SUSTAINABLE WASTE MANAGEMENT REPORT FOR VILANGUDI

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

(An initiative of Naan Mudhalvan in
collaboration with L&T EduTech)

Submitted by

REG.NO NAME
814821103003 ANUSHPRIYA A
814821103016 SURJITH P
814821103018 THILAKRAJ A
814821103019 VINAYAGAMOORTHY P

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
ARIYALUR

1 of 41
 CERTIFICATION OF EVALUATION

COLLEGE: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, ARIYALUR

BRANCH: B.E.CIVIL ENGINEERING

SEMESTER: VI
NAME & REGISTER
S.NO. NUMBER OF THE PROJECT TITLE
STUDENT
1 ANUSHPRIYA A

2 SURJITH P SUSTAINABLE WASTE

MANAGEMENT REPORT
FOR VILANGUDI
3 THILAKRAJ A

4 VINAYAGAMOORTHY P

The report of the project work submitted by the above student as a part of Solid

Waste Management Course for the Naan Madhalvan programe in collaboration with

L&T EduTech is evaluated and confirmed to be the work done by the student.

Submitted on

Head of the Department Faculty in-charge

(Designation, Signature with seal) (Designation, Signature with seal)

2 of 41
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
S.No. Section Page No.
1 Introduction 2
2 Characterization of Waste 4
2.1 Preparation of general profile of VILANGUDI 4
2.2 Survey Phase 7
2.3 Waste Stream Assessment & Quantification in 9
VILANGUDI at Selected Points
3 Questionnaire on Waste Collection System 12
4 Management Plan for effective waste collection 15
5 Community Bin Layout 16
6 Suitability Analysis of Collection system for VILANGUDI 16
7 Vehicle Routing 20
8 Transfer Station 22
9 Feasibility and economic analysis for a new transfer 24
station
10 Beneficial analysis of waste compaction 26
11 Mass Balance Recovery of MRF 27
12 MRF Sequence 29
13 Tanner’s Diagram 29
14 Comprehensive analysis of the current waste treatment 29
practices
15 Waste Disposal Plan for VILANGUDI 31
16 Current Disposal Practices in VILANGUDI 31
17 Waste Management Plan using WaPla 31
18 Conclusion 40

3 of 41
 TASK -1
WASTE CHARACTERIZATION AND QUANTIFICATION
1. Introduction
Urban sustainable waste management involves implementing strategies and practices to
minimize waste generation, maximize recycling and reuse, and reduce environmental impact within
urban areas. By employing innovative technologies and community engagement initiatives, cities aim
to achieve efficient waste collection, processing, and disposal while promoting environmental
stewardship and resource conservation. This holistic approach not only mitigates pollution and
greenhouse gas emissions but also fosters a healthier and more resilient urban environment for present
and future generations.
The sustainable waste management report for VILANGUDI, ARIYALUR has been prepared
for enhancing existing waste collection, processing, and disposal practices.
Waste characterization is also known as Waste Stream Assessment, and it is a part of
quantification. It means finding out how much paper, glass, food waste, etc. is discarded in the waste
stream. The goal of waste characterization is to understand the composition and characteristics of the
waste stream, which can be valuable for various purposes. Waste characterization information helps in
planning how to reduce waste, set up recycling programs, and conserve money and resources.
2. Characterization of Waste
Step 1: Preparation of general profile
Step 2: Survey Phase
Step 3: Waste Stream Characterization
2.1 Preparation of general profile of VILANGUDI [5 marks]
1. Location:
a) Latitude and Longitude…… 11.1186895 79.2061114………….
b) State…… Tamilnadu………………….
c) Distance from nearby airport … 66.9 km…..
d) Area of the locality…… 338,367.77m.sq ………

e)
Figure 1 Satellite View of VILANGUDI

4 of 41
 2. Accessibility through highways and railways
a) Distance from nearest highway… 50 m……
b) Distance from nearest railways… 18.5 km……

The proximity of the highways and railways to VILANGUDI is advantageous for waste transfer and
transport. Well- connected roads increase the efficiency of waste collection.

3. Population [Table 1, 2]
a) Number of wards: …1……..
b) Total population …… 2325………
c) Total households… 1230………..
d) Population density… 445 ................ persons/sq.km
e) Population projection for future years… 3400………. persons/sq.km by 2050.
Table 1- Population Ward wise
Number of wards Nature of No. of Male Female Total % of total
Area household population
Ward No. 171 Rural 783 1312 1323 2635 0.355%
(Vilangudi)
Ariyalur Total 754894
Table 2- Population density in surrounding regions
Region Area in Males Females Total Population
sq. km. Density
(Survey per sq.
of km.
India)
Kavanur 12.23 1634 1608 3242 274
K. Ambapur 95.66 16784 17011 33795 353
Nachiyarpettai 48.65 583 586 1169 213
4. Physiography:
a) Coastal, mountainous, plains, or another physiographic zone:…NIL….
b) Terrain characteristics (undulating, hills, valleys): ……. Nil……
c) General slope direction… Towards East [3 degree may be]……
5. Geology:
a) Main geological formations… Clay, shale and sandstone ……………
6. Soil:
a) Major soil type…..CLAY…. Varies with site.
b) Drainage…… Highly porous….
7. Land Use: [Table 3]
a) Percentage coverage of different land use types…Table 3……
b) Detailed classification of the area………Figure 2………..

5 of 41
 Figure 2 Land use map – Vilangudi [Source: CMDA Website]
Table 3- Classification of the geographical area
Sl. No. Description Area coverage (%)
01 Primary Residential 20
02 Mixed Residential 13
03 Commercial 2
04 Institutional 10
05 Industrial 2
06 Special And Hazardous Industrial 0
07 Open Space & Recreational 36
08 Urbanisable 1
09 Non Urban 3
10 Water Body 8
11 Agricultural 3
12 Reserved Forest 0
Total 100
8. Climate: [Table 4]
a) Type of climate……… SUNNY……………….
b) Seasonal variations …… SUMMER,MANSOON……………..
c) Monsoon periods and rainfall distribution… Rain (Ju-Dec), Dry (Mar-May)……….
Table 4 Historical rainfall data for a specified period
Sl. No. Year Highest Rainfall
in cm/day
1 2019 13
2 2021 12
Normal rainfall 64.4 mm/day

6 of 41
2.2 Survey Phase [5 marks]
In ….VILANGUDI ……, an integral aspect of urban sustainable waste management involves
gathering public opinions and suggestions. To achieve this, a structured questionnaire will be utilized
to solicit input from residents, local businesses, and community organizations. Additionally, interviews
were conducted with stakeholders such as waste management experts and municipal officials to
comprehensively assess the current state of solid waste management in ….VILANGUDI This
Inclusive approach aims to incorporate diverse perspectives and insights, fostering collaborative efforts
towards implementing effective and sustainable waste management practices tailored to the specific
needs of the community. Following Survey sample has been conducted on waste segregation practices
from a resident of …VILANGUDI…...
Date:…22/3/24……..
Name of Surveyor ….THILAKRAJ......
1. Name of Authority…GCC…………………
2. Name of Neighborhood/locality...NACHIYARPETTAI ..................
3. Household family size:.......4........
4. Do you agree if the waste is not disposed properly, it can pollute the environment? Y/N; If
yes, identify the causes/ reasons for some of these problems
(a) As there is no dustbin nearby, wastes are disposed anywhere and this create a nuisance.
(b) Wastes are not collected regularly.
(c) Wastes are left around the dustbin.
(d) Wastes are left in the drain.
(e) Wastes are left on the road.
5. Who disposes of your household waste?
(a) Servant
(b) Family member
(c) Any other person
6. Where is the household waste disposed?
(a) In the dustbin
(b) By the side of the road
(c) In an empty space near the house
(d) Waste collector from the municipality does the door-to-door waste collection
7. How much are you currently spending on waste disposal per month? ……Nil ………
8. Satisfaction level about the present municipal waste removal system: (a)Very good (b) Good (c)
Ok/medium (d) Not satisfactory
9. How often do you dispose of your household waste?
(a) Every day (b)Once every two days (c) Once every three days
10. How do you dispose your household waste in:
(a) Polythene /plastic packet (b) Small bucket (c) Any other container
11. Generally, when do you dispose of your waste?
(a) No definite time (b) Between 6am to 6pm (c) After 6pm
12. How often does the city municipality collect the waste?
(a) Everyday (b) Once in two days (c) Once in three days (d) Irregularly (e) Don't know
13. Which system do you prefer for removal of your household waste?

7 of 41
 (a) A collector will collect the waste from the house.
(b) The collector will come to a certain place at a certain time, you will give him the waste.
(c) You yourself will dispose of the waste in the dustbin.
(d) You will keep your waste container at a certain time by the roadside and the collector will
collect it from there.
14. Rate from 1-4, with 1 being the least:
Facilities in
Priority
your locality
Water supply 4
Sanitation 2
Solid waste
3
management
Drainage 3
15. What do you feel is the most common type of waste generated at your home? Food waste
16. Would you like to dispose of waste from your household daily? Yes
17. What types of wastes are you willing to store for a few days
(a) Wet waste
(b) Packaging material including milk covers and other food packaging
(c) Batteries
(d) Household sanitary waste
(e) Electronic waste
18. Would you segregate your household waste because
(a) It's your responsibility
(b) It's mandatory
(c) It can generate some income
19. What types of waste are you segregating and selling? Batteries, Plastic Bottle
20. Do you know where the household waste is taken? Yes. Dumpyard
21. Are you willing to participate in the exercise to assess the volumes of waste produced for
different categories? Yes.

Questionnaire for establishments

Type/Nature of the establishment:
Shop / Office / Restaurant / Agriculture
1. Name of major products / process: …Plants, Flower …..
2. Type / nature of solid waste generated, if any? .…Flower petals…………….
3. Approximate quantity of waste generated per day……….
4. Existing disposal practices:
Open dumping / Combustion / land filling / Recycling/ composting/others
(specify)………………………………
If open dumping, site of disposal………
5. Are you satisfied with the Existing solid waste management practices of your municipality?

8 of 41
 Yes / No
If no, why?..................
6. What method do you suggest for your municipality in the area of solid waste management?
….Composting box required…………
7. Which area of yours, you suggest, is ideal for setting up of a solid waste management
system……Ariyalur……….
8. Will you support a waste management system incorporating nearby
Municipalities?..........No......................
9. Will you pay for the services, if a paid waste management system is introduced in your
locality: Yes / No
2.3 Waste Stream Assessment & Quantification in VILANGUDI at Selected Points
[10 marks]
22. Identify Nearby region and Sources:
a) Name the nearby region ………Vikkiramangalam, Reddipalayam , Kaikatty………
b) List the main sources of solid waste generation
a. VILANGUDI: Domestic, shops, temples
b. Vikkiramangalam: Domestic, Shops, Institutions, Offices
c. Reddipalayam: Domestic, Hotels, Public areas, Shops and market
d. Vilangudi: Domestic, Shops, Institutions, Offices

Figure 3 Neighboring Localities

23. Quantification:
 Total daily solid waste generation for the entire area was calculated by dividing the
area/locality into 10 sampling points. It was fixed by grouping apartment waste or
from each residential house.
 Sampling points were restricted to 10. It was fixed based on the extent of area.
a) Methodology of waste segregation – Figure 4
b) Break down the solid waste generation by segments - [Table 5]

9 of 41
 Figure 4 Methodology of waste segregation
Table 5- Segregation results of solid waste samples per day

Gross weight
Sampling Organic Plastic Glass Stone Shell Metal
(grams)
stations (grams) (grams) (grams) (grams) (grams) (grams)
S1 900 763.333 150 40 0 0 0
S2 1228 1068.33 226.667 0 20 0
S3 2000 1170 343.333 0 1900 0 0
S4 2100 1743.33 366.667 0 0 0 0
S5 1200 926.667 193.333 36.667 33.333 0 0
S6 1600 1243.33 303.333 0 0 0 0
S7 980 826.667 180 5 0 0 21.6667
S8 1653 1296.67 243.333 96.667 0 0 16.6667
S9 1300 1033.33 200 13.333 0 6.6667 6.6667
S10 990 923.333 40 0 0 0 0

24. Refuse percentage:

a) Percentages of each refuse category [Table 6]
Table 6-Percentage of various components in solid waste samples

Sampling Organic Plastic Glass Stone Shell Metal

Stations waste (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
S1 76.33 15.73 42.0 0.00 0.00 20.33
S2 10.68 17.22 0.00 1.52 0.13 0.00
S3 11.70 10.06 0.00 55.66 0.00 14.70
S4 17.42 17.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
S5 92.66 16.25 3.08 2.80 0.00 0.00
S6 12.43 19.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.80
S7 80.00 17.42 0.48 0.00 0.00 2.10
S8 12.96 14.72 5.85 0.00 0.00 1.01
S9 10.33 15.87 1.06 0.00 0.53 0.53
S10 95.85 4.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

10 of 41
25. Moisture Content:
a) Moisture percentage of organic substances - [Table 7]

Table 7- Moisture content of the organic fraction of waste samples

Sampling Total Wet waste Total dry waste Moisture content

stations (gm) (gm) (%)
S1 763.333 441.4481 42.16835
S2 1068.33 749.6001 29.83441
S3 1170 994.353 15.01256
S4 1743.33 796.0007 54.34022
S5 926.667 408.5446 55.91247
S6 1243.33 720.6727 42.03689
S7 826.667 371.1967 55.09719
S8 1296.67 810.9923 37.45577
S9 1033.33 679.9372 34.19941
S10 923.333 409.0993 55.6932
b) Identify areas with high organic content:
……Sampling points 4,5,7 and 10 indicates higher potential for composting.……

11 of 41
 TASK -2
WASTE COLLECTION SYSTEM
The chapter includes analysis and design of waste collection system appropriate for the study
location. The term "collection" refers to not only the collecting of solid wastes from various sources,
but also the transporting of these wastes to a point where the collection trucks' contents are emptied
and the unloading of the vehicles.
3. Questionnaire on Waste Collection System [5 marks]
The questionnaire on waste collection system in the locality facilitates understanding the
existing practices in the locality.
Door to Door Collection
Individual Houses:
a. Name of the locality: VILANGUDI
b. Type of locality (urban/rural): rural
Waste Collection Process:
i. Who is responsible for waste collection in your locality?
a. Sanitary laborers b. Private waste management company c. Other (Greater Ariyalur
Corporation):
ii. How frequently is waste collected in your area?
a.Daily b. Weekly c. Bi-weekly d. Monthly
iii. Any issues or challenges observed in the waste collection process? No
Waste Segregation at Source:
i. Is waste segregated into dry and wet waste at the household level? a. Yes b. No
ii. If no, what are the reasons for not segregating waste at the source?
Waste Disposal:
i. Where is the collected waste taken?
a. Dumping yard
b. Nearest open place
c. Recycling facility d. Other (please specify)
ii. How satisfied are you with the current waste disposal practices in your area?
a.Satisfied b. Neutral c. Dissatisfied
Road Sweeping Practices
Road Sweeping Schedule:
i. Who is responsible for road sweeping in your locality? a. Sweepers b. Private cleaning
service c. Other (please specify): Greater Ariyalur Corporation
ii. How frequently are internal streets swept in your locality? a. Once a week b. More than
once a week c. Other (please specify):
iii. How often are main roads swept in your area? a. Once a week b. Twice a week c. Other
(please specify)

12 of 41
 iv. What is the time window for road sweeping on both internal streets and main roads?
a. 6 am to 7 am b. other (please specify): 8 am to 10 am
Waste Collection and Transport:
i. How is the collected waste transported to the nearest dust or open place? a. Tricycles
b. Other (please specify)
ii. Are there any observed issues or challenges in the waste transportation process? No
Satisfaction Level:
i. How satisfied are you with the current road sweeping practices in your area? a. Very satisfied
b. Satisfied c. Neutral d. Dissatisfied e. Very dissatisfied
Commercial Areas:
a. Name of the commercial area: Luz corner
b. How long have you been associated with or visiting this area? 20 years
Shopkeeper Attitude towards Bins:
i. Do shopkeepers allow the placement of bins near their shops for waste disposal? a. Yes b.
No
ii. If no, what reasons do shopkeepers typically give for not allowing bins near their shops?
iii. How do shopkeepers expect waste to be managed if bins are not allowed near their shops?
Waste will be collected in bins or bags and disposed in communal bins
Waste Disposal Practices:
i. In the absence of bins near shops, where does the waste usually end up? a. Streets b.
Drains c. other (please specify):
ii. Is street sweeping the primary method used to clear waste from streets and drains? a. Yes
b. No
iii. How does the absence of bins near shops impact the overall cleanliness of the area? Street
littering, breeding of insects, bad odour, leaching
iv. Is there any ongoing communication or awareness program to educate shopkeepers about
proper waste disposal? Yes
Hotel Waste Collection Practices
i. How long have you been associated with or residing in this area? 16 Years
Waste Collection Process:
i. How is the waste generated from hotels collected? a. Tractor with sanitary workers b.
Private waste management service c. Other (please specify):
ii. How many sanitary workers are typically involved in the waste collection process? 2 or 3
iii. At what time is the waste collection usually conducted in the morning? 7 am to 9 am
Frequency of Waste Collection:
i. How often is waste collected from hotels in your area? a. Daily b. Weekly c. Bi-weekly
Other (please specify):
ii. How satisfied are you with the current frequency of waste collection from hotels?
a. Very satisfied b. Satisfied c. Neutral d. Dissatisfied e. Very dissatisfied
Waste Disposal Destination:
i. Where is the collected waste from hotels taken? a. Dumping yard b. Recycling facility
c. other (please specify)

13 of 41
Markets:
Waste Collection Process: (Flower Shops - Local shops near temples)
i. How is the waste generated in the market collected? a. Tricycles b. Private waste
management service c. Other (please specify):
ii. How frequently is waste collected from the market area? a. Daily b. Weekly c. Bi-weekly
d. Other (please specify):
Transportation to Dump Yard:
i. How is the collected waste transported to the dump yard? a. Tractors b. Other (please
specify):
Satisfaction and Feedback:
i. How satisfied are you with the current waste collection frequency in the market area?
a. Very satisfied b. Satisfied c. Neutral d. Dissatisfied e. Very dissatisfied
Waste Disposal Destination:
i. Is the waste transported to a dump yard?
a. Yes b. No
If no, where is the waste disposed of? (Please specify)
Hospital or healthcare facility:
How long have you been associated with or visited this hospital? 16 Years
Waste Collection Process:
I. How is non-biomedical waste collected in hospitals? a. Govt service b. Private waste
management service c. other (please specify):
ii. At what time is the waste collection usually conducted in the morning? 8 am
Frequency of Waste Collection:
i. How often is non-biomedical waste collected from hospitals? a. Daily b. Weekly c. Bi-
weekly d. Other (please specify):
ii. How satisfied are you with the current frequency of waste collection from hospitals? a.Very
satisfied b. Satisfied c. Neutral d. Dissatisfied e. Very dissatisfied
iii. Are you aware of the guidelines and regulations related to biomedical waste management
in India? a. Yes b. No
Waste Disposal Destination:
i. Where is the collected non-biomedical waste from hospitals taken? a. Dumping yard b.
Recycling facility c. other (please specify): Incineration / deep burying
Collection and Segregation
i. How is biomedical waste collected in your facility? a. In-house collection b. Outsourced to
a biomedical waste management service c. Combination of both
ii. Is there a proper segregation system in place for different types of biomedical waste? a. Yes
b. No
iii. How is biomedical waste stored before disposal? a. In designated color-coded bins b. In
sealed containers c. Other (please specify)
iv. How is biomedical waste transported from your facility to the disposal site? a. In-house
transportation b. Outsourced to a waste management service c. Combination of both
v. How frequently is biomedical waste disposal carried out? Daily

14 of 41
 4. Management Plan for effective waste collection
Component Bins for segregation Door to Door collection Street Sweeping Secondary Collection

Arrange for door to door Organize Street

collection of segregated sweeping
Segregation of waste at source solid waste from all covering all the

Table 8 - Management Plan for effective waste collection

by storing of waste in 3 households including residential
Is there any communal
Indicator different bins wet, dry and slums and informal and commercial areas
bins located?
domestic hazardous settlements, commercial, on all the days of the
waste Institutional and other year irrespective of
non-residential premises. Sundays and public
holidays.

Only wet and dry waste is

Informal settlements are
Existing collected. Domestic hazardous Organized street
missed in the collection Yes
Practices waste is also collected alone sweeping is carried out
process
with dry waste

Effective planning for

Proposed Separate Collection for
slum waste management Nil Nil
Solution hazardous waste
must be done

15 of 41
Figure 5 Community Bin Layout for Vilangudi
5. Suitability Analysis of Collection system for Vilangudi [10 marks]
In this project an optimal placement of a Material Recovery Facility (MRF) near the commercial
area of VILANGUDI was proposed. The task at hand involves determining the maximum distance
within which the MRF can be strategically located. Additionally, there's a need to assess whether the
cost of operation for the hauled container system matches that of the stationary container system. It's
assumed that a single collector-driver vehicle will be utilized for both the stationary and hauled
container systems, emphasizing the importance of efficiency and cost-effectiveness in waste
management operations throughout VILANGUDI.
Data for HCS:
a) Quantity of solid wastes = 230 m3/week
b) Container size = 6 m3/trip
c) Container Utilization factor = 0.67
d) Container pickup time = 0.03 h/trip
e) Haul time constants a = 0.22 h/trip and b = 0.01h/km
f) At-site time (s) = 0.05 h/trip
g) Overhead costs = ₹ 28464 per week
h) Operational Costs = ₹ 1067 per/hour of operation
Data for SCS:
a) Quantity of solid wastes = 230 m3/week
b) Container size = 6 m3/ location
c) Container utilization factor = 0.67
d) Collection vehicle capacity= 23 m3/trip
e) Collection vehicle compaction ratio = 2
f) Container unloading time = 0.05 h/container

16 of 41
g) Haul time constants: a = 0.02 h / trip and b = 0.01 h / km
h) At-site time (s) = 0.01 h/trip
i) Overhead costs = ₹53370 per week
j) Operational costs = ₹1423 per hour of operation
Location Characteristics:
a) Average distance between container locations = dbc = 0.16 km
b) Operational costs = ₹1423 per hour of operation
c) Constants for estimating driving time between container locations for both haul and stationary
container systems are 𝑎 = 0.060 h/ trip and b = 0.042 h/km
6.1 Hauled Container System [HCS]:
Step 1: Number of trips per week
Weekly quantity of waste collected
Nw =
(Average container size)(Container utilization factor)
𝑉𝑤 230
Nw = = = 57 trips/wk
𝑐𝑓 6 × 0.67
Step 2: Average pickup time for the HCS
𝑃HCS = pc + uc + dbc
If ‘dbc’ is not given, use haul speed constants
𝑃HCS = pc + uc + (a+bx)
𝑃HCS = 0.03 + 0.03 + 0.06 + 0.04 (0.16) = 0.13 h/ trip
Step 3: Time required per week (Tw) as a function of the round-trip haul distance
𝑁𝑤(𝑃𝐻𝐶𝑆+𝑠+𝑎+𝑏𝑥)
𝑇𝑤 = 𝐻(1−𝑊)
57(0.13 + 0.05 + 0.022 + 0.014𝑥)
𝑇𝑤 =
8(1 − 0.15)
TW = 1.7 + 0.12𝑥 𝑑/𝑤𝑘 d/wk
Step 4: Weekly operational cost as a function of round-trip haul distance
Operational cost = (Operational cost per hour) * (Daily total hours of operation) * [Time required per
week (Tw)]
Operational cost = (₹1067)(8)[(1.74 + (0.12)(x)]d/wk
Operational cost = 14852.64 + 1024.32(x)(₹/wk)
Overhead cost = Rs. 28464 (given)
Total cost(₹/week) = Operational cost + overhead cost = 14852.64 + 1024.32 (x) + 28464
Total cost(₹/week) = 3 3,316.64 + 924.32 (x)
6.2 Stationary Container System [SCS]
Step 1: Number of containers emptied per trip
( volume of collection vehicle) (compaction ratio)
𝐶1 =
(container volume) (container utilization factor)

𝑣𝑟 23 × 2
= = = 11.44 ≃ 11 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑝
𝑐𝑓 6 × 0.67
Step 2: Pickup time per container
PSCS = C1(uc) + (Np - 1) dbc
PSCS = 11 x 0.05 + (11-1) (0.06 + 0.04 x 0.16) = 1.22 h/trip

17 of 41
Step 3: No. of trips required per week
Weekly quantity of waste collected
Nw =
(volume of collection vehicle) (compaction ratio)
𝑉𝑤 230
= = = 5 𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑝𝑠/𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑘
𝑉𝑟 23 × 2

Step 4: Time required per week, Tw as a function of the round-trip haul distance
𝑁𝑤 × 𝑃𝑠𝑐𝑠 + 𝑁𝑤(𝑠 + 𝑎 + 𝑏𝑥)
𝑇w(𝑠𝑐s) =
𝐻(1 − 𝑊)

5 × 1.22 + 5(0.01 + 0.02 + 0.01𝑥)

𝑇𝑤(𝑠𝑐𝑠) =
8(1 − 0.15)
Tw = 0.92 + 0.01 𝒙 d/week
Step 5: Weekly operational cost as a function of round−trip haul distance
Operational cost = Operational cost per hour x daily total hours of operation x Time required per week
(0.92 + (0.01)(x)]d
Operational cost = (1423)(8)[ ]
w
= 10473.28 + 103.84 x (₹/wk)
Overhead cost = Rs. 53370 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑘 ( given )

Total cost (₹/week) = 10473.28 + 103.84𝑥 + 53370

∴ Total cost SCS ( Rs ) = 53843.28 + 103.84 (x)

week

Step 6 : Comparison of Cost

As a study, the weekly total cost for HCS & SCS for round trip haul distances(s) 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25,
30 , 35 m is worked out.
Table 9 Comparison of cost
Hauled Container System
Round Trip Stationary Container System (₹/week),
(₹/week)
Haul Distance 𝑻𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍 𝑪𝒐𝒔𝒕 = 5 𝟑𝟖𝟒𝟑. 𝟐𝟖 +
𝑻𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍 𝑪𝒐𝒔𝒕 = 3 3,316.64 +
(x), km 𝟏0𝟑. 𝟖𝟒 (𝒙)
924.32 (x)
0 33316 53843
5 37936 54358
10 42556.48 54876
15 47176.66 55388
20 51796 55903
25 56416 56418
30 61036 56933
35 65656 57488

18 of 41
 It can be inferred that, as the haul distance increases, haul cost also increases. Thus, the cost of
Hauled Container System is higher. In the case of SCS, though the initial cost is high when compared
to HCS, it does not increase drastically as distance increases.
In VILANGUDI, the task at hand involves pinpointing the maximum round trip haul distance
at which the costs of implementing a hauled container system match those of a stationary container
system.

This is achieved by equating the total costs of both systems and solving for '𝑥', representing the
distance. This analysis is crucial for efficient waste management in VILANGUDI, ensuring that the
chosen system aligns with the municipality's budgetary considerations while effectively addressing
the area's waste disposal needs.
Total cost HCS = Total cost SCS
43046.64 + 1024.32(x) = 53843.28 + 103.84(x)
20,796.59 = 910.48 𝑥
𝑥 = 22.84 km
Thus, One-way distance to the Material Recovery Facility (MRF) = 11.4 kms

19 of 41
 TASK – 3
WASTE TRANSFER AND TRANSPORT
The most expensive element of any waste management system is generally collection and
transportation. This task provides a solution for effective and economical vehicle routing for door-
to-door waste collection in the ….VILANGUDI… locality. The collected waste will be dumped
at the nearest transfer station, from where it will be transported to a processing center, MRF
station, or dumping yard.

6. Vehicle Routing (7 Marks)

Urban waste collection routes are a crucial aspect of waste management. For a residential
colony in the ….VILANGUDI… locality the economical vehicle routing is determined through
manual or heuristic approaches, adhering to common guidelines such as no U-turns and collection
on each side of the street with right-hand drive vehicles. To arrive at the optimized waste collection
route for the residential colony in ….VILANGUDI…, following factors or data are assumed or
collected:
Residential colony layout with blocks containing 2, 6, 12 houses

Figure 6 Layout of Residential Colony

Occupancy rate: ….6…. occupants per house
Collection frequency: ….1 week…. with curb service collection
Collection crew size: ….One person….
Collection vehicle capacity: ….24.6 m³…..
Compacted waste density: ….390 kg/m³…..
Waste generated per person per day: …..1.6 kg…..
Calculation and Analysis:
No of Blocks = …..Block 1 to 15…..
No of Group = …..03…..
20 of 41
No of Block in each group:
a) Group A = …..14 Nos….
b) Group B = ….6 Nos….
c) Group C = ….2 Nos….
Step 1:
Find compacted volume of waste to be collected per week
Total number of residences in each group
a) Group A
Number of residences = …..2 + 6 + 2 + 6… = …16 Nos…
Total number of residences Group A = …16 x 14… = …224 Nos…

b) Group B

Number of residences = ….. 12 + 6 + 12 + 6…. = …..36 Nos…

Total number of residences Group B = …..36 x 6… = …216 Nos…

c) Group C
Number of residences = …2 + 12 + 2 + 12.. = ..28 Nos…
Total number of residences Group C = …28 x 2.. = ..56 Nos…
Total number of residences in colony = … 496 Nos….
Daily waste per household = Residents per Unit x Daily Waste Generation per Person
Daily waste per household = …6x 1.6… = ….9.6 kg/day….
Total daily waste = Daily waste per household x Total number of residences
Total daily waste in all residences = …9.6 x 496… = …4761 kg/day…
Total weekly waste = Total daily waste × 7
Total weekly waste = ……4761 x 7…. = ….33327 kg/week…
Total weekly waste
Volume of compacted waste =
Specific weight of compacted waste
Volume of compacted waste = …85.45 m3/week….
Step 2:
Find number of trips per week
Volume of compacted waste
No of trips/week =
Collection vehicle capacity
No of trips per week = …2 Nos….
Step 3:
Find average residences per trip calculation
No of resident covered/week = Total number of residences
No of trips/week
No of resident covered per week = ….248 Resident/trip…
Step 4:
Preparation of Collection Route Layout (Manual Approach without over lap)
No of routes: …2 Nos…

21 of 41
 No of block covered in each route:
Route 1: ….10 blocks….
Route 2: …..11 blocks….
No of residence covered in each route:
Route 1: ….212 residences….
Route 2: …..196 residences ….

Figure 7 Vehicle Routing for Residential Colony in Vilangudi

7. Transfer Station (3 Marks)
A transfer station is a light industrial-type facility or site for the temporary deposition of waste.
It can be either…..Open-air stations or enclosed buildings…. The key activities carried out in
transfer station is unloading, pre-screening, removal of inappropriate items. The compacting of
waste and reloading onto larger vehicles for transport to disposal sites, MRFs, or dump sites is
also carried out at these facilities. The currently operating closest transfer station or disposal area
in the …Vilangudi…. Locality for waste disposal has been identified with the help of Google
Maps. The closest transfer stations identified are listed below.

Table 10 Nearest Transfer Stations or Disposal area in ….Vilangudi….

S. Transfer station or Location Distance from your

No disposal area Name Locality
1 …Ariyalur Corporation …Ariyalur… …14.7 km…
Dump Yard…
2 …Corporation Garbage …Ariyalur… ….4.3 km…
Bunk…
3 …Daily Dump… …Ariyalur… ….5.5 km….
4 …Dumtray… ….Ariyalur…. ….14.4 km….

22 of 41
 Figure 8 Route map from ….Vilangudi to Ariyalur Corporation Dump Yard,
Ariyalur…

Figure 9 Route map from ….Vilangudi to Corporation Garbage Bunk, Ariyalur…

Figure 10 Route map from ….Vilangudi to Daily Dump, Ariyalur…

23 of 41
 Figure 12 .... Entrance of Transfer Station…

The nearest transfer station or disposal area in ….Vilangudi…. for efficient waste disposal is
identified as the ….Corporation Garbage Bunk in Keelaplur, located 16 km away…...

8. Feasibility and economic analysis for a new transfer station (5 Marks)

In the ….Vilangudi… community, authorities are exploring ways to optimize waste
management. Currently, municipal solid waste is directly hauled from households to distant
landfills. A feasibility study is underway to introduce new transfer stations strategically placed
across the city. Feasibility and economic analysis for a new transfer station in …. Vilangudi …
locality is carried out through Break-Even Analysis. Data such as cost of transfer station, average
payload for direct haul, average payload for transfer haul station to landfill and average cost of
trucks for direct or transfer haul were collected for the analysis. From the collected data the
feasible round trip distance for the location of new transfer station arrived.

The collected data are as follows:

 Cost of transfer station = …Rs. 100/ton….
 Average Payload for direct haul = ….6 tons…
 Average Payload for transfer haul station to landfill = …19 tons…

24 of 41
 Average cost of trucks for direct or transfer haul = …Rs. 30/km…
 Distance of haul (Round-trip distance in km) - ?
Cost of direct haul and transfer haul is calculated by using the below mentioned formula:
𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑥 𝑇𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔
𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝐷𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝐻𝑎𝑢𝑙 =
Direct haul payload
𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑥 𝑇𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔
𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑓𝑒𝑟 𝐻𝑎𝑢𝑙 = 𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑓𝑒𝑟 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡 +
Transfer haul payload
Table 11 Costing Tabulation for Analysis
Distance in Cost of Direct Cost of Transfer
km Haul Haul
0 0.00 10.00
5 2.14 10.71
10 4.29 11.43
15 6.43 12.14
20 8.57 12.86
25 10.71 13.57
30 12.86 14.29
35 15.00 15.00
40 17.14 15.71
45 19.29 16.43

Figure 13 Graph Plotting for Analysis

25 of 41
 From the analysis it is observed that transfer station is cost-effective when round-trip distance
exceeds 35 km; direct haul is more cost-effective for distances less than 35 km.

9. Beneficial analysis of waste compaction (5 Marks)

For the current sustainable waste handling optimization study, a high-rise residential complex
in the …Vilangudi… locality is chosen. The goal is to optimize waste handling practices in a
high-rise residential complex consisting of …150 units…. The objective is to assess the economic
and environmental impact of waste compaction on the total waste generated by residents.

Currently, waste is collected daily from each unit and directly transported to the landfill without
compaction. The proposed waste management practice is to introduce a waste compaction system
before transporting waste to the landfill.

The key data for the study is as follows:

 Number of units: …150 houses…
 Average persons per house: …4…
 Waste generated per person per day: …1.35 kg…
 Specific weight of uncompacted waste: …100 kg/m³…
 Specific weight of compacted waste: …250 kg/m³…
 Volume of truck: …7.5 m3…

Calculation and Analysis:

Daily waste per household = Residents per Unit x Daily Waste Generation per Person
Daily waste per household = …4 x 1.35…. = ….5.4 kg per day….
Total daily waste for …150… units = …150…x Daily waste per household
Total daily waste for …150… units = …150 x 5.4… = …810 kg per day…
Total weekly waste = Total daily waste × 7
Total weekly waste = …810 x 7… = ..5670 kg per week..

a) Without Compaction:
Volume before compaction = Total weekly waste / Specific weight of uncompacted waste
Volume before compaction = ….5670 /100… = …56.7 m3…
No of trips = Volume before compaction/ Volume of truck
No of trips = …56.7/7.5…. = …7.56 Nos (8 Trips per week)…

b) With Compaction:
Volume after compaction = Total weekly waste / Specific weight of compacted waste
Volume after compaction = …5670/250… = …22.68 m3…
No of trips = Volume after compaction/ Volume of truck
No of trips = …22.68/7.5… = …3.02 Nos (3 Trips per week)…
The implementation of a waste compaction system results in a reduction of …5 trips per
week.., leading to significant savings in fuel costs. Additionally, the compactor's closed and
covered design helps prevent waste spillage, making compaction an optimal solution with positive
economic and environmental impacts.

26 of 41
 TASK – 4
WASTE PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES
10. Mass Balance Recovery of MRF [7 marks]
The Material Recovery Facility (MRF) in …….Vilangudi………., a bustling
neighborhood in …Ariyalur……., operates around the clock, processing …1000 tons .......... of
mixed municipal solid waste (MSW) every day. As the sun rises over …….Vilangudi , the MRF
springs to life, ready to tackle the day's waste management challenges. Trucks loaded with MSW
from residential, commercial, and industrial areas of the city begin to queue up at the facility's
entrance, each carrying the discarded materials. The MRF operates ….16 hours…… a day,
tirelessly processing …….1000 tons…… of mixed municipal solid waste (MSW) daily. Air
classifier in the MRF separates the waste components as shown:
 Initial Moisture content = …20%......
 Moisture loss = ….17 %. of initial value from light fraction
 Heavy fraction in light fraction = ….3 %........
 Light fraction in heavy fraction = ……12 %..........
 Recovery percentage - Ferrous metals = …60 %...., Glass = …..70 %.........., and
Aluminium = ……65 %........
Table 12 Components Vs Weight of Processed waste in MRF [Data based on
visitation to MRF]
Component Percentage by weight
Food Waste 15
Paper 40
Cardboard 4
Plastics 3
Textile 2
Rubber 0.5
Leather 0.5
Garden Trimming 12
Wood 2
Glass 6
Tin Cans 4
Nonferrous metals 1
Ferrous metals 2
Dirt, ashes, brick 8
100
Initial light fraction = …79… % [Food to Wood]
Initial heavy fraction =…21… % [Glass to Brick]
1. Mass Balance Quantities
a. Moisture loss
Total weight of waste = …1000… ..... T/d
Initial Moisture content = …20….% = …0.20……

27 of 41
 Weight lost due to initial Moisture loss = 1000 x 0.20…= 200…T/d
Moisture loss = …17… % of initial value from light fraction
Weight lost due to Total moisture loss = 0.17x200= 34…T/d
b. Total Weight of light fraction
Initial light fraction = 79 % = …0.79……..
Initial total weight of light fraction = 1000x0.79.= 790 T/day
Total weight of light fraction after moisture loss =…..790 -34…..=…756..T/day
c. Total weight of heavy fraction
Initial heavy fraction = 21. % = 0.21…
Total weight of heavy fraction = 1000x0.21….= ...... 210.T/day
d. Total weight of light fraction including carry over
Heavy fraction in light fraction =….. 3. %....
Light fraction in heavy fraction = ……12 % …….
Weight of light fraction after removing heavy fraction present in light fraction =(1-0.12) 756.. =
………..665.28 ...... T/d
Weight of light fraction carried to heavy fraction [Carry over] = 0.06x210.. =…. 12.6T/d……..
Total weight of light fraction including carry over = ……..677.88….T/d
e. Total weight of heavy fraction including carry over
Weight of heavy fraction after removing light fraction present in heavy fraction = (1-0.03)x210
= ………203.7.. T/d
Weight of heavy fraction carried to light fraction [Carry over] =0.12x756.. = 90.72.T/d
Total weight of heavy fraction including carry over = 294.4 T/d
f. Weight of ferrous metals (Ferrous + Tin can) recovered
Weight of ferrous metals in waste =(0.02+0.04).x1000. = …60.T/d
Weight of ferrous metals recovered = 60.% of ferrous metals =0.6x60.. = ... 36.T/d
g. Weight of glass recovered
Weight of glass in waste =0.06x1000. = 60.T/d
Weight of glass recovered = 70% of glass =0.7x60.. = …42......... T/d
h. Weight of non-ferrous metal recovered
Weight of non-ferrous in waste =0.01x1000.. = 10.T/d
Weight of non-ferrous metal recovered = 70..% of non-ferrous metal =…0.7x10.. = 7.T/d
Amount of residue in heavy fraction =(308-64-64-7). = 173.T/d
Table 13 Loading rate for 16 h operation of MRF plant
Loading Rate, T/h
Total amount incoming or loaded,
MRF sequence = Loaded amount/Hours of
T/day
work
1000
Shredder 63
1000-200 (removed weight due to
Classifier 50
moisture loss) = 800
Magnetic Separator 308 20
308-36(removed iron)
Glass Separator 17
=272
Aluminium Separator 272-36(removed glass)=236 14.75
Residue Storage 180-7(removed non ferrous)=173 11

28 of 41
11. MRF Sequence [5 marks]

Magnetic
Manual sorting Shredder Classifier separator

Glass
Residue Optical sorting Eddy current Separator

12. Tanner’s Diagram [3 marks]

To evaluate the additional fuel requirement for the incineration of commingled wastes the
following data were collected. [Data based on the type of waste. Standards were used]
Moisture content, W=……0.24%......
Ash content, A=…4.93%.....
Combustible, C=….94.83%..........
Do the lines merge inside? …Yes…………….

Figure 14 Tanner’s Diagram

Inference…As the 3 lines converge to form a polygon inside the shaded area, Plastic does not
need auxiliary fuel for burning after ignition while incinerating. It self-burns….
13. Comprehensive analysis of the current waste treatment practices [5 marks]

The gap analysis for the current existing waste treatment practices followed in …. Vilangudi….
were studied and efficient waste treatment method was proposed in the table below.

29 of 41
 Table 14 Comprehensive analysis of waste treatment practices

Current Gaps in the Proposed treatment

S.No Type of waste
treatment method treatment methods if any
80% is going to Can be used in producing
1 Food waste 20% composting
the landfill Biogas
Recyclable waste-
100% is getting
2 Plastics, glass and --- --------
recycled in MRF
metals
70% of the e-waste has to
E-waste (batteries, 30% only is 70 % of the e -
be segregated in the source
circuit boards, segregated and waste generated
3 and given it to the PCB
electrical waste processed in the goes to landfill
certified vendors for proper
etc.) MRF) without treating.
recycling.
100% is going to It must be properly
4 Sanitary waste Not treated
the landfill incinerated.

30 of 41
 TASK – 5
WASTE DISPOSAL AND WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN

14. Waste Disposal Plan for Vilangudi [5 marks]

A sanitary landfill to serve the Vilangudi population has been worked out for the following
data.
 Solid waste generation per day by per person (for the locality chosen) = 0.6 kg
 Out of generated waste only 40% reaches the landfills.
 Compacted density of solid waste in landfill = 320 kg/m3
 Average depth of compacted solid waste = 4 m
 Population of Vilangudi = 2635
Total solid waste generation per day in the community = 2635 x 0.6 kg = 1581 kg/day Volume
of waste reaching the landfill = 1581 x 0.4 = 632.4 kg/day
Total volume after compaction = Total waste generated = 20053.5 = 1.976 m3/day
Compacted Density 450
Compacted volume
Required landfill area = = 1.976 = 0.4940 m2/day
Depth 4
Required area per year = Per day required landfill area x 365
= 0.4940 x 365 = 180.332 m2/year
15. Current Disposal Practices in Vilangudi [5 marks]
In Vilangudi, there is no landfill, and the reasons were analyzed. It was found that for
Vilangudi solid waste disposal itself there is an area requirement of 180.332 m2/year as
shown.
16. Waste Management Plan using WaPla [10 marks]
16.1 Input data
Annual Precipitation: 1700mm/yr
Average Temperature: 280C
Waste Generated = 10000 t/yr
MRF:
Composting:
Incineration:
Table 15 System Definitions
S.No System Definitions TC Range
1 Waste Generation
Waste collected 0.2 – 0.95
Recyclables from households 0 – 0.3
Waste not collected 0.05 – 0.8
2 Uncollected Waste
Waste to dumping 0.3 – 1.0
Leakage to waters 0 – 0.4
Waste to open burning 0 – 0.7

31 of 41
 3 Waste Collection
Waste to materials recovery facility 0 – 1.0
Waste to composting* 0 – 0.65
Waste to incineration* 0 – 1.0
Landfill / Formal Disposal 0 – 1.0
4 Open Burning
Burning residuals 0.1 – 0.3
Open burning emissions 0.7 – 0.9
5 Materials Recovery Facility
Refuse-derived fuel 0 – 0.3
Recyclable materials 0 – 0.2
Organic material 0 – 0.65
Residuals of materials recovery facility 0.15 – 0.7
6 Composting
Compost 0.1 – 0.3
Composting residuals 0.1 – 0.3
Gaseous and liquid composting losses 0.6 – 0.8
7 Incineration
Incineration residuals 0 – 0.3
Off-gas 0.7 – 1.0
8 Informal Dumping
Waste burned at dumpsites 0 – 0.4
Recyclables from dumpsites 0 – 0.5
Landfill / Formal Disposal (clean up of 0 – 1.0
dumpsites)
Biodegradation rate and losses via 0.2 – 0.5
leachate†
Waste to dump stock 0 – 0.8
9 Landfill / Formal Disposal
Waste burned at formal landfills 0 – 0.25
Recyclables from landfills 0 – 0.1
Biodegradation rate and losses via 0.2 – 0.5
Leachate
Waste to landfill stock 0.25 – 0.8

Table 16 Unintentional Persistent Organic Pollutant (uPOP) Emissions

uPOP Emissions Range
1 Open Burning
Emission factor – Air [µg TEQ/t 40
waste burned]
Emission factor – Land [µg TEQ/t 1
waste burned]

32 of 41
2 Composting
Share of clean compost 50%
Share of gray compost 50%
3 Incineration Air pollution Air Residue
No pollution: 3500 75
Air pollution control and type of Minimal: 350 75
combustion Good: 30 30
Sophisticated: 0.5 3
Combustion of refuse-derived 1 µg TEQ/t
fuels in cement kiln
4 Informal Dumping To water To residue
Share of domestic waste dumped 0.05 5
[kg/kg dumped]
Share of mixed waste dumped 0.5 50
[kg/kg dumped]
Share of hazardous waste [kg/kg 5 50
dumped]
5 Landfill / Formal Disposal To water To residue
Share of domestic waste landfilled 0.05 5
[kg/kg landfilled]
Share of mixed waste landfilled 0.5 50
[kg/kg landfilled]
Share of hazardous waste 5 500
landfilled [kg/kg landfilled]
6 Fires at Landfills / Dumpsites
Emission factor – Air [µg TEQ/t 300
waste burned]
Emission factor – Land [µg TEQ/t 10
waste burned]

Table 17 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions

GHG Emissions Range
1 Waste Collection
Fuel (diesel) consumption [liter/year] Depends
2 Open Burning
Plastics content of waste burned [kg/kg] 0 to 25%
3 Composting Management
Quality of composting process Very well:
Managed:
Poorly:

33 of 41
4 Recycling kg/kg EF: CO2
eq/tonne

Share of paper & cardboard [kg/kg 0 to 1 -0.15

recyclables]
Share of glass [kg/kg recyclables] 0 to 0.3 -0.3
Share of plastics [kg/kg recyclables] 0 to 1 -1.5
Share of scrap metals [kg/kg recyclables] 0 to 0.3 -1.8
5 Incineration
Waste incineration with energy recovery Yes/No
AND Refuse-derived fuels are utilized in Yes/No
(cement industry)
Plastics content of waste incinerated 0 to 25%
[kg/kg]
6 Informal Dumping
Quality of dumpsite management H>5 m, More GHG
Paper & cardboard content [kg/kg 0 to 30%
dumped]
Biowaste content [kg/kg dumped] 0 to 75%
7 Landfill / Formal Disposal
Quality of landfill / formal disposal site
Management
Paper & cardboard content [kg/kg 0 to 30%
landfilled]
Biowaste content [kg/kg landfilled] 0 to 75%
Share of landfill gas collected [%] No gas/ Well gas
8 Fires at Landfills / Dumpsites
Plastics content [kg/kg waste burned] 0 - 25%

Table 18 Costs of Waste Management

Costs of Waste Management Range
1 Waste Collection
Annual operating costs (Currency per 7500000
year)
Total investment costs (Currency) 0
Depreciation time for investments (Years) 0
Loan interest rate (Percentage) 0
2 Materials Recovery Facility (MRF)
Annual operating costs (Currency per 3750000
year)
Total investment costs (Currency) 0
Depreciation time for investments (Years) 0

34 of 41
 Loan interest rate (Percentage) 0
3 Composting

Annual operating costs (Currency per 1500000

year)
Specific revenues (Currency per ton 10000
compost produced)
Total investment costs (Currency) 0
Depreciation time for investments (Years) 0
Loan interest rate (Percentage) 0
4 Recycling:
Specific revenues from recycling 6000
(Cardboard and paper) (Currency per
tonne)
Specific revenues from recycling (Glass) 3750
(Currency per tonne)
Specific revenues from recycling 22500
(Plastics) (Currency per tonne)
Specific revenues from recycling (Scrap 19000
metal) (Currency per tonne)
5 Incineration
Annual operating costs (Currency per 6750000
year)
Revenues from selling energy (Currency 825000
per year)
Total investment costs (Currency) 5,62,50,000
Depreciation time for investments (Years) 30 yrs
Loan interest rate (Percentage) 10%
6 Informal Dumping
Annual operating costs (Currency per 0
year)
7 Landfill / Formal Disposal:
Annual operating costs (Currency per 41.62,500
year)
Total investment costs (Currency) 2,25,00,000
Depreciation time for investments (Years) 30 yrs
Loan interest rate (Percentage) 0

35 of 41
16.2 WaPla Tool Input

Figure 15 Project Information

Figure 16 Uncollected waste definitions

36 of 41
Figure 17 Material Recovery Definition

Figure 18 uPOPS

Figure 19 GHG’s data

37 of 41
 Figure 20 Collection & Transportation Costs
17.2 WaPla Tool Output

Figure 20 Flow chart of management Plan

38 of 41
Figure 21 uPOP Emission Components

Figure 22 GHG Emission Components

Figure 23 Cost and revenue

39 of 41
 Figure 24 Operation Costs
The waste management plan that is created for Vilangudi town using the WaPla tool provides
insights into the total GHG emission, cost on investment, operational costs and opportunities for
improvement.
17. Conclusion
1. In conclusion, the comprehensive waste characterization and quantification efforts in
Vilangudi, Ariyalur, have yielded crucial technical insights vital for optimizing Solid
waste management strategies.
2. By discerning the composition and volume of waste streams, particularly the identification
of high organic content areas, such as sampling points 4, 5, 7, and 10, targeted interventions
like composting initiatives can be efficiently deployed to minimize waste generation and
enhance resource utilization.
3. It can be inferred that for Vilangudi, as the haul distance increases, haul cost also increases.
Thus, the cost of Hauled Container System is higher. In the case of SCS, though the initial
cost is high when compared to HCS, it does not increase drastically as distance increases.
4. For collection, one-person crew is economical for Vilangudi.
5. The nearest transfer station or disposal area in Vilangudi for efficient waste disposal is
identified as the Corporation Garbage Bunk in Ariyalur, located 14.7 km away.
6. No of block covered in each route:
a. Route 1: 10 blocks
b. Route 2: 11 blocks
7. No of residence covered in each route:
a. Route 1: 212 residences
b. Route 2: 196 residences
8. From the analysis it is observed that transfer station is cost-effective when round-trip
distance exceeds 35 km; direct haul is more cost-effective for distances less than 35 km.
9. The implementation of a waste compaction system results in a reduction of 5 trips per
week, leading to significant savings in fuel costs. Additionally, the compactor's closed and
covered design helps prevent waste spillage, making compaction an optimal solution with
positive economic and environmental impacts.

40 of 41
10. Waste taken to the MRF was processed in the following sequence:
a. Manual sorting
b. Shredder
c. Classifier
d. Magnetic separator
e. Glass Separator
f. Eddy current
g. Optical sorting
h. Residue
11. In Vilangudi, there is no landfill, and the reasons were analyzed. It was found that for
Vilangudi solid waste disposal itself there is an area requirement of 180.332 m2/year.
12. WaPla tools was used to prepare the Waste Management Plan including the cost of entire
operation, uPOP's and GHG emissions of the operations are studied.

1 38 41 of 41