biomedical waste management – challenges & opportunities speaker ppts/day 2/session 2x/sandeep...

Biomedical Waste Management – Challenges & Opportunities

Sandeep Mukherjee

Environmental Management Centre (EMC) LLP

[email protected]

The challenges

• Is Enviro-legal Compliance linked to viability of unit?

• Is it possible to develop a balanced charging regime that leads to a Win-Win solution?

November, 2014 Environmental Management Centre 2

CBMWTDF

Health care Industry

Regulator

Viability Compliance

Service

How to develop a rational charging model?

• Is it possible to develop a scientific rationale for charging that leads to a win-win

condition? HOW?

• Commissioned by Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) in 2009-10

• Objectives of the study:

– To evolve a guidance and scheme for authorised operators/ transporters of CBMWTDF for fixing charges on Health Care Establishments

– Scheme should be rational, reasonable and should ensure financial viability of CBMWTDF


CBMWTDFs in Maharashtra


28 incinerator based & 6 deep

burial based facilities in

Maharashtra

• 5kg BMW/d - 2050 kg BMW/d

• 130 beds - 8136 beds

• Rs. 2 – Rs. 6 / bed/day (bedded HCEs)

• Rs. 62.5 to Rs.1000/month (non-bedded HCEsSize

Indicates nos. of beds

Data Collection from CBMWTDF

• Questionnaire was designed, finalized with MPCB & mailed to individual MPCB Regional Officers for forwarding to each CBMWTDF operators

• Information requested consisted of:

– Technical Information (operating capacity, beds, members, hrs. of operation, waste received, division into incinerable & non-incinerable category etc.)

– Transporter Details (area served, city, km travelled, waste received etc.)

– Financial Details (Share of Capital, cost of operation incl. fixed cost, variable cost, transportation cost)

• Received information from 24 CBMWTDF operators with incinerators and 5 CBMWTDFs operators with deep burial facility

Environmental Management Centre 5November, 2014

kg BMW generation/d

Cumulative frequency distribution of BMW generated/bed/d

Approx. 78.5% of the observed values are below 0.2 kg/bed/d value.

Environmental Management Centre 6

Representative BMW generation factor is 0.2 kg/bed/d

November, 2014

Analysis of O&M cost


Manpower_ cost 31%

Fuel cost for CBMWTSDF

28%

Fuel Cost for transportation

15%

Cost of Chemicals 3%

Maintenance cost /month

8%

Other Costs / month 15%

Financial analysis:

The fractions of average monthly O&M cost: � Fuel cost for running incinerators is 28% � Fuel cost for transportation is 15% � cost for Manpower cost contribution is 31% Cumulatively Fuel and Manpower constitute approx. 74% of the monthly O&M Cost

November, 2014


Viability analysis of CBMWTDFs: NPV

November, 2014

22.3%

11.0%

33.3%

39.6%

22.1%

9.3%

19.2%

25.2% 27.6% 27.7%

-26.6%

21.6%

26.9%

8.2%

20.5%

16.9%

-3.4%

-16.2%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

Lat

ur

Jala

na

Bee

d

Ko

lhap

ur

Th

ane

Ura

n

Bar

amat

i

Kar

ad

Tal

egao

n

Tal

oja

Sat

ara

PC

MC

Kal

yan

Ich

alk

aran

ji

Ch

and

rap

ur

Nag

pu

r

San

gli

Pal

gh

ar

Au

ran

gab

ad

Nas

ik

Rat

nag

iri

Dh

ule

Ku

dal

Ak

luj

Am

rav

ati

NP

V,

in M

illi

on

s IN

R

Facilities

NPV IRR

Development of Representative Simulation Model

• The data received through questionnaire survey helped to assess viability of 29 CBMWTDF with capacity from 130 to 8136 beds.

• In order to allow the charging policy to be applicable to a wide range of situations such as, say, 500 to 15,000 beds, simulations were required

• This Representative model was designed as a representative from the actual data received from the 29 CBMWTDF.

• Since the purpose of simulation is to test the economic viability of CBMWTDF, for various charging policies, the Base model is programmed to compute NPV & IRRs, using platform like Microsoft® ExcelTM.


Parameters used in Representative Model

Parameter Rate Unit

BMW generation/bed/d 0.2 kg/bed/d

Incinerable BMW 69 % of total BMW

Mileage of vehicle 10 km/L diesel

Max. operating speed of vehicle 25 km/hr.

working hours 10 hrs./d

Working days/yr. 360 days/yr.

Diesel requirement for incineration

0.26 L/kg

Contingency added in costing 5 %

Rent/ Lease fees payable @ 5 % of revenue


Lifespan of Veh. & Equip. 10 years

Salvage Value 5% of capex

Depreciation type Linear

Growth rate of manpower cost 6 %/yr.

Yearly diesel rate growth 7.72 % / yr.

Growth rate in nos. of members 3 % / yr.

Growth rate in charge/bed/d 5 % / yr.

Contingency rate 5 %

Yearly discounting rate 10 %/yr.

Relationship between km travel/d with nos. of beds


682

295

700

1250

360

965

200

10

550 550 550

1142

1875

980

125

45

400 421

305

160 161

43 17.5

250

450

21

290

875

y = 0.256x 0.9071 R² = 0.5511

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000

km/d

Nos. of Beds

Km/d

Power (Km/d)

November, 2014

Details of the Simulations Performed

Simulation used the data derived from 24 nos. CBMWTDF with incinerators and 5 nos. CBMWTDF with deep burials

Simulations were carried out using the following:

– beds raging from 500 to 15,000 with interval of 250 beds = 59 steps

– Charge ranging from Rs. 2– Rs.15/bed/d with interval of 0.5 Rs. = 27 steps

Thus, 59 x 27 = 1593 simulations were carried out and for each simulation respective NPV & IRR were computed

Combinations of beds and charge/bed/d resulting into IRR values between 10% and 20% were considered as viable


Charging policy for CBMWTDF with Incinerators


Comparison of Existing and Rational Charges


Developing Fixed + Variable Charging Policy

• When HCEs are scattered, transport cost becomes the most important determinant

of viability of CBMWTDF

• In such conditions, an extension of rational bed based charging policy to account for

variable transportation cost may be required

• A fixed or common charge may be levied on beds (which as approx. 30% of the charge

derived from Base model, corresponds to the capital cost)

• A variable charge may be levied on beds( approx. 70% of charge derived from

Representative model, corresponding to the transport & O&M cost).


Example of Application of Different Charging Policies


Options Fixed Base

Charge

(Rs./bed/d)

Additional Charge based on

distance (Rs./bed/d)

Resultant

IRR

Remarks

50 km 100 km 150 km

Option 1 2500 beds 1500 beds 1000 beds Uniform charging

across zones 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.14%

Option 2 2500 beds 1500 beds 1000 beds Charge based on

zones 1.2 2.15 2.75 3.00 19.99%

November, 2014

z1

z2

z3

Concluding Remarks

Technical and Financial data of 29 nos. CBMWTDFs were analyzed

On average person power is 32%and fuel cost is 42% of O&M costs

Diesel cost was a key determinant of viability

In most cases, incinerators were found either oversized / underutilized

It was found that only 8 out of 29 CBMWTDFs were found to be financially viable (i.e. they have positive IRR)

Deep burials were found mostly unviable

Should the PCBs ban deep burial?

Model based on data supplied by CBMWTDFs; most of the data was verified during a workshop in Mumbai in 2010.


Concluding Remarks…(2)

How this model could be useful for Regulators / ULBs

Help in screening facilities with abysmally low / high quotes

Helps in identifying viable facilities

Help identifying pre-conditions that lead to viability of facility

Identify facilities with subsidy/ grant / soft loan requirement & determine quantity

Ensure better compliance regime

How this model could be useful for CBMWTDFs

• Screen situations better; reduce risk and uncertainty in decision making

• Plan your charge & progression

• Plan your expenses

• Identify key concerns and cut expenses


Charging of non-bedded HCEs

• Non bedded HCEs were also considered in the study

• Data for 28 clinic/dispensaries and 7 path labs was obtained from RO, Mumbai

• Average BMW generation in non-bedded HCE ranged from 0.4 to 20 kg/month, with an average of 6 kg/month

• The waste generated from non bedded HCE could be converted to equivalent nos. of beds by diving with BMW generated /bed/d

[6 kg BMW/clinic/month]

[(0.2 kg BMW generated/bed/d)*(30 days /month)]

• Clinics could be charged based on their bed equivalents on monthly basis

• Cost components include cost of treatment and cost of transportation


Base model Results for CBMWTDF with Deep Burials

For a CBMWTDF with deep burial

facilities the following rates should be

charged (in Rs./bed/d)


Beds 15% IRR 10% IRR

500 138.5 57.8

1000 80.0 33.0

2000 46.0 19.0

4000 26.8 10.9


THANK YOU

November, 2014

biomedical waste management – challenges & opportunities speaker ppts/day 2/session 2x/sandeep...

Documents