International Journal of Latest Technology in Engineering & Management (IJLTEM)

www.ijltem.com || ISSN: 2456-1770 ||

Waste Management and Asset Service ImprovementIn Pematangsiantar

Novdin M Sianturi
Lecturer, Faculty of Engineering of Simalungun University

Abstract
Technical analysis of operational waste management assetsincludes containers, collection and transport, whereas the
financial research and analysis of the feasibility of using Net Present Value, Internal Rate of Return, Benefit/Cost Ratio,
and Payback Period. Waste management in Pematangsiantar still resting on final approach (get-together waste transport)
with a lowlevel of service. This research aims to examine waste management system. From the analysis, itwas found that a
waste management with a sorting methodin the polling stations based on services zone priority gradually increasing from
2013-2017, can improve the coverage of existing garbage service average 6,69%, coverage of existing TPS services an
average of 8.29%, and the scope of service of existing garbage transport trucks average 12,03%. The value of the
investment Cashflow, Net worth by 2020 of Rp 720.242.284, interest rate 15% NPV is positive, the IRR > MARR 15%, B/C
Ratio > 1, and PP 4.7 years, shorter than the 10-year investment period.

Keywords: Asset,Service, Waste

BACKGROUND
According to the Department of Health Pematangsiantar, the waste management is still based on final approach; the garbage
is collected, transported, and disposed of in landfills (TPA), with the coverage about 20% of the total area of
Pematangsiantar. Waste management is handled by Division of Health, Parks and Cemeteries, Department of Health
Pematangsiantar, while the waste management activities carried out by the Health Services Section.The asset of waste
management is 10 units of 3m3 capacity concrete polling station (TPS), 41 units of 3m3 capacity knock down, and 52 units
of 6m3 capacity containers. Waste transported by using 43 vehicles; 31 units of dump trucks and 12 units of 6m3 capacity
armroll trucks. For final processing, there are two polling stations, namely TPS Tanjungpinggir1 of 2.5 ha (already used
about 90%) and TPS Tanjungpinggir2 of 5 ha, (not yet operating). The waste disposal method in the TPA by means of
open dumping.The waste management budget in 2010 only 0.62% of the total budget, while the revenue from waste
retributiononly 9.53% of the total budget of waste management.In improving waste management, a service strategy is
required to increase the capacity of waste handling. For that is necessary to study a waste management system with a sorting
method at the polling stations in order to improve the coverage of the asset until 2015 both technically operational and
financial aspects.

METHODOLOGY
This study is a descriptive study. The location is the area of waste management services Tanjungpinggir. The data collected
are qualitative and quantitative, which includes the characteristics of the region, administration, population, socioeconomic,
wastepiles, waste composition, local services, asset management and financing of waste management.The data were
analyzed descriptively, which describes the condition of the existing technical, operational and financing of waste
management assets. Primary data and secondary data were then compared with the standard NSPM in order to obtain a
general overview of waste management in Pematangsiantar. The analysis of technical operation and feasibility using the
investment criteria of Net Present Value, Internal Rate of Return, Benefit/Cost Ratio, and Payback Period.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Technical Operations of Waste Management Asset
Waste piles: The average of household waste density is 255 kg/m3. The average of piles that generated is equal to 1.75
1/person/day or the equivalent of 0.45 kg/person/day (table 1). A total of one day pile generated in Pematangsiantar in 2010
with a population of 2,125,234 is about 3750, 41 m3/day.According toSNI (1995), a waste pile to a small town with a
population of <100,000 of 2.5 1/person/day, equivalent to 0.7 kg/person/day, and the city with the population between
100,000 – 500,000 of 3.00 1/person/day, equivalent to 0.8 kg/person/day. While the wastepile in Pematangsiantar with the
population> 2 million of 1.75 1/person/day, equivalent to 0.45 kg/person/day.

| Volume 1 | Issue 5 | |pAGE| 6 |

 Waste Management and Asset Service Improvement…

Composition :Most compositions are leftovers and foliage 67.67%, plastic 23.49%, paper 2.91%, fabric 0.43%, metal
0.22%, glasses 0.32% and the other of 4.96%. Compared to Astari (2010), in Wonocolo, Surabaya, there are similar
composition, which is largely dominated by wet waste in the form of leftovers and foliage 73.5%, plastic 12.8%, paper
8.4% and another 5.3% (metal, glasses, wood, cloth, rubber, etc.).

Container :Based on the SNI (2002), there are some requirements of material, such as not easily damaged and water-
resistant, economical and easy to obtain and emptied. While the characteristics of individual and communal waste container
are:
 Box-shaped, cylinder, container, bin (barrel), and is covered.
 Light, easily moved and easily emptied.
 Various metals, plastics, fiberglass (GRP), wood, bamboo, rattan.

At this moment there is no separation between the organic and anorganic waste container. Most of the public waste
container is plastic bags, trash bin, bamboo baskets, sacks and brick container.For communal containers, in some locations
such as main streets and in residential areas, a polling station (TPS) is built of concrete and container. Communal containers
generally do not have a cover so it is easily disturbed by animals and trash strewn around the TPS, causing odors and
disrupt the aesthetic environment.
a. Wastecollection
1) Residential waste

The method of residential waste collection:

a) Direct individual: Conducteddoor to doorusing adumptruckina residential areaalongthe transport path.
b) Indirect individual: The officerswent tothe source ofthe waste usinga flotation devicesuch asa motorandtrash carts.
c) Indirect communal: This patternapplies tocrowdedresidential areas, narrowalleysandcannotbe passedbycollection
vehicles.
2) Nonresidential waste

For office/school areas, trash collected by the clerk to be taken to the nearest polling station, while for hospitals and
supermarkets/malls, garbage collection is done specifically on the provided containers.
The waste collection in the market area carried out by market cleaners, whereas for sweeping, particularly directed at the
main streets, sidewalks, parks and other public places. Waste is collected at the nearest polling station and then transported
to the TPA.

Transportation :Waste transportationisusingtwotypesofvehicles, dump-truckandarmroll-truck. Dumptruck31units(55% 3-

7yearsold, and45% between8-20years old); andarmrolltruck12 units(50% 3-5yearsoldand50% between9-
14years).Accordingto the provisionsofthe Departmentof Public Works(2009), technical life-use of
littervehiclesis7years.Due to this condition,the requirement fordump truck replacement year of 2011 16 units, year of 20121
unit, year of 2013 7 units, year of 2014 3 units, and 4 units in year of 2015. While armroll truck replacement in year of 2011
16 units, year of 2013 3 units, and 3 units in year of 2015.

Waste hauling only 2 trips per day due to the distance to the TPA. Based on the provisions of the Departmentof Public
Works(2009), the minimumtripof dump truckperdayis3with amaximumcrew of3, whereasarmrolltruck is1.The
tripcarriagecan still be improved, but there is no clerkwho recordedthe time of arrivalandreturnatTPA sitesand the lack
ofweighbridgetodetermine the weight ofwaste transportedandthe amountof garbagethat haspiled upinthe TPA.

Waste ManagementAssetsBudgetting :Compared to regional budget of Pematangsiantar 2010, waste management budget
in 2010 was very low at ± 0.62% of the total budget. Then, if the revenue of retribution compared to waste management
budget in the 2010, 90.47% comes from the regional budget and 9.53% from retribution.According to the Department of
Housing and Infrastructure (2003), budgeting of waste management should receive equal priority with the management of
other public services (ranging from 10% local government, regional budget), budgetary resources from the public waste
management costs by 70% and 30% of government. The budget of waste management and realization of revenue should be
increased as not in accordance with established standards.

| Volume 1 | Issue 5 | |pAGE| 7 |

 Waste Management and Asset Service Improvement…

Level of Existing Waste Service :If the total volume compared with the pile transported to the TPA, the existing service
level of waste management in 2010 is at 11.15%. Referring to the Minimum Service Standards (of SPM) Division of Public
Works and Spatial Planning in 2014, the target of waste management in urban areas is 70%. This means that the service
levelprovided by the government is very low, and there are 88.85% waste transportation unserved. Level of Existing Assets
Service

Level of ExistingTPSService:If thetotalcapacityoftheexistingTPScomparedto the projectionof handlingpiles,

theTPSexistingservice levelsin 2011of66.44%, 50.82%in 2012, 40.87% in 2013, 34.00% in 2014,andcontinually dropped
to28.97% in 2015, with 13.11% of averageannualdecline (Table 3).Anassetadditionsprogram is required toimproveservice
levels toovercomethisreduction.

Level of Existing Trucks Service :Ifthetotalcapacityoftruckscomparedtothe projectionsof handlingpiles perday, the service
level ofexistingtrucksin 2011of70.30%, 53.77% in 2012, 43.24%in 2013, 35, 97%in 2014, continued tofall to30.65% in
2015, with an averageannualdeclineof 13.87% (Table 4). Programassetadditionsof vehiclesarerequired toimproveservice
levels.

Waste Management with Sorting method :Regional Technical Implementation Unit(UPTD)

CiptaKaryaPematangsiantardividesthewaste management serviceareaintofivezones(Figure 6). Sorting
methodwasimplementedthroughannualprioritiesbasedonservice area. Todeterminethesortingof waste managementintheTPS,
it is necessary to determinethe amount of
wastecanbereducedandresidualpilesdiscardedtoTPAperservicezonebymultiplyingthepercentagecomposition of the
wastewithwastemanagementrecoveryfactor(Tables 5and6). The levelof waste management serviceswithsortingintheTPScan
be illustratedas in Figure7-11. Based onthe illustration, the gradual separationin the TPSperyearperzonewill increase
theservicesin 2011about 11.24% with sorting only inzone I; 8.90% in 2012withsortinginzone IandIII; 8.05% in
2013withsorting inzone I, IIandIII; 3,61% in 2014withsorting inzone I, II, IIIandIV; andanincreaseof 1.65% in 2015with
sorting in zone I, II, III, IVandV, with the averageincreaseof6.69%(Table 7).

Level of Existing Assets Service with Sorting methodin TPS

Level of Existing TPS Service :With agradualsortingmethodperservice zone, there will bea decrease of service level
in2011 about 27.84% bysortingonlythefirstzone; 7.75% in 2012withsortinginzone IandIII; 4.00%in 2013withsortinginzone
I, IIandIII, 1.32% in 2014withsortinginzone I, II, IIIandIV; and0.53% in 2015withsortinginzone I, II, III, IVandV, with the
averagedecreaseof8.29%(Table 8).

Level of Existing TruckServices :Based on the remainingpilesaredisposedtoTPA, sortingand gradual improvementof

existing transport service, there will beservice improvementin 2011amounted to6.78%bysortingonlyinfirstzone; 9.58% in
2012withsortinginzone IandIII; 16.18% in 2013withsortinginzone I, IIandIII; 14.64% in 2014withsortinginzone I, II,
IIIandIV; and12.95% in 2015withsortinginzone I, II, III, IVandV, with the averageimprovementof12.03% (Table 9).

Waste Service Improvement with Sorting methodinTPS :Based on the projected level of waste management services
through gradual sorting in the TPS per service zone until 2015, there will be service improvement in 2011 amounted to
11.24%, 8.90% in 2012, 8.05% in 2013, 3.61% in 2014, and 1.65% in 2015, with the average improvement of 6.69% (Table
10).

Existing Assets Improvement with Sorting methodin TPS

Existing TPS ServiceImprovement :Based on the projection of waste management service per zone until 2015, there will
be improvement of existing TPS service or lowering the decline level of existing services of TPS in 2011 amounted to
27.84%, 7.75% in 2012, 4.00% in 2013, 1.32% in 2014, and 0.53%in 2015, with the average improvement of 8.29%(Table
11).

Existing Truck ServicesImprovement :Based on theprojectionofwaste managementserviceperzoneuntil2015, there will

beimprovementof existingtruckservicesin 2011amounted to6.78%, 9.58%in 2012, 16.18% in 2013, 14.64% in 2014,
and12.95% in 2015, with the averageimprovementof 12.03%(Table 11).
Feasibility Analysis

Feasibility analysisusing the following assumptions:

| Volume 1 | Issue 5 | |pAGE| 8 |

 Waste Management and Asset Service Improvement…

1) The polling stationis requiredastemporary dump;

2) Ittakes at least 1 container ineachpolling stationas atrashcontainerthatcannot be reduced/residual waste;
3) The armroll truckis required as awaste carriervehicle;
4) Itrequires 2 freelanceworkersineachpolling stationfor sorting organic materials from wet waste anddry wastesuch
asplastic, paper, metal, bottles/glass, fabric, rubber/leather, and others; andcollectingresidual wasteinto containers;
5) Pematangsiantargovernmentis not managing the wastesortingresults, junkfood scrapsandleavesare soldtocompost
companies, andtrashsuch asplastic, paper, metal, soldto thestallsorfactorieswho receivedrecycled material waste;
6) Waste thatcannot be reducedorthe resulting residueis managedanddisposed ofin thelandfill;
7) The cost of the initial asset investments made in 2011, assuming the value of depreciation or depreciation of assets as
follows:
a) TPS, time use for 20 years.
b) Containers, disposable time for 7 years.
c) Armroll Truck, disposable time for 7 years.
d) Thecost of equipment, operating costs and maintenance costs are assumed to rise ± 5% every year.
e) Sales of sorting results (recycled product) are considered no increase each year and are in the same condition with
market demand.
f) Analysis of the feasibility took a sample calculation in zone I.

Based on thecalculationofthe potentialrevenuefrom the sale ofjunkuntil 2020, reachingRp18,142,214,092.

Initialinvestmentcost planassetsof waste managementwithsorting methodinTPSRp2,979,900,000,
armrolltruckRp4,009,320,000, so thatthe totalinitialinvestment costof Rp12,667,554,900. Operational and maintenance
costsatTPSZone Iin 2011, the equipmentcost Rp272,335,770, operating costsRp6,124,924,890, and maintenance
costsRp66,150,000, bringing the totalcost ofoperation andmaintenanceis Rp6,463,410,600.
Furthermore, based onthe calculation ofNPVat15% interest rate, the NPVobtainedpositive value ofRp8,173,300,661, an
IRR of38.657% greater than theMARR(Minimum AttractiveRate of Return) of 15%, B/C ratioof 1.13(greater than1),
andPP4.7years(4 years8months12days) whichmeans shorterthanthe period ofthe investmentfor 10years, so thatinvestmentby
sortingwaste managementinthesepollingstationscouldbefeasibletobe implemented.

CONCLUSIONS
If the waste management is not done, then:
1) The level ofexistingTPSservicesaveragely decreased13.11% peryear, from66.44% in 2011 into28.97% in 2015.
2) The level ofexistingtruckservices averagelydecreased 13.87% peryear, from70.30% in 2011 into30.65% in 2015.
Through awaste managementsystemwithgradual sortingatTPSbased on prioritiesperzoneperyearof service, then:
1) The level ofexistingTPSservice averagely decreased8.29%peryear, from38.60% in 2011 into17.39% in 2015.
2) The level ofexistingtruckservices averagely increased 12.03% peryear, from70.08% in 2011 into95.48in 2015.
3) Canimprove service coverageorlowering the rate ofdecline inexistingTPSservicesby 8.29%peryear, whichis 27.84% in
2011, 7.75% in 2012, 4.00% in 2013, 1.32% in 2014, and0.53% in 2015, compared tonowaste management.
4) Can improve theexistinggarbage truckcoverageservicesby 12.03% peryear, whichis 6.78% in 2011, 9.58% in 2012,
16.18% in 2013, 14.64% in 2014, and12.95% in 2015, compared tonowaste management.
Based on the feasibility analysisof waste managementuntil2020, obtainedNetCashflowRp8,720,242,284in 2020,
NPVat15% interest ratepositive value ofRp8,173,300,661, an IRR of38.657%>MARRof 15%, a B/C ratioof 1.13>1,
andPP4.7 years(4 years8months12days), whichmeans shorterthanthe period ofthe investmentfor 10years, so
thatinvestmentby sortingwastemanagementintheseTPScouldbefeasibletobe implemented.

REFERENCES
[1] Dinas Kebersihan Kota Pematangsiantar.Rencana Strategis Dinas Kebersihan Kota Pematangsiantar 2011-2015.
Pematangsiantar. 2011b.
[2] Pemerintah Republik Indonesia. Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 18 Tahun 2008 tentang Pengelolaan
Sampah.Jakarta. 2008.
[3] Badan Standarisasi Nasional. SNI 19-2454-2002 tentang Tata Cara Teknik Operasional Pengelolaan Sampah
Perkotaan.Jakarta. 2002.

| Volume 1 | Issue 5 | |pAGE| 9 |

 Waste Management and Asset Service Improvement…

[4] Tchobanoglous, G., Theisen, H., Vigil, S.Integrated Solid Waste Management Issues.Mc. Graw-Hill International
Edition. 1993.
[5] Badan Standarisasi Nasional.SNI 19-3983-1995 tentang Spesifikasi Tumpukan Sampah Untuk Kota Kecil dan Sedang
di Indonesia.Jakarta. 1995.
[6] Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Daerah dan Badan Pusat Statistik Kota Pematangsiantar.Produk Domestik Regional
Bruto Kota Pematangsiantar dan Kecamatan Menurut Lapangan Usaha Tahun 2008.Pematangsiantar. 2009.
[7] Astari, S.Kajian Model Pengelolaan Sampah Berbasis Masyarakat, (Studi Kasus di Kecamatan Wonocolo Kota
Surabaya), Tesis Magister, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember Surabaya. Surabaya. 2010.
[8] Departemen Pekerjaan Umum. Pedoman Operasional dan Pemeliharaan Prasarana dan Sarana Persampahan.Jakarta.
2009.
[9] Departemen Permukiman dan Prasarana Wilayah. Pedoman Pengelolaan Persampahan Perkotaan Bagi
Pelaksana.Jakarta. 2003.
[10] Departemen Pekerjaan Umum.Peraturan Menteri Pekerjaan Umum Nomor 14/PRT/M/2010 tentang Standar Pelayanan
Minimal Bidang Pekerjaan Umum dan Penataan Ruang Jakarta. 2010.

Table 1:Piles Measurement

Volume Piles Density Piles

No Population
(m3) (m3/person/day) (kg/m3) (kg/person/day)
1 4.684 8,0425 0,00172 255 0,44
2 4.684 8,1549 0,00174 255 0,44
3 4.684 8,4428 0,00180 255 0,46
Average 0,00175 255 0,45

Table 2:Projection Level of Waste Services

No Year Projection Growth (%)

1 2011 15,59 4,44
2 2012 20,03 4,44
3 2013 24,48 4,44
4 2014 28,92 4,44
5 2015 33,36 4,44

Table 3:Level of Existing TPS Services

Projection Total Load Service Level

No Year
(m3/day) (m3) (%)
1 2011 594,92 395,25 66,44
2 2012 777,73 395,25 50,82
3 2013 967,15 395,25 40,87
4 2014 1.162,56 395,25 34,00
5 2015 1.364,51 395,25 28,97

Table 4:Level of Existing Truck Services

No Year Projection (m3/day) Capacity (m3/day) Service Level (%)

1 2011 594,92 418,20 70,30
2 2012 777,73 418,20 53,77
3 2013 967,15 418,20 43,24
4 2014 1.162,56 418,20 35,97
5 2015 1.364,51 418,20 30,60

| Volume 1 | Issue 5 | |pAGE| 10 |

 Waste Management and Asset Service Improvement…

Table 5:Level of Waste Management Services based on the Zone with Sorting methodin TPS

Year
No Service Zone
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
1 Zone I
Piles (m3/day) 1.073,10 1.091,88 1.110,99 1.130,43 1.150,21
Service Level (%) 55,57 55,57 55,57 55,57 55,57
Piles management (m3/day) 596,32 606,76 617,38 628,18 639,17
Piles Management Level (%) 15,63 15,63 15,63 15,63 15,63
Reduction (%) 80,73 80,73 80,73 80,73 80,73
Piles reduction (m3/day) 481,41 489,84 498,41 507,13 516,01
Residual (m3/day) 114,91 116,92 118,97 121,05 123,17
2 Zone II
Piles (m3/day) 988,05 1.005,34 1.022,93 1.040,83 1.059,05
Service Level (%) 55,57 55,57 55,57 55,57 55,57
Piles management (m3/day) 549,06 558,67 568,44 578,39 588,51
Piles Management Level (%) 14,39 14,39 14,39 14,39 14,39
Reduction (%) 80,73 80,73 80,73 80,73 80,73
Piles reduction (m3/day) 443,25 451,01 458,90 466,94 475,11
Residual (m3/day) 105,80 107,66 109,54 111,46 113,41
3 Zone III
Piles (m3/day) 955,59 972,32 989,33 1.006,65 1.024,26
Service Level (%) 55,57 55,57 55,57 55,57 55,57
Piles management (m3/day) 531,02 540,32 549,77 559,39 569,18
Piles Management Level (%) 13,92 13,92 13,92 13,92 13,92
Reduction (%) 80,73 80,73 80,73 80,73 80,73
Piles reduction (m3/day) 428,70 436,20 443,83 451,60 459,50
Residual (m3/day) 102,33 104,12 105,94 107,80 109,68
4 Zone IV
Piles (m3/day) 516,34 525,38 534,57 543,93 553,44
Service Level (%) 55,57 55,57 55,57 55,57 55,57
Piles management (m3/day) 286,93 291,95 297,06 302,26 307,55
Piles Management Level (%) 7,52 7,52 7,52 7,52 7,52
Reduction (%) 80,73 80,73 80,73 80,73 80,73
Piles reduction (m3/day) 231,64 235,69 239,82 244,01 248,28
Residual (m3/day) 55,29 56,26 57,24 58,25 59,26
5 Zone V
Piles (m3/day) 282,96 287,91 292,95 298,08 303,29
Service Level (%) 55,57 55,57 55,57 55,57 55,57
Piles management (m3/day) 157,24 159,99 162,79 165,64 168,54
Piles Management Level (%) 4,12 4,12 4,12 4,12 4,12
Reduction (%) 80,73 80,73 80,73 80,73 80,73
Piles reduction (m3/day) 126,94 129,16 131,42 133,72 136,06
Residual (m3/day) 30,30 30,83 31,37 31,92 32,48

Table 6:Projection of Waste Management based on Service Zone

Year
No Service Zone
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
1 Zone I
Piles (m3/day) 1.073,10 1.091,88 1.110,99 1.130,43 1.150,21
Service Level (%) 15,59 20,03 24,48 28,92 33,36
Piles Management (m3/day) 167,30 218,70 271,97 326,92 383,71
Piles Management Level (%) 4,38 5,63 6,88 8,13 9,38
2 Zone II
Piles (m3/day) 988,05 1.005,34 1.022,93 1.040,83 1.059,05
Service Level (%) 15,59 20,03 24,48 28,92 33,36
Piles management (m3/day) 154,04 201,37 250,41 301,01 353,30
Piles Management Level (%) 4,04 5,19 6,34 7,49 8,64

| Volume 1 | Issue 5 | |pAGE| 11 |

 Waste Management and Asset Service Improvement…

3 Zone III
Piles (m3/day) 955,59 972,32 989,33 1.006,65 1.024,26
Service Level (%) 15,59 20,03 24,48 28,92 33,36
Piles management (m3/day) 148,98 194,76 242,19 291,12 341,69
Piles Management Level (%) 3,90 5,02 6,13 7,24 8,35
4 Zone IV
Piles (m3/day) 516,34 525,38 534,57 543,93 553,44
Service Level (%) 15,59 20,03 24,48 28,92 33,36
Piles management (m3/day) 80,50 105,23 130,86 157,30 184,63
Piles Management Level (%) 2,11 2,71 3,31 3,91 4,51
5 Zone V
Piles (m3/day) 282,96 287,91 292,95 298,08 303,29
Service Level (%) 15,59 20,03 24,48 28,92 33,36
Piles management (m3/day) 44,11 57,67 71,71 86,20 101,18
Piles Management Level (%) 1,16 1,49 1,82 2,14 2,47

Table 7:Level of Waste Management with Sorting method in TPS

Year
No Service Zone
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
1 Zone I
Sorting 15,63 15,63 15,63 15,63 15,63
Zone II, III, IV and V
Projection of Service Level 11,21 14,40 17,60 20,79 23,98
Service Level 26,83 30,02 33,22 36,41 39,61
2 Zone I and III
Sorting 29,54 29,54 29,54 29,54
Zone II, IV and V
Projection of Service Level 9,38 11,47 13,55 15,63
Service Level 38,92 41,01 43,09 45,17
3 Zone I, II, and III
Sorting 43,93 43,93 43,93
Zone IV and V
Projection of Service Level 5,13 6,06 6,99
Service Level 49,06 49,99 50,92
4 Zone I, II, III, and IV
Sorting 51,45 51,45
Zone II, III, IV and V
Projection of Service Level 2,14 2,47
Service Level 53,59 53,92
5 Zone I, II, III, IV and V
Sorting 55,57
Service Level 55,57

Table 8:Level of Existing TPS Service with Sorting methodin TPS

Year
No Service Zone
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
1 Zone I
Sorting 596,32 606,76 617,38 628,18 639,17
Zone II, III, IV and V
Projection of Service Level 427,62 559,03 695,18 835,64 980,80
Service Level 38,60 33,90 30,11 27,00 24,40
2 Zone I and III
Sorting 1.147,8 1.167,15 1.187,57 1.208,36
Zone II, IV and V
Projection of Service Level 364,27 452,99 544,52 639,11
Service Level 26,15 24,40 22,82 21,39
3 Zone I, II, and III

| Volume 1 | Issue 5 | |pAGE| 12 |

 Waste Management and Asset Service Improvement…

Sorting 1.735,59 1.765,97 1.796,87

Zone IV and V
Projection of Service Level 202,58 243,51 285,81
Service Level 20,39 19,67 18,98
4 Zone I, II, III, and IV
Sorting 2.068,23 2.104,42
Zone II, III, IV and V
Projection of Service Level 86,20 101,18
Service Level 18,35 17,92
5 Zone I, II, III, IV and V
Sorting 2.272,96
Service Level 17,39

Table 9:Level of Existing Trucks Services with Sorting method in TPS

Year
No Service Zone
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
1 Zone I
Sorting 114,91 116,92 118,97 121,05 123,17
Zone II, III, IV and V
Projection of Service Level 427,62 559,03 695,18 835,64 980,80
Service Level 77,08 61,87 51,37 43,71 37,88
2 Zone I and III
Sorting 221,04 224,91 228,85 232,85
Zone II, IV and V
Projection of Service Level 364,27 452,99 544,52 639,11
Service Level 71,45 61,69 54,08 47,96
3 Zone I, II, and III
Sorting 334,45 340,30 346,26
Zone IV and V
Projection of Service Level 202,58 243,51 285,81
Service Level 77,87 71,63 66,16
4 Zone I, II, III, and IV
Sorting 398,55 405,52
Zone II, III, IV and V
Projection of Service Level 86,20 101,18
Service Level 86,27 82,53
5 Zone I, II, III, IV and V
Sorting 438,00
Total of Residual and Piles Management 438,00
TrucksService Level (%) 95,48

Table 10:Waste Service Improvement with Sorting method in TPS

Year
No Service Zone
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
1 Zone I
Sorting 26,83 30,02 33,22 36,41 39,61
Projection of Service Level 15,59 20,03 24,48 28,92 33,36
Service Improvement 11,24 9,99 8,74 7,49 6,25
2 Zone I, and III
Sorting 38,92 41,01 43,09 45,17
Projection of Service Level 20,03 24,48 28,92 33,36
Service Improvement 18,89 16,53 14,17 11,81
3 Zone I, II, and III
Sorting 49,06 49,99 50,92
Projection of Service Level 24,48 28,92 33,36
Service Improvement 24,58 21,07 17,56
4 Zone I, II, III, and IV

| Volume 1 | Issue 5 | |pAGE| 13 |

 Waste Management and Asset Service Improvement…

Sorting 53,59 53,92

Projection of Service Level 28,92 33,36
Service Improvement 24,67 20,56
5 Zone I, II, III, IV and V
Sorting 55,57
Projection of Service Level 33,36
Service Improvement 22,21

Table 11:Existing TPS Service Improvement with Sorting methodin TPS

Year
No Service Zone
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
1 Zone I
Sorting 38,60 33,90 30,11 27,00 24,40
Projection of Service Level 66,44 50,82 40,87 34,00 28,97
Service Improvement -27,84 -16,92 -10,75 -7,00 -4,57
2 Zone I, and III
Sorting 26,15 24,40 22,82 21,39
Projection of Service Level 50,82 40,87 34,00 28,97
Service Improvement -24,67 -16,47 -11,18 -7,57
3 Zone I, II, and III
Sorting 20,39 19,67 18,98
Projection of Service Level 40,87 34,00 28,97
Service Improvement -20,47 -14,33 -9,99
4 Zone I, II, III, and IV
Sorting 18,35 17,92
Projection of Service Level 34,00 28,97
Service Improvement -15,65 -11,05
5 Zone I, II, III, IV and V
Sorting 17,39
Projection of Service Level 28,97
Service Improvement -11,58

Table 12:Existing Trucks Service Improvement With Sorting methodin TPS

Year
No Service Zone
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
1 Zone I
Sorting 77,08 61,87 51,37 43,71 37,88
Projection of Service Level 70,29 53,77 43,24 35,97 30,65
Service Improvement 6,79 8,10 8,13 7,74 7,23
2 Zone I and III
Sorting 71,45 61,69 54,08 47,96
Projection of Service Level 53,77 43,24 35,97 30,65
Service Improvement 17,68 18,45 18,10 17,31
3 Zone I, II, and III
Sorting 77,87 71,63 66,16
Projection of Service Level 43,24 35,97 30,65
Service Improvement 34,63 35,66 35,52
4 Zone I, II, III, and IV
Sorting 86,27 82,53
Projection of Service Level 35,97 30,65
Service Improvement 50,30 51,89
5 Zone I, II, III, IV and V
Sorting 95,48
Projection of Service Level 30,65
Service Improvement 64,83

| Volume 1 | Issue 5 | |pAGE| 14 |