Million Rp)
B/C ratio
IRR(%)
Base
-231,308
0.83
5.14
Case 1
-367,276
0.75
3.74
Case 2
-503,253
0.69
2.49
Case 3
-344,157
0.75
3.60
Case 4
-456,998
0.66
1.91
Case 5
-480,125
0.68
2.23
5-139
Remark
5.2.6 Financial Feasibility 5.2.6.1 Overview The purpose of this financial analysis is to examine if this incinerator construction project has profitability from the point of view of the project execution body. This financial analysis might be later used in establishing strategies of the projects including private capital inducement.
5.2.6.2 Review Conditions 5.2.6.2.1 Basic conditions Reference year: January 1, 2016 Construction period: 2016-2019 (4 years) Period of incinerator operation: 2020-2039 (20 years) Financing: - CASE 1 : EDCF 49% + Private 51% - CASE 2 : EDCF 100% In inflation: Economic feasibility study did not reflect inflation. Discount rate: 8%. discount rate for developing countries in general 5.2.6.2.2 Estimation of cost (1) Investment cost The investment cost for this incinerator includes the construction cost, consulting cost, and land compensation. Total investment details and annual investment plan for this incinerator construction project are as detailed in the following table: [Table 5.2.6.2.2-1] Yearly Investment Plan (Unit : Million Rp) Classification
Total
Construction Price Consulting Service
1,166,100 114,000
2016
Land acquisition and compensation
23,716
23,716
Total
1,303,816
23,716 5-140
2017
2018
2019
13,200 38,000
474,040 38,000
678,800 38,000
51,200
512,040
716,860
(2) Operation Cost Details of the operation cost estimated at financial analysis used the same data as detailed in the Table 5.2.6.2.2-2. [Table 5.2.6.2.2-2] Estimation of Operation Cost Classification
Cost (Rp/year)
Description
1,474,440,000 ㆍ Residential management staffs, operator team, maintenance and test team, others
Labor cost
General Fixed cost administrative 294,888,000 ㆍ 20% of labor cost expenses Subtotal
1,769,328,000
Major repair 16,156,800,000 ㆍ 1.65% of construction cost Repair
7,344,000,000 ㆍ 0.75% of construction cost
Electricity
6,240,000,000 ㆍ fixed charge and usage rate 385,178,000 ㆍ incinerator and emergency generator used
Fuel
Variable cost
Service water Chemicals Others Subtotal Total
601,959,000 ㆍ Process water 3,160,356,000 ㆍ Expenses for chemicals used in facilities 338,882,000 ㆍ 1.0% of variable cost 34,227,175,000 35,996,503,000
5.2.6.2.3 Financing (1) CASE 1 This option is to borrow all the money required for this incinerator construction from EDCF at an interest rate 0.15%, as shown below: Conditions
Amount (Million Rp)
Interest rate
Personal procurement
-
12%
EDCF
1,303,817
0.15%
Total
1,303,817
5-141
Repayment condition Payable in 10 years with a 4-year grace period Payable in 15 years with a 9-year grace period
(2) CASE 2 The option is to borrow 49% of the money required for this incinerator construction from EDCF at an interest rate 0.15%, with the rest funded by private investors, as detailed below: Conditions
Amount (Million Rp)
Interest rate
Personal procurement
664,947
12%
EDCF
638,870
0.15%
Total
1,303,817
Repayment condition Payable in 10 years with a 4-year grace period Payable in 15 years with a 9-year grace period
5.2.6.2.4 Estimation of Profit The profit from operation of this waste landfill consists of the waste disposal fee and the electricity sales, as detailed below: Waste disposal fee (Million Rp/year)
Electricity sales (Million Rp/year)
Total (Million Rp/year)
71,285
73,498
144,783
5.2.6.3 Analysis Method 5.2.6.3.1 Net present value A net present value is the present value of the total profit expected to earn from project implementation minus the present value of the total cost. If NPV≥0, then there exists a profitability.
5.2.6.3.2 Internal rate of return (IRR) An internal rate of return refers to a discount rate at which the present value of the total profit expected to earn from project operation and the present value of the total cost become equal (NPV = 0). If the internal rate of return is greater than the project discount rate, then we can say that there is a profitability. Note, however, that if NPV is smaller than ‘0’ the calculated IRR is meaningless, and therefore, if NPV is a negative number IRR will not be calculated.
5-142
5.2.6.3.3 Profitability Index (PI) The profitability index is a ratio of the present price of the cash inflow incurred by investment with the present price of the cash outflow. If PI is greater than 1, we can tell that a profitability exists.
5.2.6.4 Financial Feasibility Study Result 5.2.6.4.1 Study Result (Unit : Million Rp)
Classification
CASE1
CASE2
Direct Construction Price
1,166,100
1,166,100
Consulting Service
114,000
114,000
Land acquisition & comp
23,716
23,716
Sub total
1,303,816
1,303,816 719,940
Cash Outflow(1)
Total investment costs
Operating costs
719,940
Interest payment
451,322
25,424
Sub Total
2,475,078
2,049,180
Cash Inflow(2) Operating profits
Tipping Fee
1,422,000
1,422,000
Electric selling
1,469,960
1,469,960
2,891,960
2,891,960
416,882
842,780
Sub Total Net Cash Flow(3=2-1) Financial feasibility Analyses FNPV
-499,056
-244,619
Current value of cash outflow
1,626,047
1,371,611
Current value of cash inflow
1,126,991
1,126,991
FIRR
2.26%
4.98%
PI
0.538
0.773
5-143
5.2.6.4.2 Study Result Analysis of the pay back period (PBP) found that if the government subsidy is secured at least 40% then the PBP would be 14.11 years with NPV 201,040 million Rp, which showed an economic feasibility. Thus there is a need for initial investment cost support by the central and local governments for this incinerator construction project. As the electricity sales (73,498 Million Rp) is 2 times greater than the operation cost (35,910 Million Rp), the South Tangerang City was found that it could pay the operation cost by selling electricity. The financial feasibility study estimated the project cost and operation cost for this project and the direct benefit (waste disposal fee and electricity sales) expected to earn from this project and evaluate the present value by applying the 20 years’ period and the 8% discount rate. CASE 2 shows that NPV is –499,056Million Rp, with FIRR 2.26%, and CASE 1 shows that NPV is –244,619Million Rp, with FIRR 4.98%. The negative NPV with regard to the financing assumed in the financial analysis tells that there are no economical feasibility. However, although the profitability theory applies in determining private investments, the same can not apply to the public investment project like this waste incineration facility construction. Feasibility study on a public investment project should consider economic feasibility, rather than profitability, focusing on the cost and benefits (direct/indirect ones) and various other political priorities, and assess feasibility of the project from all angles. Specifically, a feasibility study that contains a do-or-not-do option is a complex decision making process of a highly strategic level. Therefore, this feasibility study should take all factors other than just profitability into consideration to reach a comprehensive and synthetic conclusion.
5-144
5.3 Environmental Studies 5.3.1 Documents of Environmental Studies Environment and Sanitation Aspect Residence Condition As many as 62% respondents lived in a housing complex as can be seen in Figure 5.3.1-1.
PLACE OF RESIDENCE
Non-housing Complex 38% Housing Complex 62%
[Figure 5.3.1 – 1] Place of Residence Traffic Condition As many as 62% respondents stated that there was no traffic jam in their neighborhood, while 38% respondents said that there is occasional traffic jam in busy hours Traffic
TRAFFIC CONDITION Jam All
Day Traffic Jam on
Long
Busy Hours
0%
38% No Traffic Jam 62%
. [Figure 5.3.1 – 2] Traffic Condition
5-145
Flood Occcurrence As manny as 90% respondents r that were iinterviewed had never had h flood inn their living area.
FLOOD OCCURRENCE Once per
Every Tim me
Year
It Rains s
4%
2%
Twice per Year 4% N Never 9 90%
[Figure 5.33.1 – 3] Floood Occurrence Communnity Servicee Communnity service is the activ vity held andd done voluuntarily togeether for thee neighborho ood’s sake. As many as 600% activities that were done were for environment sanitaation. Theree were 26% resppondents whho stated th hat there hadd not been any a commun nity servicee activities held h in their areaa. The frequuency of theese activitie s were varieed. Mostly the t activitiees were held d once a month.
CO M M UN N I TY SERVI CE A CT TI VI TII ES 10 00 8 80 %
60 0
6 60 4 40
10
2 20 0 Surrounding
Ro oadwork
Others
Nonee
Sanita ation
[Figurre 5.3.1 – 44] Commun nity Servicee Activities
5-146
COM M UNITY SERVICE FREQUENCY Once a Week 10%
Others 32% Twice a Week 20%
Once per Month 38%
[Figure 5.3.1 – 5] Community Service Frequency Waste Bank Waste bank is one of the government’s programs, especially DKPP’s and BLHD of Tangsel’s. As many as 66% lived in a neighborhood that had not had waste bank around.
WASTE BANK EXISTENCE
Exist 34%
Does Not Exist 66%
[Figure 5.3.1 – 6] Waste Bank Existence Solid Waste Disposal As many as 62% respondents said that their solid waste were collected and then transported to TPA, 2% disposed it on any kind of ground, and 36% disposed solid waste by other methods (most of them would burn their garbage). 5-147
PLACE TO DISPOSE GARBAGE Stream Ditch 0%
Others 36% Temporary Disposal 62%
Grounds 2%
[Figure 5.3.1 – 7] Household Solid Waste Disposal Solid Waste Sorting Effort People’s awareness of the importance of sorting their waste was still low. As many as 56% respondents did not sort their waste and 12% sorted their waste occasionally.
SOLID WASTE SORTING
Yes 32% No 56% Occasionally 12%
[Figure 5.3.1 – 8] Solid Waste Sorting
Residence Distance from TPA Figure 5.3.1-9 shows that 72% interviewed respondents live in radius less than 500 m from TPA Cipeucang.
5-148
RESIDENCE DISTANCE FROM CIPEUCANG TPA Others 0%
> 500 m 28% < 500 m 72%
[Figure 5.3.1 – 9] Residence distance from Cipeucang TPA
5.3.2 Projects Which Need Environmental Studies The preparation of Environmental Study Document refers to the Minister of Environment of the Republic of Indonesia Regulation Number 5 of 2012 on Types of Business and / or Activity Plan Obliged to Have Environmental Impact Analysis Type activity categories obliged to have environmental studies contained in the annex of the regulation. Obligation of environmental studies, including the activities of public works, consider the scale / magnitude of activity and area (metropolitan, large, medium, small). For solid waste activity, it can be seen in the table below.
5-149
No.
Type of Waste Activity
Scale/Amount
Development of domestic waste landfill; disposal by controlled landfill / sanitary landfill system including its supporting plant Landfill area, or Total capacity
≥ 10 ha ≥ 100.000 tons
TPA in tidal area, Landfill area or Total Capacity
For all capacities / amounts
Construction of transfer station Capacity Construction of Integrated Waste Treatment Capacity
≥ 500 tons / day ≥ 500 tons / days
Treatment with incinerator Capacity
≥ 500 tons / days
Composting Plant Capacity
All Capacities
Specific Scientific Reason Adjustment between Landfill total area and Landfill capacity Paradigm shift from disposal site/ final processingstorage Act 18 of 2008 on Waste Management which 3R concept became part of the description of the EIA landfill activities. It's no longer "open dumping" but as a final processing site, so there are composting and landfill gas (waste to energy). Incinerators are typically for small capacity (<100 tonsnes per day), the process is less complete so that the impact can be more significant.. This landfill setting is more stricts than that of in other regions. Technically, tidal area is not recommended to be landfill. But for some areas with no other options then it still be allowed to build a landfill in tidal area transfer station site is generally located inside the town or suburb and built in a limited land area To encourage private / community interest. Domestic waste processing at any amount must be completed with EIA because the current domestic waste is mixed with hazardous waste composting plant capacity is enlarged in order to encourage private / public party to be involved in composting
5.3.3 Criteria of Environmental Studies on Waste Projects Geo-Chemical Space and Land Space and land is necessary, because it is associated with the level of negative / positive perc eption emerged by land acquisition; as an indication of emerged public anxiety ; illustrate th e level of land speculation arising in the study area, with the aim of creating a conducive and constructive development climate among relevant stakeholders; and avoid / prevent social anxiety emerging in society.. Road Physical Infrastructure
5-150
Studies related to the physical infrastructure are necessary since the road are passed by the trucks during the construction. The load of the truck must be adjusted to the condition of road’s capability. Traffic Traffic disruption on the access point potentially occurs as a result of the mobilization of vehicles to / from landfill Air and Noise Quality Air and noise quality needs to be analyzed because decrease in ambient air quality especially dust and noise at the landfill site could potentially occur in a limited radius distribution (the predominant wind direction), especially in the work area at the project site. In addition, the operation of diesel-fueled heavy equipment on the land work may result in gas emissions include: CO, NO2, SO2 and Pb; with relatively small potential for limited distribution radius (work area at the project site). Odor The study on theodor distrubance potential needs to be identified because of waste coming to the landfill will generate odors that may have an impact on the health of local residents. Quality of Surface Water and Groundwater Type of potential impact emerged is an increase in surface water runoff which is a derivative effect of changes in land cover and topography (cut and fill), due to reduced absorption function; with limited potential on land used for landfill infrastructure . Biology Terrestrial and Aquatic Biota Potential impact occurred is the change (reduction) of vegetation coverage of moor / dry agricultural land (landfill site) and changes of habitat and wildlife distribution, particularly if it is above the unique ecosystem zone.
5-151
5.4 Social Studies Socioeconomic Aspect Education Level Education level of respondents can be seen in Figure 5.4-1. As many as 36% had their education until elementary school, 26% graduated high school, 20% finished Junior High School, 10% had a degree, and 8% never finished elementary school. <
EDUCATION
College
Elementary School
10%
8% High School 26%
Elementary School
Junior High
36%
School 20%
[Figure 5.4 – 1] Education Level Length of Residence As many as 66% of the respondents had lived in that area for more than 10 years, which was much longer before TPA Cipeucang started to operate.
LENGTH OF RESIDENCE 0-5 Years 30%
5-10 Years
> 10 Years
4%
66%
[Figure 5.4 – 2] Length of Residence Family Member The number of family member indicates the number of population exposed by the existing 5-152
TPA operational impacts and the follow through zone II TPA expansion. Most of the respondents (46%) had family member 4 to 6 people.
THE NUM BER OF FAM ILY M EM BER
1 4%
> 6 20%
< 4 30%
< 6 46%
[Figure 5.4 – 3] The number of family member Income Level Respondents income level was pretty low with 62% had the income less than 2 million rupiahs per month, which correlates with livelihood of respondents in point f. > 5 Million
M ONTHLY INCOM E
Rupiahs 8% 2-5 Million Rupiahs 30%
< 2 Million Rupiahs 62%
[Figure 5.4 – 4] Income Level
As many as 30% respondents got frequently Upper Respiratory Tract Infection, 16% itchy rash, 14% diarrhea, 6% typhoid, while 52% frequently had other diseases that were not directly related to sanitation.
5-153
FREQ QUEN T DI SEA SES S IN FA A M I LY Y 100 80 %
60 40
552 30
14
20
6
16 6
0 Upper
Diarrheea
Typho oid
Itchy Rash
Otthers
Respiratorry Tract Infect ion
[Fig gure 5.4 – 5 ] Frequentt Diseases in n Family Public P Perception Aspect A General Source of o Expansionn Informatio on As manyy as 46% resspondents stated that thhey had not heard of information oon TPA expansion plan, while 22% hadd heard it from local goovernment socialization s n, 14% had heard from m their friends and a neighbors, and the rest r got the news from the media.
SOURCE OF INFO ORM ATIO ON ABO OUT TPA EX XPANSION Fam mily Member Neeighbour/ 2% Friends N Never
14%
H Heard
Media
B Before
8%
46% City Government Others O
Socialization
8%
22%
[F Figure 5.4 – 6] Sourcee of information about TPA expaansion People’s Response on o TPA Exp pansion Plann Opinion on TPA Cippeucang Exp pansion Survey showed that there were more respoondents who o thought th hat TPA exppansion wou uld not be advanntageous. 5-154
OPINION ON TPA EXPANSION PLAN Very Advantageous 0%
Not
Advantageous
Advantageous
48%
52%
[Figure 5.4 – 7] Opinion on TPA expansion Plan Impact of TPA Cipeucang Expansion on Surrounding Community As many as 90% respondents stated that the TPA Cipeucang expansion would have negative effects on their living conditions.
IM PACT OF TPA EXPANSION FOR THE Not Harmful
SURROUNDING COM M UNITY
10%
Harmful 90%
[Figure 5.4 – 8] Impact of TPA expansion for the surrounding community Most of Respondents had multiple expectations that can be seen in Figure 5.4-9. All respondents expected the expansion plan would make many improvements. As many as 95% respondents who had expectations asked that TPA Cipeucang would not emit odorous atmosphere any more to its surrounding, 78% asked that the better planned TPA would no longer propagate flies and rats, 73% and 53% expected that TPA expansion would not be polluting groundwater and the surrounding environment, 48% hoped that they would get environmental and health incentive from the government, 20% expected the newly expanded TPA operations would not cause traffic jam.
5-155
P PEO PLE E' S EXP PECTAT TI ON O N TPA A EXPA N SI ON PLA N 100 0 80 0
95
60 0 %
40 0 20 0
78
73 53 20
23
48
3
20
0
[F Figure 5.4 – 9] Peoplee’s expectattion on TPA A expansionn plan Regulat ion Aspect
In order to amend Tangsel T mun nicipal solidd waste man nagement sy ystem entireely, law enforcem ment on solid waste management sshould be appplied. Figure 5..4-10 show people’s response on ttoday’s solid d waste regu ulations in T Tangsel. Fig gure 5.4-10 shhows that onnly 26% of the responddents knew the fact that solid wastte managem ment is one of goovernment responsibili r ities. RESPON NDENTS W WHO KNEW W GOVERNM M ENT'S RESPONS SIBILITY ON N M ANAGING SOLID D WASTE
Ye es 26% %
N No 74 4%
[F Figure 5.4 – 10] Respondents whoo knew gov vernment’s responsibiility on managing solid waste w 5-156
5.5 Leegal Stud dies 5.5.1 IImprovem ment of wa aste collecction systtem DKPP inn South Tanggerang city takes respoonsibilities of o waste colllection / traansport but it has some prooblems. Theerefore thesee will be im mproved as follow; f In case oof transferrinng of contro ol over colleection / tran nsport to Disstrict, travell time in waaste whole coollection tim me could be reduced efffectively (D DKPP car gaarage to colllection poin nt of each disttrict) and coost of collecction or num mbers of collection car. Also, strenggthen of wo ork effectiveeness or reduucing of bud dget could bbe expected d by suitablee system forr local characterristics of Diistrict by rissing of effecctive work system. s
5.5.2 M Measure for f waste collector inside lan ndfill It's practical situatioon to give waste w collecttor in landfiills a means of living affter compossition of intermeddiate treatmeent facility by b middle-tterm target years. y Locaal governmeent needs establishhment of plaans by which h waste col lector authoorized officiially can coollect waste and make theeir income for f their liviing and folloows can be conditions. Fulfill w waste collecttion or transsports law annd act as an n authorized d individuall of waste co ollector. Recomm mend to do other o work as a contract w with cleanliiness Servicce Companyy instead off waste collecting and search to find oth her income measures for f their living Exploit them t as site keeper or others o after operation of o intermediate treatmennt facility.
House conditioon nearby landfill(20155. 11)
Waste collector c in Cipeucang landfill(20155.11)
5.5.3 P Preparation of mea asure for nimby ph henomeno on Strengtheen recognitiion converssion of wastte treatmentt facility as eco-friendlyy facility ass not environm mental polluution facility y by continuuous educattion or prom motions.
5-157
Recover administrattion by participation off local residdents or speccialist in deccision of location of waste treatment facility. f Provide ssurroundingg influentiall area of waaste treatmen nt facility with w installaation of com mfort facility, discount d of waste treatm ment fee, annd other inccentives.
[Figure 5.5.3-1] Co onstruction n of cultura al space in waste w treatm tment faciliity
5.5.4 W Waste eneergy recov very baseement Activate remained heat h usage by b giving inncentives of energy colllection from m unstable heat h generatioon rate probblems, expannsion of rem mained heatt providing, improvemeent of facility.
[Figgure 5.5.5-1 1] Waste en nergy recovvery target and majorr process
For technnology imprrovement direction & aadvice of waste w energy y recovery ccompose of policy forum unnder cooperrative comm munity amonng industry, university and governnment to inspect & analyze iintermediatee or long-teerm technoloogy developpment or maake roadmaaps of condu ucting of policyy with improovement of law or instiitutions. By installlation of WTG W facility y (incinerati on) minimize simple laandfill wastte but maxim mize recycle & collectionn of energy, resource off waste and reduce environmental load and prrolong
5-158
period of use.
5.5.5 Proactive prevention and treatment measures for leaved waste Make pleasant environment by after-treatment action of neglected waste with institution of order to take measure to land-owner or an occupant. Make indication of confirm or duty of treatment of neglected waste in case of trade of business spot, land and buildings etc. Strengthen enforcement criteria over neglected waste owners.
5.5.6 Guidance and oversight of waste treatment contractors Enact related institution in which waste treatment facility installer should have technical manager related with maintenance or management of facility and keep records like follows for 3 years. -Situation of waste collection, transport, treatment, etc. -Record waste generation; recycle situation or record of waste, etc. Installer or operator of waste treatment facility, operator or discharger of industry waste or industry waste facility and waste treatment packer should submit annually reports to government.
5.5.7 Others Limitation of land use after closed or finished landfill site -
Central government can limit land owners aim of land use to park, trees, planting, construction grass area or physical facility when after close or finish of waste landfill it could be recognized there will be serious damages such as leak of leachate, losing of banks etc with worried results to lost health, property or environment. Central government subsidy -
Central government should be institutionalized to support whole or partial budget of waste treatment facility installation cost in appropriate ranges. Supporting of waste treatment facility installation cost -
Chief of central or local government can support applicant to install waste treatment facility when it's be needed.
5-159
5.6 In nstitution nal Studiees 5.6.1 O Organizattional Strructure, M Main Dutiies and Fu unctions DKPP is an adminisstrative orgaanization ressponsible foor cleaning and managiing of park,, graveyarrd, and roadd lighting in the South T Tangerang city, c under which w wastee managemeent related ddepartments include thee Cleanlinesss Division and the Dep partment Seecretary. The Cleaanliness Divvision is responsible foor waste colllection, tran nsport and ddisposal, and d facility innstallation. And the Deepartment S Secretary is responsible r for program m assessmeent and reportingg, financial affairs, officce work, annd personnel affairs. To providde the waste managem ment service as presenteed in the currrent masterr plan, DKP PP needs to build uup the organnizational capability off the Cleanliness Divisiion under coontrol of So outh Tangeranng City and develop itsself activelyy.
[Figurre 5.5.1 – 11] DKPP Orrganization n Diagram
5.6.1.1 Department Secrettary The Department Seccretary is in n charge of m making pay yment to cleaning relateed contracto ors and supplierss, improvingg and coord dinating the cleaning feee system, cleaning fee management, financingg constructiion of the waste w treatmeent facilities and infrasstructure, annd preparing g annual reports.
5.6.1.2 Cleanlineess Division The Cleaanliness Divvision operaates the landdfill and maanages waste disposal aand is divideed into the cleannliness serviice section, the waste pprocessing and a disposall section, annd the clean nliness infrastruccture and faacilities secttion. The cleeanliness seection is ressponsible foor waste managem ment policy developmeent and finanncing. This secttion perform ms planning g, training, aand coordination requirred for instaallation of th he 5-160
cleaning infrastructuure and faciilities, and is in charge of purchasee, maintenannce, and operation of the cleeaning infraastructure an nd facilitiess. This secttion operatees the waste treatment ffacilities, which w needs expansion w when the waste to energy faacility is inttroduced. Recommendeed organizaation of the Cleanliness C s Division iss as shown inn the Figuree 5.5.1.2-3.
[Fiigure 5.6.1.2 – 2] Cleaanliness Div vision Orga anization D Diagram
5.6.1.3 UPTD UPTD peerforms com mmunity ed ducation, waaste collection and tran nsport, and ccomprises th he waste collection/trannsportation coordinatorr and the co ommunity education/TPPS3R/wastee bank managem ment coordinator. The waste w collecction/transportation uniit also needs ds to increase the number oof field stafffs to raise th he waste coollection ratee.
[Figure 5.6.1.3 – 11] UPTD Organizatio O on Diagram m
5.6.1.4 SATPOL L PP This is a local policee unit. This unit is basiically an org ganization to enforce loocal regulations and estabblish the public order. If I reported bby DKPP off illegal wasste disposall, this unit enforces related laaws.
5.6.2 H Human Resources R DKPP haas 593 staffs fs. Some of them t are fuull timers an nd the otherss are contracct workers. In addition,, 43 of them m perform ad dministrativve services, and 550 fieeld workers are doing waste w
5-161
collection and transport, street cleaning, and facility operation.
5.6.2.1 Office staffs (Cleanliness unit) This study plans to maintain the those units having no direct relation to waste management, including the Secretariat, General Road Lighting, Cemetery, and Gardening units as it is, and add human resource only to the Cleanliness unit that involves in waste management. [Table 5.5.2.2 – 1] Yearly DKPP Personnel Plan (Cleanliness Unit) Classification Class IV Class III Class II Class I Total
Current Short term Population 2015 2016 2017 2 2 2 2 2 5 8 8 14 14 14 14 26 26 35
Mid term
Long term
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 7 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 18 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 41 47 47 47 47 47 47 47
5.6.2.2 Field Staffs With regard to field staffs, this study considered increasing the number of transport vehicles as collection rate improves, and estimated the number of drivers, driver assistants, collectors, and crew members accordingly to the increased number of vehicles In addition, considering the fact that all the collection/transport vehicles are currently kept under DKPP’s storage and move to individual districts for waste collection and thus spend much time in initial move under poor traffic conditions, this study plans to install vehicle storages in every district under DKPP’s management and plans to place 1 director and 3 management staffs per vehicle storage who will operate the storage. [Table 5.5.2.2 – 1] DKPP Field Staff Recruitment Plan Classification
Current Short term Mid term Population 2015
Supervisor Field supervisor Foreman Vehicle driver Diver assistant (Co-driver) Collector Worker Operation staff (TPA, ITF) Total
Long term
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
70
91
119 157 177
213
218
223
231
238
241
141
142 185 243 274
312
320
326
338
349
354
25 225
33 42 55 62 283 326 384 415
62 421
62 429
62 434
62 443
62 454
62 459
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
550
638 761 928 1,017 1,097 1,118 1,134 1,163 1,192 1,205
25
25
5-162
25
54
Feasibility Study on Integrated Municipal Solid Waste Management System In South Tangerang City
Chapter 6 Implementation of Plan 6.1 Components of Activities 6.2 Phases of Implementation 6.3 Implementation Schedule
Chapter 6 Implementation of Plan 6.1 Components of Activities Implementation of all programs of technology, law and regulations, social involvement, and system that are related to the solid waste management system requires preparation of a midterm investment program (RPIJM), spatial plan (RTRW), land compensation, and detailed engineering design (DED). Preparation of these is indispensable for implementation of the solid waste management programs. Purchase of collection/transport equipment and scales of the transfer depot, incinerator, and landfill will be prepared step by step considering local conditions and the result of demand estimation for the target years. [Table 6.1-1] Facility Plan for Target Years Classification
Collection and transport
Collection rate (%)
Processing facility Equipment (EA)
Facility (unit)
Short-term (2017)
․ Pick Up (2.5 ㎥) : 53 76.6% ․ Arm Roll (5.5 ㎥) : 66
․ TPS : 586
․ Landfill : 418 ton/day
Mid-term (2019)
100%
․ Pick Up (2.5 ㎥) : 80 ․ Arm Roll (5.5 ㎥) : 97
․ TPS : 921
․ Landfill : 635 ton/day
Long-term (2025)
100%
․ Pick Up (2.5 ㎥) : 92 ․ TPS : 1,119 ․ Incinerator : 790 ․ Arm Roll(5.5 ㎥) : ․ Transfer Depot : ton/day 113 7 ․ Landfill : 203 ton/day ․ Arm Roll(25 ㎥) : 36
6.2 Phases of Implementation 6.2.1 Short-term Goals (2016-2017) Install TPSs (485 units). Purchase waste collection equipment. Prepare WTE facility construction. Prepare sanitary landfill construction. Purchase land for Transfer Depot.
-1
6.2.2 Mid-term Goals (2018-2019) Install TPSs (351 units). Purchase waste collection equipment. Construct incinerator. Construct sanitary landfill. Install Transfer Depots (7 units). Reorganize cleaning division of South Tangerang city.
6.2.3 Long-term Goals (2020-2025) Install TPSs (198 units). Purchase waste collection equipment. Prepare a master plan for waste manage (2026-2035). Prepare installation of recyclables sorting facility. Prepare extension of incinerator.
6.3 Implementation Schedule The solid waste management system implementation schedule from 2016 to 2019 is as detailed below:
6.3.1 Technical aspect 6.3.1.1 Collection/Transportation Considering that the collection/transport equipment will steadily increase, they should be steadily secured till the long-term target years based on the demand estimated annually. The number of TPSs should be increased till the long-term target year (2025) based on the target collection service coverage so that, from 2019, the service can cover the whole area. Transfer depot installation requires at least 2 years including 6 months for land compensation, 6 months for detailed engineering planning, and 1 year for construction work, it should be prepared from 2018 and completed by 2019. The land required for transfer depot installation will be prepared by district referring to the site area suggested based on the transshipment scale (200 ton/day, 150 ton/day, 100 ton/day, 50 ton/day).
-2
6.3.1.2 Incinerator Incinerator installation requires at least 4 years including 6 months for land compensation, 6 months for detailed engineering planning, and 3 years for construction work, it should be prepared from 2016 and completed by 2019.
6.3.1.3 Landfill Landfill installation requires at least 3 years including 6 months for land compensation, 6 months for detailed engineering planning, and 2 years for construction work, it should be prepared from 2017 and completed by 2019. In addition, in preparation for the demand for new domestic waste landfill since 2022, facility construction should start in 2019 and end by 2021. At this time the service period of the new landfill should be at least 10 years.
6.3.2 Legal aspect Year 2016 should start preparing for supervision of waste collection/transport/processing and disposal by private developers as specified in the waste management law of the South Tangerang City, support prevention of NIMBY phenomenon, and regulation of illegal dumping.
6.3.3 Institutional aspect To attain 100% coverage of waste collection service by South Tangerang City in 2019 and to introduce the transfer depot system to individual districts, DKPP’s management staffs and site workers should be continually recruited and the human power should be built up through training on collection/transport/disposal.
6.3.4 Social involvement aspect Local community’s involvement should be expanded by means of, for example, installing a poster and flower bed in the frequent illegal dumping site, introducing a Focus Day of separate discharge of recyclables, and regulation of illegal dumping activities by help of volunteers.
-3
6.3.5 Financial aspect For the purpose of stable securing of waste management budget of South Tangerang City, the waste disposal fee should be rationalized.
-4
Program Implementation Plan (2016-2019) No I. 1
3
4
5
Program
Location
Unit
- Pick up(2.5㎥)
South Tangerang city
- Arm Roll (5.5㎥)
South Tangerang city
- Container (5.5㎥)
Implementation Schedule 2016
2017
2018
2019
65
12
13
24
16
74
16
25
22
11
South Tangerang city
836
335
150
201
150
-Land purchase
South Tangerang city
2.88ha
- Transfer depot DED preparation
South Tangerang city
1 lot
-Transfer depot construction
South Tangerang city
7
Technical aspect Procurement of truck and container
Transfer depot
Incinerator -Land purchase
South Tangerang city
2.63ha
- Incinerator construction
South Tangerang city
651 ton/day
- Land purchase
South Tangerang city
2.63ha
- Landfill DED preparation
South Tangerang city
1 lot
- Landfill construction
South Tangerang city
1.32ha
Sanitary landfill
6-5
No
Program
Ⅱ
Institutional aspect
1
DKPP reorganization
Location
Unit
South Tangerang city
1 lot
Management staff
21
Field staff
467
Capacity building
twice/year
Ⅲ Legal aspect 1
Legal preparation for supervision of private sector
South Tangerang city
1 lot
2
Legal preparation for NIMBY phenomenon
South Tangerang city
1 lot
3
Legal preparation for illegal dumping
South Tangerang city
1 lot
Ⅳ Community participation aspect 1
Regular community education to raise awareness
South Tangerang city
quarterly
2
Promotion activity
South Tangerang city
1 lot
3
South Tangerang city Expanding community participation 1 lot -Installing flower bed and warning signs in illegal 2 dumping site sites/Kelurahan -Focus day (river, valley, etc) monthly
4
Volunteer worker’s sanitary monitoring
Ⅴ
Financial aspect
1
Increasing fee collection
South Tangerang city
monthly
South Tangerang city
1 lot
-
Implementation Schedule 2016
2017
2018
2019
9
6
6
88
124
167
89
Feasibility Study on Integrated Municipal Solid Waste Management System In South Tangerang City
Chapter 7 Conclusions and Recommendations 7.1 Conclusions 7.2 Recommendations
Chapter 7 Conclusions and Recommendations 7.1 Conclusions At present, South Tangerang City urgently needs a management system to ensure stable disposal of solid waste, and must be prepared to implement the programs in accordance with the master plan for integrated solid waste treatment system (2016 - 2025). The integrated solid waste treatment system’s priority lies in securing a solid waste collection unit and a solid waste treatment facility, which needs continued budgeting and social agreement to installation of the waste treatment facility. Because the integrated solid waste treatment system is designed to offer a pleasant living environment to the community and conserve natural environment by reducing environmental pollution caused by waste, the city should encourage practices of throwing waste in a designated place and sorting recyclables from waste, promote active participation in the Waste Bank System and in the volunteer service for local environment preservation, and ensure consistency in the integrated solid waste treatment system. The study on the economic feasibility of installing waste treatment facilities in the Cipeucang Landfill extension site has found the B/C ratio at 0.83, NPV at (-)231308 Million Rp, and EIRR at 5.14%. But the analysis of the pay back period (PBP) has found that if the government subsidy is secured at least 40% then the PBP would be 14.11 years with NPV 201,040 million Rp, which showed an economic feasibility. Thus there is a need for initial investment cost support by the central and local governments for this incinerator construction project. As the electricity sales (73,498 Million Rp) is 2 times greater than the operation cost (35,910 Million Rp), the South Tangerang City was found that it could pay the operation cost by selling electricity. [Table 7.1-1] Analysis of Economic Feasibility Case
Present value of benefit
Present value of cost
Net present value (NPV)
(B/C)
4%
1,749,232
1,618,549
130,683
1.08
6%
1,394,313
1,476,285
-81,972
0.94
8% (reference)
1,128,433
1,359,741
-231,308
0.83
10%
926,085
1,262,273
-336,187
0.73
7-1
The financial feasibility study estimated the project cost and operation cost for this project and the direct benefit (waste disposal fee and electricity sales) expected to earn from this project and evaluate the present value by applying the 20 years’ period and the 8% discount rate. CASE 2 shows that NPV is –499,056Million Rp, with FIRR 2.26%, and CASE 1 shows that NPV is –244,619Million Rp, with FIRR 4.98%. The negative NPV with regard to the financing assumed in the financial analysis tells that there are no economical feasibility. However, although the profitability theory applies in determining private investments, the same can not apply to the public investment project like this waste incineration facility construction. Feasibility study on a public investment project should consider economic feasibility, rather than profitability, focusing on the cost and benefits (direct/indirect ones) and various other political priorities, and assess feasibility of the project from all angles. Specifically, a feasibility study that contains a do-or-not-do option is a complex decision making process of a highly strategic level. Therefore, this feasibility study should take all factors other than just profitability into consideration to reach a comprehensive and synthetic conclusion. [Table 7.1-2] Analysis of Financial Feasibility (Unit : Million Rp)
Classification
CASE1
CASE2
Cash Outflow(1) Direct Construction Price Total investment costs
Consulting Service Land acquisition & comp
1,166,100
1,166,100
114,000
114,000
23,716
23,716
1,303,816
1,303,816
Operating costs
719,940
719,940
Interest payment
451,322
25,424
2,475,078
2,049,180
Tipping Fee
1,422,000
1,422,000
Electric selling
1,469,960
1,469,960
2,891,960
2,891,960
416,882
842,780
Sub total
Sub Total Cash Inflow(2) Operating profits Sub Total Net Cash Flow(3=2-1) Financial feasibility Analyses FNPV Current value of cash outflow
7-2
-499,056
-244,619
1,626,047
1,371,611
Current value of cash inflow FIRR PI
1,126,991
1,126,991
2.26%
4.98%
0.538
0.773
7.2 Recommendations 7.2.1 Technical aspect As of 2012, waste collection rate is 39.1% (DKPP 13.7%, Private 25.4%). To achieve 100%, the sanitary service standard set by Indonesia’s mid-term development plan (RPJMN, 20162019), the city needs to concentrate its cleaning operation budget on securing the equipment and human resource for waste collection and transport. If the city incinerate and landfill the waste collected since 2020 the site required would be 3.12 ha, but there is not enough land available for landfill development. The city needs to excavate and sort existing landfills, incinerate combustible waste, and then landfill again to extend the service period of the landfill.
7.2.2 Institutional Studies This study recommends that the city should clearly define the roles and responsibilities of authorities, create a UPTD in the DKPP to take charge of waste collection/transport in the district and community education, and through periodic education, strengthen the organizational capability.
7.2.3 Regulatory aspect As of now, South Tangerang City has regulations on waste management but they have no provision for giving support to the areas affected by waste treatment facilities or prevention of neglected waste management. To attain community’s cooperation and prevent illegal waste dumping, the city needs to introduce provisions for community support and strict penal system to the municipal regulations for waste management. In addition, for the local community to be affected by the waste treatment facilities, incentive systems such as installation of convenience facilities or discount of waste disposal fee could be offered to earn cooperation of the community. Neglected waste could be promptly handled by providing a system such as an order of action
7-3
that requests the land owner or dweller to take required action to the waste. Chronic illegal dumping should be regulated continuously.
7.2.4 Community involvement aspect As most people currently rely on the municipal policy and service in the matter of waste disposal, it is hard to expect that the they can promptly respond to the ever growing waste generation caused by fast urbanization. By providing repetitive communication and educational programs, the city should lead changes in the way a household throw waste and the way they live. In other words, communication and education should be delivered to make people aware that they are the one who really responsible for cleanliness and voluntarily keep clean their environment every day throughout the year. Through repeated communication programs rather than a one time event, the city should help people understand the needs of waste management and help take part in the programs at their own will. The municipal government should make efforts to eradicate chronic dumping of waste illegally by putting a warning poster or creating a flower bed where illegal dumping is made frequently. In addition, incentives or benefits are also needed to motivate the community to take part in cleaning the streets and alleys where cleaning service is hard to approach. Granting award citations, prize money, or cleaning tools could motivate the community to take part in.
7.2.5 Financial aspect Providing people a waste management system of high standard will inevitably create a higher cost of waste disposal. Therefore the city should consider the causer pay principle and, through a social consensus, increase the waste disposal fee to a reasonable level and gradually raise the waste management budget of the municipal government to 4% from 1.4% (budget expenditure, 2014, South Tangerang City) of the total municipal budget. For the financially less independent cities, the central government prepare a system that allows it to support the local government with all or part of the cost of waste treatment facility construction. The central government should prepare a system that gives financial support to private contractors of the central or local government to help installation of public waste treatment facilities and thus attract active participation of the private sector.
7-4
Feasibility Study on integrated municipal solid waste management system in South Tangerang
1. Drawings 2. Economic Analysis 3. Environmental Test 4. Socioeconomic Environmental Study 5. Soil Survey 6. Topographical Survey
Related Documents
More Documents from "Howard Keziah"
Lcdi_report_english_final.pdf
May 2020 7
Fs Tangsel.pdf
April 2020 7
Buku-orangutan-fulltext.pdf
May 2020 32
Panduan Kerohanian Revisi.docx
July 2020 13
Data 1 Satellt Research.docx
November 2019 39