FS Tangsel PDF

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 2.2.3.5.3-1] 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 5.1.6.3-17] Comparative Review of Internal Control Systems for Incinerator
[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 5.1.6.3-22] Comparative Review of Deionizer Systems
[Table 5.1.6.3-23] Comparative Review of Water Supply Method
[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 5.2.4-1] 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 5.1.6.1-12] Transfer Depot Maintenance Building Profile/Cross Section
(150 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
DKI Jakarta Propinsi Daerah Khusus Ibukota Jakarta (Special Provincial District of Capital of
Jakarta)
EDCF Economic development cooperation fund
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 Tempat Pengolahan Sampah Dengan Prinsip 3R or Temporary Waste Collection
Point/Site – 3R Principle
Rp 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.
- 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
Total
Width
No
(㎢) Population
District Village
(2012)
Buaran, Ciater, Rawa Mekar Jaya, Rawa
Bunta, Serpong, Cienggang, Lengkong
1 24.04 Serpong 151,899
Gudang, Lengkong Gudang Timur, Lengkong
Wetan
Serpong Lengkong Karya, Jelupang, Pondok Jagung,

2 17.84 Pondok Jagung Timur, Pakulonan, Paku 142,328
Utara
Alam, Pakr Jaga
Srua, Jombang, Sawah Baru, Sarua Indah,

3 18.38 Ciputat Sawah, Ciputat, Cipayung 207,885
Ciputat Pisangan, Cireundeu, Cempaka Putih, Pondok

4 15.43 190,415
Timur Ranji, Rengas, Rempoa
Pondok Benda, Pondok Barat, Pamulang

5 26.82 Pamulang Timur, Pondok Cabe Udik, Pondok Cabe Ilir, 308,272
Kedaung, Bambu Aqus, Benda Baru
2-1
Total
Width
No (㎢) Population
District Village (2012)
Perigi Baru, Pondok Kacang Barat, Pondok
Kacang Timur, Perigi Lama, Pondok Pucung,
Pondok
6 29.88 Pondok Jaya, Pondok Aren, Jurang Mangu 331,644
Aren Barat, Jurang Mangu Timur, Pondok Karya,
Pondok Betung
Kranggan, Muncul, Setu, Babakan, Bakti
7 14.80 Setu 72,727
Jaya, Kademangan
Total 147.19 7 54 1,405,170
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 Rainfall (mm) Number of raining

temperature (℃) (%) 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
Division
No Criteria
2011 2015 2020 2025 2031
1 Population 1,303,569 1,672,437 2,157,598 2,800,315 3,658,207
2 Number of KK 260,714 334,487 431,520 560,063 731,641
Waste generated
Domestic(m³/ y) 2,444,192 3,135,819 4,045,496 5,250,592 6,859,139
Non-domestic(m³/ y) 814,731 1,045,273 1,348,499 1,750,197 2,286,380
3 Total(m³/ y) 3,258,923 4,181,092 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
Division
No Criteria
2011 2015 2020 2025 2031
1 Domestic waste (m³/ y) 2,444,192 3,135,819 4,045,496 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
residential areas of 238 points, non-residential area of 88

1 Survey target
points
0.56 kg / person /day
Waste generation - Dry season: 0.60kg /person/day, Rainy: 0.51kg /person / day
2 sources 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 51
2 Mineral 35
3 The residue 14
Total 100
Source) South Tangerang, Cipeucang landfill master plan
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
Percentage (%)
No Waste characteristics
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
Data2: ITF feasibility study

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 Remark
1 Class Ⅳ 6
2 Class Ⅲ 15
Management
3 Class Ⅱ 8 personnel
4 Class Ⅰ 14
Sub-total 43
Source) South Tangerang, 2015
[Table 2.2.3.2-1] South Tangerang DKPP Configuration personnel (cont)
No Classification Number of people Remark
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 Field staff
8 Diver Assistant 1
9 ITF Operator 1
10 ITF Security 2
11 TPA Field staff 9
12 ITF Field staff 10
Sub-total 550
Source) South Tangerang, 2015
2-20
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

DKPP (cleaning, parks, cemetery
2 52,522,462,598 63,589,090,000
management) Budget
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
13,717,322,320 2,211,850,300
facilities
(2) Improvement of waste treatment 978,191,000 20,898,725,000
technology
(3) socialization 515,996,000 727,903,000
(4) Improvement of operating waste 5,999,520,000 6,739,135,300
(5) community participation in waste
management
(6) Waste Management Policy 796,375,000 349,300,000
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
Year
No Location Manager Area (㎡)
established
1 Perumahan Griya Serpong, JUMADI/JUMARI 500 2010

Kademangan
2 Perumahan Vila Pamulang Mas H. TARMIZI 500 2010
3 Vila Pamulang Mas JODI SATYA 500 2010
4 Kelurahan Serua ANWAR 500 2010
5 Kp. Sarimulya Kelurahan Setu MARTA 500 2011

MARDJUKI
H. DIANA
6 Reni Jaya Kelurahan Pamulang Barat 500 2011
MARTAWIDJAYA
RW 17 Jombang Kelurahan Jombang
7 Ciputat AMSIR/MARSIN 500 2011
2-22
Year
established
8 Komp. Maharta pak. Kacang Timur BPK ISNANTO 500 2011
9 Komp. Deplu Pdk. Karya Pdk. Aren BPK 500 2011

SANDIMIN
10 Pondok Betung Pdk. Aren SRI HARMOYO 500 2011
HIKMAT
11 Pamulang Permai RW 12 500 2011
WINANGUN
12 Benda Baru TAMIR/KATMO 500 2011
Jl. Jembar Jaya RT 02/05 Kp. Cilalung MUHAMMAD

13 350 2012
Kelurahan Jombang Kec. Ciputat HATTA
RW 05 Kelurahan Pamulang Barat Kec.
14 YUSUF 350 2012
Pamulang (Jl. Lestari Ketapang RT 07)
Pasar Jengkol Kp. Curug Ds. Babakan
15 Kec. Setu KIMUNG 350 2012
RW 06 Kelurahan Pamulang Barat Kec.

16 DIAN 350 2012
Pamulang
17 Jl. Ceger Raya Kav. IWAPI Jurang NURSALIM 350 2012

Mangu Barat Kec. Pondok Aren
Jl. H. Echo Cempaka Putih, Kec. Ciputat
18 Timur IBU DWI 350 2012
19 Rw 09 Jombang KIKI 350 2012
20 Jl. Mujahidin RT 03/05 Kelurahan Perigi H LI’AN 350 2012

Baru Kec. Pondok Aren
Jl. Gadung Raya RT 04/03 Kelurahan BUDI
21 350 2012
Pondok Ranji Kec. Ciputat Timur MARHAENI
Jl. Menjangan Raya RT 01/04 Kelurahan BUDI
22 MARHAENI 350 2012
Pondok Ranji Kec. Ciputat Timur
Komplek Griya Permata Pamulang,
23 Kelurahan Bhakti Jaya Kec. Setu YANUAR 350 2012
24 Komplek Batan Indah, Setu MISPAN 350 2012
25 RW 12 Kelurahan Pondok Benda Kec. ALEX 350 2012

Pamulang
Kelurahan Perigi Lama Kec. Pondok
26 Aren TASLIM 350 2012
2-23
Year
established
RT 07/RW02 Kelurahan Sawah Baru
27 (Jl. Cendrawasih V) THAMRIN 325 2013
28 RW.04 Lengkong Gudang Timur H ARIEF 325 2013
29 RW.07 Kelurahan Ciater ROHMAN 325 2013
ENDANG
30 RW.01 Kelurahan Rawa Buntu 325 2013
ISKANDAR
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 325 2013

ANAH/SINGGIH
Vila Pamulang Mas 06 Kelurahan
35 IMAM AULIA 325 2013
Bambu Apus
Perumahan Puri Sentosa Kel
36 Kademangan ISNANIAR 325 2013
37 RW.09 Kelurahan Pondok Ranji BAHRUDIN 325 2013
38 RW.05 Perumahan Amarapura DJOKO/EDI 325 2013

Kelurahan Kademagan
RW.01 Kelurahan Pondok Kacang
39 JON ARTAM 325 2013
Timur
ABDULLAH/
40 RW.08 Kelurahan Pondok Aren 325 2013
TOBOR
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 conntainers in South Tanngerang
Th he user /
Classs Material Capaccity
Installaation locatiion
Indiviidual homes Brick

k, Cement 10~20L
KEC. PONDOK
P A
AREN(2014.3
3)
C
Common
Park Plasttics, Iron 30L~100L
R
Roadside
KEC. PONDOK
P A
AREN(2014.3
3)
C
Common
R
Roadside
Co
ontainer 500L~5,,000L
Aparttment housee
Shops
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 ㎥/ day)
KPP collecteed about *1 8.6% (323㎥
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 Waste Co
ollection Ov
verview
Direct Individual
(Doorr-to-Door) -Waste collection
c vvehicle movve and transp port directlyy to landfilll as
waste diischargers ddischarge waste.
w
- Applieed to cleaninng Bintaro Jaya,
J Grahaa Raya, BSD D, Alam Suttera
Residenntia, Serpongg Paradise, Sutopo-BSD road, Cipputat roads,
industriaal, commerccial areas, residential
r areas
a and roaad.
Unndirect
Inddividual
(Brinng System)
- Most applied
a and collected manner
m in So
outh Tangerrang.
- Waste dischargerss discharge waste into container
c / a fixed emppty
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 schemme
- Cleaneers clean thee road, and carry the co
ollected wasste to placess such
as wastee collection containers that transpoorting 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 2.2.3.5.3-11] 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 Reemarks
Wasste source ⇒ Waste coollection ⇒ Collecting g at Intermeediate

collecction facilitties (TPS3R R) ⇒ Recycclable itemss selected ⇒ The
residuee transport ⇒ TPA
① 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).
W
Waste sourcces ⇒ Wastte collection
n ⇒ Transpport ⇒ TPA
A
②
Door-to-dooor in South
h Tangerang
g.
Wastee sources ⇒ TPS ⇒ Transport

T ⇒ TPA
Certainn areas such
h as roadsiddes designatted TPS tran
nsport to TPPA after
③ the pphase differrence
Unddirect Indivvidual (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
[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

Container methodds landfill, waaste storage
containers are absencee.
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
Coontainer always exisst
Keeping methodss
Short transsportation time
Compressioon truck (sppecially

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.
[Table 2.2.3.5.3-3]
2 Field Empployee Com
mposition
Diivision Driver Driver A Assistant Collector Creww To
otal
AR
RM Roll 1 1 - 3 5
Piickup 1 1 1 - 3
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 vehhicle in Souuth Tangerrang
Diivision Arm Rolll (Includin ng Dump) Picck-up Tottal
Ponddok Aren 6 4 10
0
Ciputtat Timur 4 3 7
Ciputat 12 5 17
7
Serpoong Utara 5 3 8
Pam
mulang 3 9 12
2
S
Setu 1 3 4
Seerpong 4 1 5
T
Total 35 28 63
3
Arm Roll
R Piick-up
KEC. PAM
MULANG KEC. PPAMULANG G
(DKPP, 2014.3) (DKPPP, 2014.3)
Dum
mp Loader
L
KEC. PAM
MULANG KEC. PPAMULANG G
(DKPP, 2014.3) (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
Division Type of Vehicle Total Brand Vehicle Condition
Age
Armroll Truck 4 Mitsubishi 5
2009 Armroll Truck 5 Isuzu 5
Loader 1 Barata 5
2010 Armroll Truck 2 Toyota Dyna 4
2011 Pick-up 7 Daihatsu Grand Max 4
2012 Pick-up 7 Daihatsu Grand Max 3
Armroll Truck 18 Isuzu NKR71 E2-2 2

Bobcat Type S185 K-
Skit Loader 1 Serise 4
Excavator 1 4
2013
Armroll Truck 5 Hino Dutro 130HD 1
Dump Truck 1 Hino Dutro 130HD 1
Pick-up 15 Mitsubishi COLT T100 1
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
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
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

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 Content Result
residential areas of 238 points, non-residential area of 88
1 Survey target
points
0.56 kg / person /day
2 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 middle-
income, 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 B3 Other
No. Type Total
Indus-
Restaurant Shop Hotel Office School Market Hospital
try
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 4 3 0 0 4 0 0 0 11
Timur
Pondok
6 0 2 0 1 5 1 0 1 10
Aren
Serpong
7 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 3
Utara
Total 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%
Total 238 100%
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%

%
Totall 238 100%

%
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
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
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
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
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.
vestigated bby the dry seeason of 135.25kg / ㎥

Averagee waste dennsity was inv ㎥, and rainy
y
99.76kgg / ㎥.
[T
Table 4.2.3..2.3-1] Wasste generatiion sourcess in each arrea
Wasste generattion sources

D
Density (kg/m3)
Weigght Volumme
No. Sub-d
district (kg/persoon/day) (liter/perso
( on/day)
Dry Rainy Dry Rainy Dry Rainy
R
1 Pondook Aren 0.46 0.40 3.09 4.44 1123.69 92.54

9
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
7 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
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. Income level Weight (kg/person/day) Volume (liter/person/day)
Dry Season Wet Season 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 Unit
Dry Rainy 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
5 Cafeteria 24.64 25.87 kg/unit 79.61 81.61 l/uni tons/day

tons/day
6 Hospital 0.36 0.46 kg/bed/day 3.33 3.65 l/bed/day
7 Public Health 17.17 23.49 kg/uni tons/day 160.00 187.12 l/uni tons/day
Center
8 School 0.04 0.25 kg/person/day 0.45 2.29 l/person/day
kg/unit
9 Shop 5.93 4.53 tons/day 148.83 130.25 l/uni tons/day
4-15
(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 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 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 Non-residential Waste

No. 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

No. Parameter Unit
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 Unit
1 Calorific Value cal/gr 6,398.09 5,378.37 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
Quality Standards PP TCLP (mg/l)
Parameter 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
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 Percentages (%)
1 Organic 51
2 Mineral 35
3 The residue 14
Total 100
Source) South Tangerang, Cipeucang landfill master plan
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 (%)
No Waste characteristics
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
Data2: ITF feasibility study
4-19
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 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
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
7 Serpong Utara 142,328 5.26 17.84 7,978
Total 1,405,170 3.79 147.19 9,351
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
Amount of
1 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 Quantity of Survey Test Method
Field research Drilling Survey 9
Water content 25 ASTM D-2216
Particle size
25 ASTM D-422
analysis
Laboratory
tests
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-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
4-25
[Figure 4..5.1-2] Drillling log (BH
H-1)
4-26
H-2)
4-27
H-2)
4-28
H-3)
4-29
H-4)
4-30
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
Water Atterrberg
Hole Unified
No. Depth classification content % Liquid limit Plasticity index
(w/w) LL % PI %
1.00-1.50 CH 56.23 84.68 52.42
BH-1 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
BH-2 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
BH-3 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
BH-4 2.50-3.00 CH 53.63 83.08 51.08
4.00-4.50 CH 52.69 78.21 46.96
BH-5 1.00-1.50 SM 39.16 87.83 45.49
3.50-4.00 MH 40.04 84.72 45.33
BH-6 7.50-8.00 MH 42.32 84.33 45.44

11.50-12.00 MH 42.06 77.52 40.85
1.50-2.00 CH 44.44 88.66 51.99
BH-7 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 - -
BH-8
Cemented
9.50-10.00 23.88 - -
sand
1.50-2.00 CH 52.88 75.47 43.33
BH-9 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
Optimal Maximum CBR Value (%)

Dry
Hole Water 10 times 25 times 56 times
No. content Compaction
density
(%) (t/㎥) 2.5㎜ 5.0㎜ 2.5㎜ 5.0㎜ 2.5㎜ 5.0㎜
3.08 3.29 5.83 6.04 8.42 10.69

BH-1 29.50 1.36 ~4.29 ~4.32 ~8.74 ~7.29 ~12.06 ~12.06
BH-4 30.50 1.34 3.08 3.24 3.64 3.89 6.48 7.02

~3.32 ~3.78 ~6.64 ~5.94 ~7.29 ~8.64
BH-5 29.50 1.33 3.40 4.53 5.51 5.67 7.37 7.83

~5.67 ~5.13 ~7.21 ~7.21 ~9.31 ~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)
(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
Ellipsoid
H.Prec. V.Prec. DHeight
Solution Geodetic Dist.
Observation From To
Type Az.
(Meter) (Meter) (Meter) (Meter)
BM06---BM05 BM 75°16'04
(B2) BM06 05 Fixed 0.003 0.004 " 30.96 1.78
BM06---BM02 BM 59°13'43
(B1) BM06 02 Fixed 0.003 0.004 " 215.447 3.35
REFER
REFERENSIBI BM 311°01'3 27683.28
G---BM06 (B5) ENSIBI 06 Fixed 0.01 0.03 2" 4 -119.876
G
REFER
REFERENSIBI ENSIBI BM Fixed 0.017 0.055 311°27'0 27616.82 -116.31
G---BM02 (B4) 02 1" 3
G
GPS treatment results are shown in Table 4.5.2-3.
[Table 4.5.2-3] GPS processing results

Geodetic
UTM Coordinates TM3° Coordinates Elevation Elevation
Coordinates
East North East North Latitude Longitude Ellipsoide MSL

Number
No.
Point ZO ZO
X Y NE X Y NE
S/N E/W WGS84 EGM2008
(meter) (meter) (meter) (meter)
683,85 9,300,57 383,913. 800,362. S6°19'30 E106°39'4

1 BM 02 7.945 2.689 48 125 777 48.2 .08020" 3.58706" 52.362 34.974
683,70 9,300,47 383,757. 800,260. S6°19'33 E106°39'3

2 BM 05 48 48.2 50.792 33.407
2.442 0.831 575 888 .41211" 8.53830"
683,67 9,300,46 383,727. 800,253. S6°19'33 E106°39'3

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
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 03-3243-
2008, 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-to-
empty 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
120L
L 2--3 householdds 2-3
3 years Commeercial
Plastic basket streeet
Commeercial
140L
L 4--6 householdds 2-3
3 years streeet
Apartm
ment
500L
L 400 household
ds 2-3
3 years
buildiing
Container
1000L 800 household
ds 2-3
3 years Apartm
ment
buildiing
Iron ccontainer 30-100
0L siidewalk, parrk 2-3
3 years
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 2017 2019 2025

Target rate of collection (%) 51.2% 74.6% 74.6%
Pondok Aren 23 97 147 173
Ciputat Timur 18 73 111 130
Ciputat 19 83 126 147
DKPP Serpong Utara 6 28 42 49
collection
(ton/day) 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 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Pondok
102 138 186 218 227 234 237 247 256 265
Aren
Ciputat
Timur 61 82 109 126 132 134 140 144 149 154
Ciputat 64 86 117 136 139 144 147 153 158 163

Serpong
46 63 84 97 102 103 108 111 114 118
Utara
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
9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Aren
Ciputat
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Timur
Ciputat 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Serpong 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Utara
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
Garbage truccks move frrom a DKPP

G P Runs a transfer ddepot in a diistrict,
Overvview gaarage in Pam mulang to thhe individuaal wherre the garbaage trucks co ollect
diistricts, collect waste, aand transporrt waste in
i their distrrict and tran
nsport it
to TPA. to T
TPA.
Traffic line
Mileeage
(km/veehicle)
Numbber of
258 2112
vehicles
Accummulated 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
Tr ansfer Depot
Classification Gar age
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 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
ARM(5.5 ㎥) 22 23 23 24 25 25 26
Pondok Pickup(2.5 ㎥) 18 19 19 20 20 21 21
Aren ARM(25 ㎥) - 7 7 8 8 8 8
Sub total 40 48 49 51 52 53 55
ARM(5.5 ㎥) 17 17 18 18 19 19 20
Ciputat Pickup(2.5 ㎥) 14 14 15 15 15 16 16
Timur ARM(25 ㎥) - 6 6 6 6 6 6
Sub total 31 37 38 39 40 40 42
ARM(5.5 ㎥) 19 20 20 20 21 22 22
Pickup(2.5 ㎥) 16 16 16 17 17 18 18
Ciputat
ARM(25 ㎥) - 6 6 6 7 7 7
Sub total 35 42 42 43 45 45 47
ARM(5.5 ㎥) 7 7 7 7 7 8 8
Serpong Pickup(2.5 ㎥) 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Utara ARM(25 ㎥) - 2 2 2 3 3 3
Sub total 13 15 15 15 16 16 17
ARM(5.5 ㎥) 22 22 23 23 24 25 25
Pickup(2.5 ㎥) 18 18 19 19 20 20 21
Pamulang
ARM(25 ㎥) - 7 7 7 8 8 8
Sub total 40 47 49 49 51 52 54
ARM(5.5 ㎥) 5 5 5 5 5 6 6
Pickup(2.5 ㎥) 4 4 4 5 5 5 5
Setu
ARM(25 ㎥) - 2 2 2 2 2 2
Sub total 9 11 11 11 12 13 13
ARM(5.5 ㎥) 5 5 6 6 6 6 6
Pickup(2.5 ㎥) 4 5 5 5 5 5 5
Serpong
ARM(25 ㎥) - 2 2 2 2 2 2
Sub total 9 12 13 13 13 13 13
ARM(5.5 ㎥) 97 99 102 103 107 111 113
South Pickup(2.5 ㎥) 80 82 84 87 88 91 92
Tangerang
ARM(25 ㎥) 0 32 32 33 36 36 36
City
Sub total 177 213 218 223 231 238 241
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
Sorting/ ton/day 790
facility
pre-treatment
facility pre-treatment
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 CASE 3 CASE 4 CASE 5 CASE 6

Classification (Pr e-
Or ganic Or ganic
Inciner ate tr eatment Inciner ate Inciner ate
matter Inciner ate matter
all + 70% 30%
composting composting
gasification)
Facility capacity (ton/day) 790 790 592 181 300 345 238
Estimated heat generated
1,800 3,000 2,100 2,800 - 1,800
after treatment (kcal/kg)
Impurities 0 130 0 0 0 0 455
Landfill Ashes 110 59 83 16 42 31 33
(ton/day) Subtotal 110 189 83 16 42 31 488
Total 110 189 99 73 488
Incineration
11,880 6,359 8,887 - 4,512 - 3,564
(gasification)
Construction Turbine 920 920 920 - 460 - 460
cost
Sorting facility - 5,544 1,500 - 5,544 - -
(0.1 billion
Rp) Composting
- - - 155 - 295 -
facility
Subtotal 12,800 12,823 11,462 10,811 4,024
Operational staffs (person) 45 45 40 25 38 37 36
Fixed cost 65 65 54 8 35 15 30
Operation
cost Variable cost 343 343 284 2 183 5 157
(0.1 billion Subtotal 408 408 338 10 218 20 187
Rp/year)
Subtotal 408 408 348 238 187
Electricity generated (kWh) 11,400 17,700 9,100 - 5,000 - 2,200
Electricity used (kWh) 2,600 2,800 2,000 - 1,600 - 1,200
Electricity purchased (kWh) 8,800 14,900 7,100 - 3,400 - 1,000
Electricity selling price
1,450
(Rp/㎾)
Valuable material selling
Refer to Table
price (Rp/kg)
Compost selling price
Free
(Rp/ton)
Electricity
781 1,322 630 - 302 - 89
sales
Profit Valuable
(0.1 billion material sales - - - - 215 - -
Rp/year)
Compost sales - - - - - - -
Subtotal 781 1,322 630 517 89
Source) Master Plan Report
5-12
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
Step-by-step facility construction of Uses vacant land or bed excavation

Construction reasonable scale through engineering relying on experiences without
design engineering expertise
Liner system Installed using geotextiles and clay None
Landfill
Compaction to reduce volume Open dumping
method
Soil covering Yes No
Uncontrolled discharge without
Leachate Discharge after processing processing
Is there
landfill gas Yes No
discharge
facility?
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
Cur r ent Estim

mated Popu
ulation
Distr ict Pop
pulation Rem
mar k
(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
[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
Distr ict sour ce 2015 2020 2025 Remark
(kg/capita/d)
Pondok Aren 0.47 171 200 234
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
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 2014
Waste generation (ton/day) 747 765 782

(㎥/day) 233 350 607
DKPP Density 0.30 0.30 0.30
collection (ton/㎥)
(ton/day) 70 105 182
Collection service coverage (%) 9.4% 13.7% 23.3%
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)
Population Pr opor tion
Distr ict Pr ivate sector Remark
(2012) (% )
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
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 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Public sector
39.4 51.2 66.6 74.6 74.6 74.6 74.6 74.6 74.6 74.6
(DKPP)
Private sector 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4
Total 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
Tar get (ton/day)
Classification
2017 2019 2025
Waste generation 915 975 1,175
Recycle 85 116 171
Throughput (ton/day) 830(100%) 859(100%) 1,004(100%)
Non-Handle (ton/day) 194(23.4%) - -
Collection rate 76.6% 100% 100%
TPS’s collection (ton/day) 405 621 729
TPS3R’s collection (ton/day) 20 20 20
- Recycle (ton/day) 7 6 6
- Remainder (ton/day) 13 14 14
Private sector’s 211 218 255
collection/transport (ton/day)
DKPP’s collection/transport 418 635 743
(ton/day)
5-17
[Table 5.1.5.3-5] DKPP’s Waste Collection by District
Future collection (ton/day)

District Remark
2017 2019 2025
Pondok Aren 97 147 173
Ciputat Timur 73 111 130
Ciputat 83 126 147
Serpong Utara 28 42 49
Pamulang 95 145 169
Setu 20 31 36
Serpong 22 33 39
Total 418 635 743
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 Remark

Waste generation
(ton/day) 1,006
Incineration (ton/day) 651 A

Operating days 300 B
Facility capacity
792 C=A×365÷B
(ton/day)
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 1,153,111 389,533 1,542,644

in (㎥)
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-and-
dumping, 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 7 129 1447 151 155 159 163 168 173 200
Cipputat Timurr 55 733 97 111 114 117 120 124 126 130 15
50
Ciputat 62 83
3 110 1226 129 132 135 139 143 147 15
50
Serrpong Utaraa 21 288 37 442 43 44 45 46 48 49 50
5
P
Pamulang 72 95
5 127 1445 148 152 155 160 164 169 200
Setu 15 20
0 27 331 32 33 34 34 35 36 50
5
Serpong 16 22
2 29 333 34 35 36 37 37 39 50
5
Total 314 418 556 6335 651 668 684 703 721 743 -
(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
kup trucks ((2.5 ㎥) annd arm roll trucks
Southh Tangerangg City’s pick 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 ㎥) waiting inn the waste transfer deppot.
r (25.0㎥
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
Picku
up Ar mr oll Arr mr oll
Classsification Sum
m
tr uck (2.5㎥) ㎥)
t r uck (5.5㎥ tr uck
k (25.0㎥)
200 ton/day 25 30 9 64
(667 ㎥)
150 ton/day
18 23 7 48
(500 ㎥)
50 ton/day
7 8 3 18
(167 ㎥)
Note: on the basis of 3 times/v
vehicle/day of waste coollection and transfer
Arm 5 ㎥
mroll truck 5.5 Armrolll truck 25.00㎥
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
2 2 1
faciility
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
[F
F igure 5.1.66.1-7] Transsfer Depot M
Maintenancee Building Profile/Crosss Section (20
00TPD)
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
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
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 150ton/day 50ton/day

Classification
Tr ansshipment Maintenance Tr ansshipment Maintenance Tr ansshipment Maintenance
Building Building Building Building Building Building
About 5,300.0 ㎡ About 4,600.0 ㎡ About 3,000.0 ㎡

Site area
(76.2m×69.6 m) (76.2m×60.4 m) (76.2m×39.4 m)
Building area 665 ㎡ 324 ㎡ 665.00 ㎡ 324 ㎡ 525 ㎡ 192 ㎡
Extended area 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
Scale
the ground the ground the ground the ground the ground the ground
Max. height 4.5 m 4.4 m 4.5 m 4.4 m 4.5 m 4.4 m
Reinforced Reinforced Reinforced Reinforced Reinforced Reinforced

Structure concrete concrete concrete concrete concrete concrete
ㆍ Pickup x 25 ㆍ Pickup x 23 ㆍ Pickup x 8
ㆍ Arm roll (5.5 ㎥) x 30 ㆍ Arm roll (5.5 ㎥) x 18 ㆍ Arm roll (5.5 ㎥) x 7
Parking plan ㆍ Arm roll (8 ㎥) x 4 ㆍ Arm roll (8 ㎥) x 7 ㆍ Arm roll (25 ㎥) x 3
ㆍ Passenger car x 26 ㆍ Passenger car x 21 ㆍ Passenger car x 11
(for staffs) (for staffs) (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 Descr iption

Maintenance 324 ㎡ 324 ㎡ 192 ㎡ ㆍ Office and resting place for management
building staffs
Transshipment 665 ㎡ 665 ㎡ 525 ㎡ ㆍ Waste transshipment area
building
ㆍ Parking lots for waste
Parking lot 1,332 ㎡ 1,102 ㎡ 461 ㎡
collection/transshipment vehicles and others
ㆍ Buffer zone for traffic line, arm roll’s
Free space 2,979 ㎡ 2,509 ㎡ 1,822 ㎡
temporary storage, etc.
Total 5,300 ㎡ 4,600 ㎡ 3,000 ㎡ ㆍ Entire site area
(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
1 1 1
(bucket capacity 0.175 ㎥)
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 Responsibilities
Director 1 1 1 ㆍ Direct transfer depot

General 1 1 1 ㆍ General affairs/accounting
affairs/accounting
ㆍ Managing 2n floor of transshipment
Backhoe operator 1 1 1 facility, spreading and hardening
transshipment waste
ㆍ Transfer depot vehicle access
Traffic controller 2 2 1 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
Classification Sump pit capacity Remark
Building (㎥/use)
200ton/day Transshipment 4 1.0 ㎥(1.0m×1.0m×1.0 m)
building
Transshipment Excess rate
150ton/day building 3 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
Capacity of Cleaning
Classification Facility water Remar k
(ton/day) (㎥/use)
200 4
Transshipment ㆍ Water 0.02 ㎥/ton of waste
building 150 3
ㆍ Washing twice a week
Cleaning water
50 1
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 (㎥)
200 8 0.96 4 8
Septic tank 150 7 0.84 3 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 Remar k

Vehicles and equipment
Mechanical work 858 858 858
purchase
Civil work 3,363 2,817 1,752
Building work 5,340 5,340 3,872
Electrical work 1,011 1,011 599
Total 10,572 10,026 7,081
(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 200TPD 150TPD 50TPD Remar k
Labor cost 168,600,000 150,600,000 118,200,000
Fixed Overhead 20% of Labor
expenses 33,720,000 30,120,000 23,640,000 cost
cost
Subtotal 202,320,000 180,720,000 141,840,000
0.75% of
purity
Repair 61,890,000 58,740,000 41,752,000
Construction
cost
Variable Electricity 123,456,000 123,456,000 74,137,000
cost Fuel 55,440,000 46,200,000 39,960,000
Service water 5,737,000 4,595,200 2,314,000
Others 2,465,000 2,329,000 1,551,000 1.0% of
Variable cost
Subtotal 248,988,000 235,320,200 159,714,000
Total 451,308,000 416,040,000 298,554,000
5-44
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 Remar k
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 11,984 22.7%
(road, buffer zone, etc)
Buffer Zone 14,169 26.9%
Total 52,704 100%

-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 Applicable cr iter ia Remar k
Banking 1 : 1.8
slope (install 1m-high banquett every 5m in height)
Foundation facility
Cut 1 : 1.5
slope (install 1m-high banquett every 5m in height)
1 : 3.0
Landfill slope
(install 3m-high banquett every 5m in height)
Landfill floor slope 2%
5-47
[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
Standar d
Classification High quality Low quality
quality
C 17.43 23.00 18.09
H 6.24 2.50 2.70
Chemical O 20.80 11.40 11.28
composition
(wt%) N 0.20 0.20 0.44
S 0.13 0.10 0.20
Cl 0.70 0.30 0.40
Total 45.50 37.50 33.11
Three Water 36.40 46.50 55.49
components Combustibles 45.50 37.50 33.11
(wt%) Ash 18.10 16.00 11.40
Low calorific value (kcal/kg) 2,100 1,800 1,400
Waste density (ton/㎥) 0.22 0.22 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 Remar k
SO₂ ppm < 250
HCl ppm < 70 Indonesian standard
NO₂ ppm < 300
Dust mg/Nm³(12) < 20
Korean standard
Dioxin ng-TEQ/S ㎥ < 0.1
Source) Standard Quality of Incinerator Emission
5-50
(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 Remark
k
BOD mg/L < 150
COD mg/L < 300
Inddonesian staandard
SS mg/L < 400
T-N mg/L < 60
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
·Inccineration comprises 3 ·In a hypoxic state,

s
combbustion, pyrrolysis,
Incineration steeps (dry, combustion, ·Waste iss compound ded and ggasification
n arise,
annd post-commbustion) with hot fluid sand by
b
mechaanism andd waste is bu
urnt at
whhile the mottor driven force, and
d instantly dried highh temperaturre over
firee grate convveys waste and
d burned.
in the incin
nerator. 1,0000℃ in a sec
condary
com mbustion chaamber.
Hoousehold waaste,
Applicability Household
d waste Househoold waste an
nd sluddge, and industrial
s
sludge
waste
5-51
[Table 5.1.6.3-4] (Continued) Compar ing and Selecting Treatment System
Classification Stoker Fluidization Pyr olytic gasification
Combustion
Normal High High
efficiency
Pre-treatment not required required required
Incineration
residue 15 ∼ 20% 5 ∼ 8% around 5%
Ignition loss around 5% around 3% around 5%
Construction
cost 1.0 1.1 - 1.2 1.4 - 1.5
(relative)
·Used long and widely

·Wide calorific range
·No need for pre- ·Suitable for small and
·Suitable for incinerating
treatment medium size wastes
liquid, high water content
Strength ·Incinerates various
waste ·Relatively small
types of household waste discharge of
·Suitable for intermittent
·Easy to operate and environmental pollutant
operation
maintain
·Needs refilling loss of

·Relatively large amount fluid medium (fluid sand)
·Construction record
of exhaust gas ·Not suitable for large
·Produces a lot of bottom waste or tar-like melting
lower than stoker system
Weakness ·Produces a bit much
ash wastes impurities from pre-
·Not suitable for high ·Produces a bit much
treatment
calorific waste impurities from pre-
treatment
Selected ◎
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 Remar k
ton/day ton/day ton/day ton/day ton/day ton/day
Inciner ator
Less than 50
ton/day: to be
processed by
- 50 1 unit
incinerators
with capacity at
least 50ton/day
50 - 100 1 unit
50 -
2 units 300ton/day:
100 - 200 install with the
1 unit
optimum
1 unit
200 - 300 capacity
2 units 1 unit
2 units
300 - 400 300-500
2 units 1 unit ton/day:
installed with
2 units excess capacity
400 - 500
2 units
500 ton/day or
Combination of 200, 250, 300, or over:
500 - 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
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 on the basis of

790 ton/day (395 ton/day×2 units) operating 300
capacity days/year
Waterpower generation : 2.6MW
Electricity Generator : 11.4MW
Electricity generation : 8.8MW
Plant
configuration Incinerator + power generation facility
Incinerator Consecutive combustion stoker

(water cooling fire grate)
Type: Natural circulation

Boiler
Capacity: 72.5 ton/hr x 40 kg/㎠.G, 400 ℃
Type: Extraction condenser type

Steam turbine Steam Condition: 40kg/㎠.G × 400℃
Type: Air Cooled Condenser

Condenser Capacity: 95 ton/hr
System Carry-in and feeding unit + incinerator + power SNCR : urea water
configuration generator + semi-dry reactor + bag filter + Semi-dry reactor:
smokestack activated carbon spray
Air pollution SNCR → Semi-dry reactor → activated carbon Conform to emission

prevention spray → bag filter→ induced draft fan →
standards
system smokestack
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
operration)
· Incinnerator typee : Continuous com mbustion sto
oker type
Incinerr ator (watter-cooling fi
fire grate)
· Outllet temperatture : 8500℃ or over (solid : 950℃
℃)
· Stayy time : 2 sec or over
· Igniition loss : 5%
% or below
·Typee : Naatural circulat
ation water piipe
boileer
· Cappacity: : 72..5 ton/hr
· Opeerating presssure : 40 kg/㎠.G × 4400℃
Boileer · Outllet temperatture : 2000℃ or below w
· Opeerating meth
hod : Waater supply, ssteam, and drum
d
wateer level are aautomaticallyy
conttrolled by a th
three-factor control
c
systeem
· Cappacity: : 75,,000Nm3/hr ((standard quality)
· Inlett/outlet
: 200 0℃/160℃
tempeerature
Semi-ddr y : 2-ffluid nozzle sspray
· Spraay type
r eacttor · Opeerating meth
hod : Auutomatic conttrol of slaked
d lime
slurrry based on H HCI concenttration of
TMS S system
· Cappacity:
: 77,,800Nm3/hr ((standard quality)
· Inlett/outlet
: 160
0℃/159℃
Filter bag tempeerature
: Perriodic pulsinng by differen
ntial
· Opeerating meth
hod pressure
·Typee : Scrrew feeder tyype

Activaated · Cappacity: : 6 m3
car boon · Opeerating meth
hod : Auutomatic activvated feed co
ontrol
feedeer interrlocked withh gas flow of TMS
systeem
· Cappacity: 800A ㎥/minn x 600mmAq

: 2,8
· Inlett/outlet
Inducced : 1599℃
air bllow tempeerature : VVVVF + Autom matic dampeer
· Opeerating meth
hod
conttrol (inside thhe incinerato
or)
5-55
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
·Crusher and waste ffeeder are

·Cruusher is insttalled separaately from
combined d into one
Featuur es the waste feedeer ·Requiress a small insstallation arrea
·Reqquires a largge installatiion area
·Enssures operational stabillity ·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 1 50 ton 0.8
0
2 Waste feed
d door 9 7,350
0H x 3,700W
W -
3 Waste crrane 2 (1 sparee) 12 m³ 156

1
Waste crrane
4 1 5Ton 4.95
4
m
maintenanc
ce hoist
5 L
Large waste crusher 1 5Ton/hr 150
1
5-58
(3) Inciiner ator
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)
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
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
·Maaximize mix
xing of secoondary ·Incompleetely burnt ggas stays lo
ong at
Mechaanism
com
mbustion airr with exhauust gas top of thee drying unitt
·Higghly responnsive to channges in ·Local overheat in thhe current slope

plate and damages too refractoriees
Featuur es wasste property causes cliinkers
·Waater pipe in the side waall of the
·Thermal damage to the fire gratte
inciinerator exteended caused byy 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 Load
d (kW)
1 Incineraator 2 395Ton -
Auxiliary Burner
B 2 9 MW 25
2
Ignition Burner
B 2 9 MW 25
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
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)
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

■ 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
·This typee features eaasier operation as

·Thhis type makkes the needded steam too the steam pressure diischarged frrom the
vaccuum in conndenser. Incrrease the outlet of the
t steam tuurbine is hig gher
Mechaanism
genneration efficiency by eenlarging a than atmoospheric preessure and th he flow
heaat head. of exhaust steam andd condensatiion
water is smooth.
·Using the added steam annd
·Installatio
on cost is loow.
Feattur es maxximum pow wer generatioon.
·Sm
mooth for alttered steam
m. ·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
·Usee air to reco

over surpluss steam and ·Use cooliing water too recover su
urplus
Mechaanism
prodduce conden nsation watter. steam and
d produce coondensation n water.
·Needs continuous suupply of coo oling
Featuur es ·Creeates noise by
b an air bl ower water
·Wiide installatiion area ·High inveestment cosst for piping
g and
pumps
Seleccted ◎
5-62
④ Combustion Gas Cooling System
Key components of the combustion gas cooling system are as listed below:
Classification Item Q’ty Capacity Load (kw)
72.5Ton/hr x
1 Waste heat boiler 2 40kg/㎠.G, 400℃ -
2 Blow down tank 2 1.5 ㎥ -
High pressure steam

3 header 1 72.5Ton -
4 Low pressure steam 1 12Ton -

header
5 Air preheater 2 910Mcal/hr -
6 Steam turbine 1 11.4 MW 37
7 Low pressure steam 1 95Ton/hr 150

condenser
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
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)
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
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
·Rellatively loww pressure looss and easee ·Highly efficient

e in rremoving accid gas
of chemical
c hanndling and nitroggen oxides
Mechaanism
·Staable efficien
ncy in removving acid ·Needs a SCR front ccombustion n gas
gas preheaterr
·Low pressure loss aand high eneergy

·Cloogging and wear in pipping caused consumption
Featuur es
by slaked
s lime slurry ·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
C Loa d (kw)
Urea water solution
U s
1 16 100kg/hr
1 -
injection nozzle
n
2 S
Spring dry reactor
r 2 000N ㎥/hrr
75,0 -
Sllaked lime injection
i
3 2 (2 spare)) 1 ㎥/hr
1.5 0.75
0
pumpp
4 Acctivated carbon feed 2 (1 spare)) 1.5 ㎥/min 1.5
bloweer
S
Spring dry reactor
r
5 C
Cooling watter feed 3 (1 spare)) 4 ㎥/hr 0.75
0
pumpp
6 Bag filtter 2 800N ㎥/hrr
77,8 -
7 Smokesttack 2 60M -
5-65
(6) Airr Supply/E xhaust Sysstem
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)
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
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) +
Classifi mper open ing contr oll Pole chaanging andd damper op
fication auttomatic dam pening
contr ol ssystem
system
Incinerator Incine
erator
Systtem
·Controls the ammount 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 oppening
opening
·Has a wide ran nge of contrrol and high

h
·Control range
r is narrrow.
Featuur es 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 00A ㎥/min x 1000mm

40 mAq 120
3 Induced draaft fan 2 800A ㎥/miin x 600mm

2,8 mAq 410
4
4 Stack
k 2 ∅1400 x H 60m
5-67
(7) Reeprocessingg System
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)
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).

■ 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
·Suiitable for medium-large

m or ·Approp
e incinerato priate when there are noot more
than two
o ash outletss like small
Featuur es ·Cooling effectt (200℃ → 60℃) is
highh. incinerators
·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
Separ at e stor age syystem
Classifi
fication (stor agee tank + tonnbag) Stor age tannk system
Systtem
·Putts in tonbag
g and ships oout all to ·Prolongeed storage ccauses fly assh to
Featuur es Typpe 2 waste landfill by trrucking. stick to th
he storage taank.
·Preevents fly assh from sticcking and ·Hard to discharge
d annd thus needs
bindding togetheer. 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
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.

■ 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 efficiennt in removving green

algaae and SS ·Removess 95% or ovver
Featuur es ·Takes a long time foor cleaning
·Eassy to operattion
·Reqquires largee installationn site ·Requires small instaallation site
Seleccted ◎
■ 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
·Waater supply is
i available for a ·Eases insstability of ssupply wateer
pressure
Featuur es certtain time du
uring water ooutage. ·Prevents water polluution caused d by
·Eassy to maintaain water prressure
stagnant water
w
Seleccted ◎
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
O
Overhead taank for houssehold
4 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 ·H
Highly efficcient
·Needs no
n drainage ·A
Applicable tot comprehhensive rang
ge of
Featur ees ·Simple mechanical
m structure o
odor
·Needs reecycling and
d refilling oof ·P
Produces wastewater
activatedd carbon ·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 Q’ty Cap

pacity Load (kw)
1 Deodoorization tow
wer 1 N ㎥/min
660N -
Air coompressor for
f
2 processing system
ms 4 ((1 spare) N ㎥/min
8.0N 55
Air coompressor for
f
3 instrumenntation & coontrol 2 ((1 spare) N ㎥/min
9.0N 45
systems
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

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::
〉 4N2 + 6H
4NO + 4NH3 + O2 -----------〉 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

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

v
Althoughh it is subjecct to types of
o system annd operating
g conditions, after incinneration of waste,
usually 2-
2 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

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.
Wastewwater
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 BOD
B C
COD SS
Claassification
n
(㎡/day) (m
mg/l) ((mg/l) (mg/l)
Household
wastewaterr 9
9.6 150 300 400
Orgaanic
Ash
A Effluennt 4
4.57 900 900 900
Boiler blowdoown
133.42 20 20 20
Incineraator water
Cleaning 2
2.4 150 300 400
Inorganic
Back
k washing w
water 3.43 20 20 20
Laboratoryy 1
1.2 100 100 100
Total 344.62 17
79.21 2236.06 265.85
(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
Pa ars
Ga ck
Weiggh
Fly
bridg
ge
Ge te
Parkiing lot
In cinerator
buuilding
Genera
al waste
Fly ash
[Figu re 5.1.6.3-220] Tr affic Line

L Plan (Example)
(
5-85
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 Operation Team Maintenance Team

(8) (54) (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 Crane Laboratory 3
Ash handling 1 operator 1
Group Manager
A Individual C D
Manager 1 1 1 1
Control operator 2 2 2 2
Local operator 8 8 8 8
Crane operator 2 2 2 2
06:00- 22:00-
Working hours 14:00-22:00 Rest
14:00 06:00
[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

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 Item Inciner ator Remar k

(790ton/day)
Machine work 76,200
Electricity, instrumentation
& control work 19,800
Construction work 17,400
Civil work 3,200
Construction cost Survey Cost 400
4.5% of Purity
Design Cost 5,200 Construction cost
5.0% of Purity
Construction Inspection 5,800 Construction cost
Subtotal 128,000
(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 Cost(Rp/year ) Description

Labor cost 1,474,440,000 ㆍ 73 persons
Overhead
Fixed cost expenses 294,888,000 ㆍ 20% of labor cost
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
Fuel 385,178,000 ㆍ Incinerator and emergency generator used
Variable
cost Service water 601,959,000 ㆍ Process water
Chemicals 3,160,356,000 ㆍ Expenses for chemicals used in facilities
Others 338,882,000 ㆍ 1.0% of variable cost
Sub total 34,227,175,000
Total 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 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Total
ton/day 111 128 144 136 181 203
Waste 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
2,827 3,262 3,670 4,156 4,616 5,178 23,709
required (㎥)
Total landfill (㎥) 43,222 49,862 56,110 63,531 70,561 79,153 362,439
Landfill after
39,182 45,202 50,866 57,593 63,966 71,755 328,564
settlement (㎥)
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 Domestic waste Type 2 (Fly ash) Remar k
(ton/day) 101-193 10
Daily
landfill Compaction density:
(㎥/day) 101-193 10 1.0ton/㎥
Landfill area (㎡) 10,499 2,573(65m×40m)
Landfill capacity (㎥) 120,000 17,700
Service from year 2020 year 2020
2020-2021 2020-2025
Duration
(2.5 years) (6 years)
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, semi-
aerobic 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 covering soil covering soil
waste waste
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 F ina l Cove r Middle Cove r

2% 2% 2% 2%
~ WAS T E ~
~ WAST E ~
~ WAS T E ~ Daily Cove r
~ WAS T E ~
Le achate Line r Le ach ate Line r
Sy s te m Le a chate Colle ct ion P ipe Syste m Le achat e Colle c tion Pipe
Sandwich Method 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
HDPE HDPE CCL(t=0.6 m)

Liner section
sheet(t=2.0㎜) sheet(t=1.5㎜) (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
HDP PE
2.5 ㎜)
sheet(t=2 H
HDPE CCCL(t=1.0 m)
Secction
CCL(t=1 1.0 m) sheett(t=2.5 ㎜) ((k≤1×10-9m/s)
m
(k≤1×10 0-9m/s)
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
Imperm
meability 2
· 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 USSD/㎡ · 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
Installatioon
Classificaation Pllanned R
Remar k
standar d
Drain layer thickness (㎝) 30∼ 50 ㎝ 3 ㎝
30 Fast draain of leach
hate
Coefficiennt of
peermeability (㎝/sec) - 10-2 ㎝/sec
㎝ or over Fast draain of leach
hate
Fully uuse the natu
ural
Drrain layer sllope (%) 2.0 or oveer 2.0
0 or over
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 semi-
aerobic.
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㎢:
1
Q C I A
360
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
Coefficient of Coefficient of
Classification Classification
r unoff runoff
Roof 0.85-0.95 Open ground 0.10-0.30
Road 0.80-0.90 Park with lawn and trees 0.05-0.25
Other impermeable
0.75-0.85 Slow slope 0.20-0.40
surfaces
Water 1.00 Steep slope 0.40-0.60
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
Claassification Matter Tim

me r equir ed
d for
deecompositioon
Fast ddecomposinng
food, newspaper,
n fallen leavees, sludge, etc
e 3m
months∼ 5yeears
matter
Inttermediate
decommposing mattter Paper, w
wood, textilee, etc 5yeears∼ 50yeears
Slow decomposin
d ng
rubbeer, leather, etc
e 500 years or ov
ver
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]
L
Landfill gaas gener atioon Landfill gas gener ation
a
Year Year
Y
㎥/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 2-1.0 ㎥/m
ping hole noormally cann trap gas 0.2 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
Ver ticall Tr apping System Installattion
[Figure 5.1.6.4-11]
5 L
Landfill Gaas Tr ap Installation Pllan
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
Lo aded vehiccle 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
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 lowwer wh
heels and lo
ower ④ The veh hicle
① A vvehicle ent er s
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
■ 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 gradde

coover 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
130-250
(1)
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)+
500+
auxiliary equipment
When the characteristics of remaining ash after incineration is considered, the dozer is deemed
reasonable because it can do spreading and compacting at a time.
[Table 5.1.6.4-13] Equipment Procurement Plan
Classification Use Requir ed Remar k

units
Dispersion and compaction of waste; Use existing
Dozer (19 ton) 1
soil covering equipment
Excavator (0.7㎥) Cover soil excavation and loading 1 Use existing
equipment
Use existing
Dump tr uck (10 ton) Cover soil transport 1
equipment
5-113
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)
management 1
Administration 1 Landfill operation 3
Accounting 1
Leachate treatment facility 2
Waste carry-in 1 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 Oper ation and management items
· Road, facilities for leachate cutoff/collection/drain, groundwater

Fundamental facility and rainwater drain, leachate treatment; landfill related facility,
management landscaping facility, buildings, auxiliary facilities, and measuring
systems
· Procuring cover soil (store and use soil secured during landfill
Waste landfilling construction)
· Landfilling and soil covering
Equipment and · Equipment for landfilling and soil covering

machines management · Machine, electricity, and measurement control facilities
Envir onment
· Flying ashes, groundwater contamination, noise, and others
Management
· Fire prevention, perimeter fences, ground settlement, traffic
Safety Management
safety
5-115
5.1.6.4.5 Constr uction Cost and Oper ation 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 Amount (Million Rp.) Remar k

Earthwork 3,111
Pavement 8,053
Leachate cutoff 3,957
Domestic waste Leachate collection/drain 774
Landfill
Rainwater drain 917
Auxiliary facilities 1,494
Subtotal 18,306
Waste Leachate cutoff 2,387
Landfill Leachate collection/drain 246
For
Type 2 Building work 14,301
(Fly ash) Subtotal 16,934
Total 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
Classification Remar k
(Million Rp.)
Landfill management
Labor cost 381 staffs = 17
Fixed Cost Management cost 76.2
Sub-total 457.2
Fuel 156.42 Fuel for vehicle
Cover soil 262.8
Variable Cost
Etc cost 6.82 1% of Variable cost
Sub-total 423.412
Total 880.612
5-116
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 Remark
200TPD 150TPD 50TPD
Land purchase 7,950 6,900 4,500
Construction 317 301 212 3% of construction
design/supervision cost
Civil work 3,362 2,816 1,752
Building work 5,341 5,341 3,872
Construction Machine work 858 858 858
cost
Electrical work 1,011 1,011 599
Subtotal 10,572 10,026 7,081
Total 18,839 17,227 11,793
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.) Remark

Land purchase 23,716
Construction design/supervision 114,000
Machine work 762,000
Electricity, instrumentation &
control work 198,000
Construction
cost Construction work 174,000
Civil work 32,000
Subtotal 1,166,000
Total 1,303,716
5-117
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.) Remark
Land purchase 23,716
Construction design/supervision 1,057 3% of

Construction cost
Earthwork 3,111
Pavement 8,053

Domestic
Leachate
waste 774
Landfill collection/drain
Rainwater drain 917
Auxiliary facilities 1,494

Construction
cost Subtotal 18,306

Waste
Landfill Leachate 246
For collection/drainage
Type 2 Building 14,301
(Fly ash)
Subtotal 16,934
Subtotal 35,240
Total 60,013
5-118
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:
Classification Cost (Rp/year) Description
ㆍ Management staffs and transshipment
Labor cost 168,600,000 vehicle operators
General
Fixed administrative 33,720,000 ㆍ 20% of labor cost
cost expenses
Subtotal 202,320,000
Repair 61,890,000 ㆍ 0.75% of the net construction cost
Electricity 123,456,000
Fuel 55,440,000 ㆍ Diesel fuel for arm roll trucks and backhoes
Variable
cost
Service water 5,737,000 ㆍ Cleaning water and domestic water
Total 451,308,000
(1) Labor cost

The labor cost for Transfer Depot management is estimated at 168,600,000 Rp a year.
Operation Wage Cost
Staff staff (Rp/month) Month (Rp/year) Remark
Director 1 3,500,000 12 34,200,000 Class II
General 1 2,500,000 12 30,000,000 Class I
affairs/accounting
Backhoe operator 1 1,800,000 12 21,600,000 Loader driver
Vehicle access
2 1,200,000 12 28,800,000 Loader crew
management
Cleaner 3 1,500,000 12 54,000,000 Crew
Total 8 168,600,000
5-119
(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).
Usage Operation Month Demand

Classification Price factor Cost (Rp/year)
(kWh) hour (month)
(%)
Standing
200,000Rp/month 12 2,400,000
charge
Service fee 1,112Rp/kWh 64.8 8 12 70% 121,056,000
Total 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.
Price Fuel Operating Number Service

Classification hour and Cost (Rp/year)
(Rp/L) efficiency of units frequency
travel
Backhoe 5,500 5.6L/hr 6hr/day 1 - 55,440,000
Total 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.
Price Yearly Cost

Classification Usage usage Remark
(Rp/㎥) (㎥/year) (Rp/year)
Washing twice
Cleaning water 8,150 4.0 ㎥/times 416 3,390,000
a week
on the basis of
Domestic water 8,150 0.96 ㎥/day 288 2,347,000 300 days/year
Total 704 5,737,000
(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 Cost (Rp/year)
Others 2,465,000 1.0%
5-121
Labor cost 150,600,000 ㆍ Full-time management staffs, transshipment

vehicles and tank truck operators
General
cost expenses
Electricity 123,456,000 ㆍ
Variable
cost
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.
Operation Wage Cost

General
1 2,500,000 12 30,000,000 Class I
affairs/accounting
Vehicle access 2 1,200,000 12 28,800,000 Loader crew
management
Cleaner 2 1,500,000 12 36,000,000 Crew
Total 7 150,600,000
5-122

150,600,000 20% 30,120,000
expenses
(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

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).
Demand
Classification Price Usage Operation Month factor Cost (Rp/year)
(kWh) hour (month)
(%)
Standing
200,000Rp/month 12 2,400,000
charge
Service fee 1,112Rp/kWh 64.8 8 12 70% 121,056,000
Total 123,456,000
5-123
(5) Fuel cost
and is estimated at 46,200,000 Rp a year.

travel
Backhoe 5,500 5.6L/hr 5hr/day 1 - 46,200,000
Total 46,200,000

Service water used by the transfer depot is estimated to cost 4,595,000Rp a year.
Yearly
Price Cost
Classification (Rp/㎥) Daily use usage (Rp/year) Remark
(㎥/year)
Washing twice a
Cleaning water 8,150 3.0 ㎥/times 312 2,542,000
week
Domestic water 8,150 0.84 ㎥/day 252 2,053,000 on the basis of
300 days/year
Total 564 4,595,000
(7) Other expenses

Classification Amount (Rp/year) Rate applied Remark
Others 2,329,000 1.0%
5-124
Labor cost 118,200,000 ㆍ Full-time management staffs, transshipment

vehicles and tank truck operators
General
cost expenses
Electricity 74,137,000 ㆍ
Variable
cost
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.
Operation Wage Cost

General
1 2,500,000 12 30,000,000 Class I
affairs/accounting
Vehicle access 1 1,200,000 12 14,400,000 Loader crew
management
Cleaner 1 1,500,000 12 18,000,000 Crew
Total 5 118,200,000
5-125

118,200,000 20% 23,640,000
expenses
(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

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).
Demand
Classification Price Usage Operation Month factor Cost (Rp/year)
(kWh) hour (month)
(%)
Standing
200,000Rp/month 12 2,400,000
charge
Service fee 1,112Rp/kWh 38.40 8 12 70 71,737,000
Total 74,137,000
5-126
(5) Fuel cost
and is estimated at 36,960,000 Rp.

travel
Backhoe 5,500 5.6L/hr 4hr/day 1 36,960,000
Total 36,960,000

The service water charge is estimated at 2,314,000 Rp a year.
Yearly
Price Daily use Cost
Classification (Rp/㎥) (㎥/day) usage (Rp/year) Remark
(㎥/year)
Washing twice a
Cleaning water 8,150 1.0 104 847,600
week
Domestic water 8,150 0.60 180 1,467,000 on the basis of 300
days/year
Total 284 2,314,000
(7) Other expenses

Others 1,551,000 1.0%
5-127
5.2.2.2 Incinerator
Operating the incinerator costs 35,996,503,000 Rp a year as detailed below:
Labor cost 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
Electricity 6,240,000,000 ㆍ Fixed charge and usage rate
Fuel 385,178,000 ㆍ Incinerator and emergency generator used

Variable
cost
Service water 601,959,000 ㆍ Process water
Subtotal 34,227,175,000
Total 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) Remark
Director 1 34,200,000
Management Team 8 164,640,000
Vehicle operator team 54 1,074,000,000
Maintenance and test team 10 201,600,000
Total 73 1,474,440,000
5-128
294,888,000Rp a year by applying 20% of the labor cost.

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 Rate applied Cost (Rp/year)

(Rp)
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 Rate applied Cost (Rp/year)

(Rp)
Repair 979,200,000,000 0.75% 7,344,000,000

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.
Hour of use
Classification Price Usage (kWh) Cost (Rp/year)
(month / hr)
Standing charge 200,000Rp/month 2,600 12 6,240,000,000
In normal 1,112Rp/kWh - -
operation
Total 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.
Fuel Number of use Price
Classification consumption Cost (Rp/year)
(use count/yr, hr/yr) (Rp/㎥)
(㎥/use)
Starting incinerator 21.42 3 5,500,000 353,370,360
Emergency generator 1.93 3 5,500,000 31,807,230
Total 385,177,590

Service water charge is estimated at 601,959,000 Rp/year.
Price Daily use Yearly usage Cost

(Rp/㎥) (㎥/day) (㎥/year) (Rp/year)
on the basis of 300
Process water 8,150 246.2 73,860 601,959,000
days/year
Total 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.
Cost
Classification Price Yearly usage (Rp/year) Remark
Chemicals for scale

48,000Rp/㎏ 837 ㎏/year 40,176,000
removal
Deoxidizer 72,000Rp/㎏ 1,581.6 ㎏/year 113,875,000
pH regulator 79,200Rp/㎏ 1,054.5 ㎏/year 83,516,000
Slaked lime slurry (20%) 1,440Rp/㎏ 214,806 ㎏/year 309,321,000
Activated carbon 52,800Rp/㎏ 2,177 ㎏/year 114,951,000
Ammonia (25%) 39,600Rp/L 21,165L/year 838,134,000
Hydrochloric acid (35%) 1,536Rp/㎏ 10,506 ㎏/year 16,137,000
NaOH(33%) 3,936Rp/㎏ 14,895 ㎏/year 58,625,000
sulfuric acid (98%) 1,320Rp/㎏ 33 ㎏/year 44,000
NaOH(20%) 3,936Rp/㎏ 23.7 ㎏/year 93,000
Alum 1,680Rp/㎏ 2,640 ㎏/year 4,435,000
Polymer 66,000Rp/㎏ 13.2 ㎏/year 871,000
Total 1,580,178,000 1 system
Total 3,160,356,000 2 systems
(9) Other expenses

Others 338,882,000 1.0%
5-130
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:
Classification Amount (Rp) Remark
Labor cost 381,000,000 Landfill management staffs = 10

General
Fixed cost administrative 76,200,000
expenses
Fuel 156,420,000 Fuel for equipment
Cover soil 262,800,000
Variable cost
Others 6,820,000 1% of variable cost
Total 880,612,000
(1) Labor cost

The labor cost for landfill management and operation staffs is estimated at 381,000,000Rp a
year.
Operation Wage Cost

Staff Month Remark
staff (Rp/month) (Rp/year)
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
1 2,500,000 12 30,000,000 Class I
management
Landfill management 1 2,500,000 12 30,000,000 Class I
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

General administrative 381,000,000 20% 76,200,000
expenses
(3) Cover soil cost

Cost of cover soil required for operation of the landfill is estimated 262,800,000 Rp/year.
Daily demand
Classification Price (Rp/㎥) Cost (Rp/year)
(㎡/day)
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.
Price Fuel Operating Number

Classification Cost (Rp/year)
(Rp/L) efficiency hours of units
Backhoe 5,500 10.5L/hr 3hr/day 1 51,975,000
Dump truck 5,500 21.1L/hr 3hr/day 1 104,445,000
(25 ㎥)
Bulldozer 5,500 23.8L/hr 3hr/day 1 117,810,000
Total 156,420,000
(5) Other expenses

Other expenses than the above fixed cost and variable cost is estimated at 4,192,000 Rp/year
Classification Cost (Rp/year) Rate applied Remark

Others 4,192,000 1.0%
5-132
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.
Yearly benefit from
Designed Population Per capita benefit from environmental
environmental improvement
(person, as of 2020) (Rp/person/year) 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 Fee/ton Annual disposal fee
(ton/day, 2020) (Rp) (Million Rp/year)
651 300,000 71,285
5-133
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).
Annual
Daily Annual
power Day of Operating power Sales earnings from
production rate profit/kWh power sale
generation generation
(kW) (day) (%) (kW/year) (Rp) (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:
Benefit from
Waste disposal fee Electricity sales improved Total
(Million Rp/year) (Million Rp/year) environment (Million Rp/year)
(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
Waste disposal fee 2,726,520 3,657,100
[Table 5.2.4-2] Waste Collection Fee per Mid-term Target Year

(unit: 1,000 Rp)
Mid-term target year

2018 2019
Waste disposal fee 4,908,290 5,670,500
[Table 5.2.4-3] Waste Collection Fee per Long-term Target Year

(unit: 1,000 Rp)
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
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
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
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%
dy 60%
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)
Present value Present value Net present
Case B/C
of benefit of cost value (NPV)
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
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(%) Remark

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
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 2016 2017 2018 2019

Construction Price 1,166,100 13,200 474,040 678,800
Consulting Service 114,000 38,000 38,000 38,000
Land acquisition and 23,716 23,716
compensation
Total 1,303,816 23,716 51,200 512,040 716,860
5-140
(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
Labor cost 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
Electricity 6,240,000,000 ㆍ fixed charge and usage rate
Fuel 385,178,000 ㆍ incinerator and emergency generator used

Variable
cost
Service water 601,959,000 ㆍ Process water
Subtotal 34,227,175,000
Total 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:
Interest
Conditions Amount (Million Rp) rate Repayment condition
Personal Payable in 10 years with a
- 12%
procurement 4-year grace period
Payable in 15 years with a
EDCF 1,303,817 0.15% 9-year grace period
Total 1,303,817
5-141
(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 Repayment condition

rate
Personal Payable in 10 years with
664,947 12%
procurement a 4-year grace period
Payable in 15 years with
EDCF 638,870 0.15% a 9-year grace period
Total 1,303,817
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 Electricity sales Total

(Million Rp/year) (Million Rp/year) (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
Cash Outflow(1)
Direct Construction Price 1,166,100 1,166,100
Total investment Consulting Service 114,000 114,000
costs Land acquisition & comp 23,716 23,716
Sub total 1,303,816 1,303,816
Operating costs 719,940 719,940
Interest payment 451,322 25,424
Sub Total 2,475,078 2,049,180
Cash Inflow(2)
Tipping Fee 1,422,000 1,422,000
Operating profits
Electric selling 1,469,960 1,469,960
Sub Total 2,891,960 2,891,960
Net Cash Flow(3=2-1) 416,882 842,780
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
2
20
10
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 Specific Scientific Reason
Adjustment between Landfill total
area and Landfill capacity
Paradigm shift from disposal site/
final processingstorage
Act 18 of 2008 on Waste
Development of domestic
waste landfill; disposal by Management which 3R concept
became part of the description of the
controlled landfill / sanitary ≥ 10 ha EIA landfill activities. It's no longer
landfill system including its
≥ 100.000 tons "open dumping" but as a final
supporting plant processing site, so there are
Landfill area, or
Total capacity 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.
TPA in tidal area, Technically, tidal area is not
For all capacities /
Landfill area or recommended to be landfill. But for
Total Capacity amounts some areas with no other options then
it still be allowed to build a landfill in
tidal area
Construction of transfer transfer station site is generally
station ≥ 500 tons / day located inside the town or suburb and
Capacity built in a limited land area
Construction of Integrated To encourage private / community
Waste Treatment ≥ 500 tons / days interest.
Capacity
Domestic waste processing at any
Treatment with incinerator amount must be completed with EIA
Capacity ≥ 500 tons / days because the current domestic waste is
mixed with hazardous waste
composting plant capacity is enlarged
Composting Plant
Capacity All Capacities 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 Elementary
College
School
10%
8%
High
School
Elementary
26%
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
< 4
20%
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
< 2 Million
30%
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
552
60
%
40
30
14 16
6
20 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
73 78
%
40
0
53 48
20
0
20 23 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.
Waste collector
c in Cipeucang
House conditioon nearby landfill(20155. 11)
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)
Current
Short term Mid term Long term
Classification Population
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Class IV 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Class III 2 2 5 7 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Class II 8 8 14 18 22 22 22 22 22 22 22
Class I 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14
Total 26 26 35 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
Current Short term Mid term Long term
Population
Classification
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Supervisor 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54
Field supervisor
Foreman 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Vehicle 70 91 119 157 177 213 218 223 231 238 241
driver
Diver assistant
(Co-driver) 141 142 185 243 274 312 320 326 338 349 354
Collector 25 33 42 55 62 62 62 62 62 62 62
Worker 225 283 326 384 415 421 429 434 443 454 459
Operation staff 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
(TPA, ITF)
Total 550 638 761 928 1,017 1,097 1,118 1,134 1,163 1,192 1,205
5-162
6.1 Components of Activities
6.2 Phases of Implementation
6.3 Implementation Schedule

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 mid-
term 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
Collection Collection and transport

Classification rate Processing facility
(%) Equipment (EA) Facility (unit)
Short-term ․ Pick Up (2.5 ㎥) : 53

(2017) 76.6% ․ Arm Roll (5.5 ㎥) : 66 ․ TPS : 586 ․ Landfill : 418 ton/day
Mid-term ․ Pick Up (2.5 ㎥) : 80

(2019) 100% ․ Arm Roll (5.5 ㎥) : 97 ․ TPS : 921 ․ Landfill : 635 ton/day
․ Pick Up (2.5 ㎥) : 92 ․ TPS : 1,119 ․ Incinerator : 790

Long-term ․ Arm Roll(5.5 ㎥) : ․ Transfer Depot : ton/day
100%
(2025) 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)

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)

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)
Implementation Schedule
No Program Location Unit
2016 2017 2018 2019
I. Technical aspect
1 Procurement of truck and container
- Pick up(2.5㎥) South Tangerang city 65 12 13 24 16
- Arm Roll (5.5㎥) South Tangerang city 74 16 25 22 11
- Container (5.5㎥) South Tangerang city 836 335 150 201 150
3 Transfer depot
-Land purchase South Tangerang city 2.88ha
- Transfer depot DED preparation South Tangerang city 1 lot
-Transfer depot construction South Tangerang city 7
4 Incinerator
-Land purchase South Tangerang city 2.63ha
- Incinerator construction South Tangerang city 651 ton/day
5 Sanitary landfill
- Land purchase South Tangerang city 2.63ha
- Landfill DED preparation South Tangerang city 1 lot
- Landfill construction South Tangerang city 1.32ha
6-5
Implementation Schedule
No Program Location Unit
2016 2017 2018 2019
Ⅱ Institutional aspect
1 DKPP reorganization South Tangerang city 1 lot
Management staff 21 9 6 6
Field staff 467 88 124 167 89
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 Expanding community participation South Tangerang city 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 South Tangerang city monthly
Ⅴ Financial aspect
1 Increasing fee collection South Tangerang city 1 lot
-
7.1 Conclusions
7.2 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
Present value Present value Net present
Case (B/C)
of benefit of cost value (NPV)
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 1,166,100 1,166,100
Consulting Service 114,000 114,000
Total investment costs
Land acquisition & comp 23,716 23,716
Sub total 1,303,816 1,303,816

Operating costs 719,940 719,940
Interest payment 451,322 25,424
Sub Total 2,475,078 2,049,180
Cash Inflow(2)
Tipping Fee 1,422,000 1,422,000
Operating profits
Electric selling 1,469,960 1,469,960
Sub Total 2,891,960 2,891,960
Net Cash Flow(3=2-1) 416,882 842,780
Financial feasibility Analyses

FNPV -499,056 -244,619
Current value of cash outflow 1,626,047 1,371,611
7-2
Current value of cash inflow 1,126,991 1,126,991
FIRR 2.26% 4.98%
PI 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, 2016-
2019), 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

FS Tangsel PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FS Tangsel PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

FS Tangsel PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Feasibility Studdy on integrated

d municipal sollid waste

F ibilityy Stuudy & Bassic Designn

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

2.1.1 Regional Physical Condition .................................................................................. 2-1

2.2.1 Sources of Waste .................................................................................................. 2-12

Chapter 3 Planning Cr iter ia

3.1 Technical Feasibility Criteria ........................................................................................... 3-1

3.1.1 Feasibility Criteria .................................................................................................. 3-1

3.2.1 Norms of Economic and Financial Feasibility ....................................................... 3-2

3.3.1 Norms of Environmental Feasibility ...................................................................... 3-3

3.5 Legal Studies Criteria ...................................................................................................... 3-5

3.6 Institutional Studies Criteria ............................................................................................ 3-5

Chapter 4 Collection of data & Site Sur vey

4.1.1 Regional Spatial Plan (RTRW) .............................................................................. 4-1

4.2.1 Survey of waste sources ......................................................................................... 4-2

4.3.1 Total of Population ............................................................................................... 4-21

4.5 Measurement .................................................................................................................. 4-23

4.5.1 Soil/Ground Investigation .................................................................................... 4-23

Chapter 5 Feasibility Study and Planning of Waste Management System

5.1 Technical and Operational Plan ....................................................................................... 5-1

5.1.1 Waste Sorting/Storage ............................................................................................ 5-1

5.2.1 Estimated Cost of Investment ............................................................................. 5-117

5.3.1 Documents of Environmental Studies ................................................................ 5-145

5.5 Legal Studies ................................................................................................................ 5-157

5.6 Institutional Studies ..................................................................................................... 5-160

5.6.1 Organizational Structure, Main Duties and Functions ....................................... 5-160

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

6.3.1 Technical aspect ..................................................................................................... 6-2

Chapter 7 Conclusions and Recommendations

7.1 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 7-1

7.2 Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 7-3

7.2.1 Technical aspect ..................................................................................................... 7-3

4. Socioeconomic Environmental Study

[Figure 5.5.5-1] Waste energy recovery target and major process

3R Reduce, Reuse & Recycle

Chapter 1 Project Summary

1.2 Purpose and Objective

1.4 Types of Feasibility Study

1.6 Systematics of Reporting

1.2 Purpose and Objective

1.4 Types of Feasibility Study

1.6 Systematics of Reporting

Chapter 2 Planning Area Description

2.1 Planning Area

2.2 Existing Condition of Solid Waste Management

2.1 Planning Area

2.1.1 Regional Physical Condition

2.1.1.1 Administrative Boundaries