General Observations :

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

by the Commissioners during the meetings for all most all the

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

Commissioners shall provide ULB- specific information to the Consultant

and take ownership of DPR.

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

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

figures and arrive at the final quantities.

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

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

procedure. The consultants shall engage a NABL accredited laboratory

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

(vertically composite samples shall be collected at each monitoring

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

Physico - chemical parameters. 3 additional sample collection per ULB

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

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

composition does not reflect the actual composition.

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

disposal was not mentioned. In the calculations the consultant should

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

or disposing to integrated Municipal Solid waste processing plant. The

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

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

dispose was not mentioned.

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

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

system and prepare the draft accordingly.

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

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

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

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

suggest specific solid waste management facility that is specific to that

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

to that location.

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

available machines. The optimization of transport is not discussed.

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

consultants.

Review of Draft DPR Pertaining to ULBs of Srikakulam,

Visakhapatnam and Vizianagaram Districts

Prepared by Prof. S.Ramakrishna Rao

It is learnt that the Swachha Andhra Corporation has assigned work to various

consultants and got prepared the DPR’s to nearly 110 municipalities including

corporations. To review the DPR’s different committees are formed region wise to

discuss them along with commissioners of respective municipalities. For Districts of

Visakhapatnam Srikakulam and Vizianagaram the following are drafted to review the

DPR’s.

1. Sri. Suresh from SAC AP

2. Prof. S.Ramakrishna rao, Retired Professor, Punlic Health and

Environmental Engieering, Andhra University

3. Smt. Asha Jyothi, R.D, Municipal Administration.

The meetings were held on 28th in Municipality of Srikakulam, 29th in Municipal

Corporation of Visakahapatnam, Suryabagh and on 30th in Vizianagaram , Conference

hall of municipality. The meetings were held in the presence of respective

commissioners and the following have presented the detailed reports on the

municipalities.

1. Sri Hari represented Feed Back Infra Technologies

2. Dr. Maley,

The meetings were started with the address by Smt. Asha Jyothi who explained the

importance of the management of Solid waste generated in their municipalities and

asked them to pay attention to adopt the technologies suggested by the consultants.

She also asked the respective staff to interact with the consultants to give correct data

in order to make the DPR’s a close to reality.

Sri Suresh representing Swatch Bharat Corporation of Andhra Pradesh has high

lighted the Governments intention to make the municipalities self reliant in managing

the solid wastes by adopting a suitable technology to convert them either to organic

manure or convert it into waste to energy. He also advised them to adopt the regional

integrated waste treatment facility.

Prof.S.Ramakrishna rao has suggested that the project reports should be site specific

and the consultants should bring out the aspects of managing the solid wastes

generated in the respective municipalities. If after going through the MSW generated

the Consultant suggests

That an integrated facility is viable then various options should be discussed to treat

the Municipal solid waste depending the type of waste.

The consultant Hari has presented in detail the solid waste generated and the facilities

that existed in the respective municipalities. The consultants presented the

characteristics and possible conversion of the existing solid waste .In his presentation

he brought out the status of the solid waste generated and present existing practices

adopted in order to appraise the members.

Dr. Maley has explained in detail the various processes adopted to make use of the

solid waste in order to reduce the land devaluation and reduction. He has explained

how the solid waste having organic and inorganic materials can be put to use and how

inert materials can be disposed. He has stressed the need to go for the MSW

management to recover it to maximum so that the precious land which is reducing

can be saved and the recovered material can be reused or recycled. He has also

explained the types of machinery and bins used or developed for efficient storage.

Some videos were also shown to the participants to appreciate the real time processing

where in the solid waste conversions to diesel, Refuse derived pellets, organic manure

and energy are produced.

The following Municipalities and corporations were discussed.

Srikakulam District on 28-09-2015

1. Amadalavalasa 2. Srikakulam 3. Palasa 4. Itchapuram 5. Rajam

6.Palakonda

Visakhapatnam District on 29-09-2015

1.Narsipatnam 2. Yelamanchili 3. Visakhapatnam

Vizianagaram District on 30-09-2015

1.Bobbili 2.Parvathipuram 3.Nellimarla 4.Saluru 5.Vizianagaram

It is observed that already some municipalities are observing the concepts of

two bin systems and adopted their own technologies and convenient methods to

dispose of the Municipal solid wastes. It is worth noting that the Municipalities are

also earning money by disposing the organic manure produced using the Municipal

solid waste.Some municipalities developed the three wheeler riksha’s which carry the

buckets by making a frame to carry the buckets. The segregation is done meticulously

in Salur Municipality and the organic manure is also produced. It is stated that they

are earning at least Rs. 15,000 per month through disposal of solid waste. In the

reviewed municipalities Yelamanchili Municipality has acquired an incinerator

donated by local Chairperson at a cost of 5 Lakhs which burns and the energy is not

recovered. In almost all the Municipal corporations and Municipalities the solid waste

is neither properly manages nor properly disposed.

It is a common plea by the administrators that to handle the solid wastes

properly trained manpower is necessary and adequate hands are required to manage

it properly. The collection and disposal was possible to 70-80 % in a day. Some

municipalities have started campaigning and motivating the people towards

segregation at source. In some municipalities the school children are sensitized to

handle the solid waste and many competitions were conducted to improve the

situation. In most municipalities the rag pickers are not active.

Two Municipalities have also presented their activities and how they are

managing the solid waste as a success story.( Saluru and Yelamanchili)

Observations on the DPR’S presented by the consultant:

Data Presented:

1.The data was not collected properly by the field personnel as in all most all the

municipalities several changes were made in Population, area , equipment existing

etc.,

2. The municipalities were re organized after the preparation of the DPR.

3. The estimates of the solid waste generated and presented were not matching.

4. The analysis of the solid wastes with respect to composition is not realistic.

5. The inert materials include glass and paper which are recoverable and can be

segregated.

6. The specific areas of disposal like existing land or new area of inert disposal was not

mentioned. In the calculations the consultant should have made an estimate of the

inert material left out after the conversion or disposing to tintegrated Municipal Solid

waste processing plant. The inert material requires how much land for 20 years ( up

to 2030) required and whether land has to be acquired or the existing land is sufficient

to dispose was not mentioned.

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

8. In the DPR’s it is interesting to note that all kinds of treatment options are given to

even small municipalities without suggesting which type of disposal is appropriate

depending on the type of solid waste generated.

9. The DPR’s should have taken into cognizance of the existing facilities and should

have suggested that the type of waste that can be sent to the integrated plants the

may come up.

10. The concentration is mostly on the type of equipment to be procured and the costs

are to be checked.

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

air quality in the existing dump yards and the habitation or land use land cover in the

existing dup yards or new dump yards identified.

12. Almost all the municipalities are given lechate management and treatment units

irrespective of the planning of transferring the MSW to integrated plants.

13. The DPR’s in nut shall should reflect the local conditions and what I can do with

the solid waste that is specific to that locality while the reports are more or less

generalized rather than specific to that location.

14. The waste generated should not be mixed with hospital wastes even in the small

municipalities and should be segregated to be sent to the hazardous waste treatment

units.

15. The DPR appears to be a general document as there no specific treatment

suggested while all the options are given. The consultant should give a suitable

suggestion to each Municipality so that they can adopt the system depending on the

calorophilic value and nutrients present.

16. The consultant should have attempted to know the quality of the fertilizer to /

organic manure so that te heavy metals may be absorbed easily by the way side

plantation. Though bio reclamation takes place the plant health is also equally

important as bio accumulation takes place.

Suggestions to the Swatch Andhra Corporation:

1. A thorough revision of the DPR’s is essential.

2. The discrepancies between the real time data and collected data should be

normalized.

3. The DPR’s prepared should be area specific and the consultant should take

in to cognizance of the existing system and prepares the draft accordingly.

4. The equipment should be minimized after calculating the trips and available

machines.

5. The optimization of transport is not discussed .

6. The report mentions that the hospital waste is handled by the MSW

workers. Maridi eco systems are collecting and processing it.

7. The table shows that glass and metals are included in the inert which is

incorrect.

8. It is interesting to note that the consultant firm has put up many objectives

to prepare the report by most of them are fulfilled.

9. The processing and putting the solid waste to use shold be wholistically

seen to all Andhra Pradesh.

10. The approaches can be phase wise and need not be carried out at once.

-sd-

( Prof. S. Ramakrishna rao)

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

Sd/- Swachha Andhra Corporation

To, All Municipal Commissioners of ULBs of Andhra Pradesh

Appendix I

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

Remarks if any

ULB Name:

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

2 Waste collection route map

3 Town map

4 Sanitation proforma (3C)

5 Drain cess / SWM cess

6 Income / Revenue last 5 years

7 Service level bench marks

8 Filled in MoUD check list for review of DPR

Name of the ULB:

Name of the Commissioner:

Signature of the Commissioner:

Date:

Check List for Review of MSW

DPR

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

Any similar projects

Funds already granted of any

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

3 Compatibility between existing MSW system and proposed MSW system

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

Present landuse in the ULB

Landuse map6 Consent / Clearances from SPCB,

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

EC before setting up of the plant

Consent from SPCB for setting of the MSWM facility

Any other clearances if required?

7 Executive summary of DPR Executive summary to be provided.

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

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

for setting up of MSWM Facility/transfer stations

Topographic map of the project area

Geo-technical investigation reports for the MSWM site

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

Is the land / site location as per the Master Plan

Any clearances or consent obtained from authorities.2 Waste

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

the ULB

Sources of waste generation

Characteristics of waste – collection of composite samples by accredited lab

Certified lab reports

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

transportation Route maps ( ULB has to provide)

Door to door collection

Collection from open areas, community bins

Hazardous, bio-medical waste collection

Transfer stations, if any.

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

4 Processing, Treatment and Disposal

Open dumping,

Any consent or clearances obtained for processing, treatment and disposal

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

segregation Population projections as per CPHEEO Manual

Consideration of floating population

Per capita waste generation

Estimated waste generation for future 30 years

Strategies for 100% source segregation

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

C Proposed Interventions2 Waste collection and

transportation Whether proposed primary and secondary collection is as per CPHEEO

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

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

Traffic diversion / control during construction phase3 Waste processing,

treatment and disposal at MSWM facility

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

Selection of proven technologies considering the ULB profile

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

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

plant/RDF/Biomethanisation/WtE etc

Capacity, area

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

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

Capacity of landfill, area

Covering material (earth) required for landfill

Detailed design ; O&M

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

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

7 Conceptual Drawings Process flow diagram for entire MSWM system

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

D Project Cost1 Major components of the project

and its cost Cost for all major components of the project

Any modular approach proposed for setting up of the facility?

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

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

Compost plant O&M

Landfill O&M

3 Internal return of rate / economic rate of return

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

Provision for IEC activities

Institutional and financial status of project executing agency

Service level benchmarking

Environmental and social problems if applicable

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

PPP component and funding pattern

Association of waste pickers organization

R&R plan if applicable

Period of completion of project

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

Proposed measures for involvement of stakeholders in MSWM.

Measures for leadership development and change management.

Cluster approach if required.

Check List for Review of MSW DPR

as per MoUD,

Check List as per MoUD, March 2012

S.No. Check List Inclusion in DPR

1 Project justification / need

2 Scheme of the project / fund for project

3 Compatibility between existing MSW system and proposed MSW system

4 Administrative and political jurisdiction map

5 Landuse of the ULB / Master Plan

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

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

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

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

Check List as per MoUD, March 2012

S.No. Check List Inclusion in DPR

10 Topographic map of the ULB / project area

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

12 Executive summary of DPR

13 Population projections as per CPHEEO Manual

14 Consideration of floating population

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

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

17 Covering material required for landfill

18 Detailed note on existing solid waste management system

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

Check List as per MoUD, March 2012

S.No. Check List Inclusion in DPR

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

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

22 Major components of the project cost and its cost

23 Hazardous waste generation and its treatment

24 Biomedical waste generation and its treatment

25 Primary and secondary collection route maps

26 Process flow diagram for entire MSWM system

27 Drawings to scale of all components of the facility

28 Geometry of land certified

Check List as per MoUD, March 2012

S.No. Check List Inclusion in DPR

29 Selection of proven technologies considering the ULB profile

30 Is MSW facility site location as per Master Plan ?

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

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

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

34 Provision for IEC activities

35 Detailed drawings for components and ancillary works

36 Provision for DG set, capacity calculations

37 Implementation schedule

Check List as per MoUD, March 2012

S.No. Check List Inclusion in DPR

38 Internal return of rate / economic rate of return

39 Traffic diversion / control during construction phase

40 Institutional and financial status of project executing agency

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

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

43 Service level benchmarking

44 Environmental and social problems if applicable

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

46 PPP component and funding pattern

47 Association of waste pickers organization

48 R&R plan if applicable

49 Period of completion of project

Scope of Work provided in RFP for DPR review

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

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

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

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

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

Door step collection, Segregation of wet waste.

Composting of biodegradable waste.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

energy.19 Implementation strategy including resource requirement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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