FINAL Report City of Tangerang

1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................... ii
LIST OF FIGURES..................................................................................................................ix
LIST OF TABLES....................................................................................................................xi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................................. xvi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................... xvii

BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ xvii
OBJECTIVES OF CDIA STUDY...................................................................................... xviii
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ........................................................................................ xix
INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK ..................................................................................... xix
TECHNICAL ASPECTS ...................................................................................................... xx
MARKET SURVEY............................................................................................................ xxi
GAP ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................. xxiii
RECOMMENDED INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ............ xxiv
RECOMMENDED INTERMEDIATE TREATMENT FACILITY .................................... xxvi
RECOMMENDATION FOR RAWA KUCING LANDFILL ............................................ xxvii
LANDFILL LIFETIME ANALYSIS ................................................................................ xxvii
LAND REQUIREMENTS FOR ISWM SYSTEM ........................................................... xxviii
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS ............................................................................................... xxviii
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ................................................................................................ xxxiv
IMPLEMENTATION & OPERATIONAL ARRANGEMENTS ...................................... xxxiv
RISK ASSESSMENT & MITIGATION MEASURES .................................................... xxxvii
ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS ................................................................................... xxxviii
SOCIAL ASPECTS ......................................................................................................... xxxix
RINGKASAN EKSEKUTIF ....................................................................................................xl

LATAR BELAKANG ........................................................................................................... xl
TUJUAN STUDI CDIA........................................................................................................ xli
KERANGKA PERATURAN...............................................................................................xlii
KERANGKA KELEMBAGAAN ...................................................................................... xliii
ASPEK TEKNIS ............................................................................................................... xliii
SURVEY PASAR ............................................................................................................... xlv
ANALISIS KESENJANGAN ............................................................................................. xlvi
REKOMENDASI SISTIM PENGELOLAAN SAMPAH TERPADU ...............................xlviii
REKOMENDASI INTERMEDIATE TREATMENT FACILITY (ITF)........................................l
REKOMENDASI UNTUK TPA RAWA KUCING ................................................................li
ANALISIS MASA PAKAI TPA ........................................................................................... lii
KEBUTUHAN LAHAN UNTUK SISTIM PENGELOLAAN SAMPAH TERPADU.......... liii
ANALISIS KEUANGAN .................................................................................................... liii
ANALISIS EKONOMI ........................................................................................................ lix
PENGATURAN PELAKSANAAN & OPERASIONAL ...................................................... lix
PENILAIAN RISIKO & LANGKAH-LANGKAH MITIGASI ............................................lxii
ASPEK LINGKUNGAN .................................................................................................... lxiv
ASPEK SOSIAL ................................................................................................................ lxiv
ii
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1
1.1 Project Background ............................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Objectives of Study.............................................................................................................. 2
1.3 Approach of Study ............................................................................................................... 2
1.4 Key Performance Indicators ................................................................................................. 3
1.5 Structures of the Final Report .............................................................................................. 3
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT AREA ............................................................................................... 5

2.1 City of Tangerang Area........................................................................................................ 5
2.2 Population for City of Tangerang ......................................................................................... 6
CHAPTER 3 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK...................................................................... 8

3.1 Regulations by the Government of Indonesia ....................................................................... 8
3.1.1 Regulatory Framework on Solid Waste Management ................................................ 8
3.1.2 Regulatory Framework on Hazardous Waste .......................................................... 12
3.1.3 Regulatory Framework on Energy Management and Utilization .............................. 13
3.1.4 Regulatory Framework on Institutional Aspects ...................................................... 16
3.1.5 Regulatory Framework on Environmental Aspects and Green House Gases ............ 18
3.2 Regulations by the City of Tangerang ................................................................................ 19
CHAPTER 4 INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS ....................................................................... 21

4.1 Existing Institutional Structure of Solid Waste Management in City of Tangerang ............. 21
4.1.1 The Organization, Structure, Task, and Function of DKP ........................................ 21
4.1.2 Gaps on Institutional Aspect of Solid Waste Management in City of Tangerang...... 22
4.2 Recommendation for Improvement of Institutional Aspect of Solid Waste Management in
City of Tangerang ............................................................................................................. 23
4.2.1 The Options............................................................................................................ 23
4.2.2 Comparison of Institutional Options ....................................................................... 28
CHAPTER 5 TECHNICAL AND OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING SOLID

WASTE MANAGEMENT ...................................................................................................... 30
5.1 Solid Waste in City of Tangerang ...................................................................................... 30
5.1.1 Sources of Waste .................................................................................................... 30
5.1.2 Waste Composition ................................................................................................ 30
5.1.3 Waste Density ........................................................................................................ 31
5.2 Solid Waste Service Coverage in City of Tangerang .......................................................... 31
5.3 Solid Waste Collection and Transportation in City of Tangerang ........................................ 32
5.3.1 Waste Container ..................................................................................................... 32
5.3.2 Waste Collection .................................................................................................... 34
5.3.3 Waste Transportation.............................................................................................. 35
5.4 Solid Waste Treatment and Recycling in City of Tangerang ............................................... 35
5.4.1 Treatment Initiative by Composting Activity .......................................................... 35
5.4.2 Recycling Initiative Waste Bank at Waste Bank ...................................................... 35
5.4.3 Treatment and Recycling Initiative at TPST ............................................................ 36
5.4.4 Market Survey ........................................................................................................ 37
5.5 Final Disposal in Rawa Kucing Landfill ............................................................................. 43
5.6 Analysis of Technical and Operational Gaps ...................................................................... 47
5.6.1 Gaps on Solid Waste Management Chain ............................................................... 47
iii
5.6.2 Gaps on Environmental, Health, and Safety Aspects ............................................... 47
5.6.3 Gaps on Social Aspects ........................................................................................... 47
CHAPTER 6 SOLID WASTE GENERATION ..................................................................... 48

6.1 Solid Waste Generation Per-Capita in City of Tangerang ................................................... 48
6.1.1 Based on Master plan for Solid Waste Management in City of Tangerang 2012 ...... 48
6.1.2 Based on Literature Review .................................................................................... 48
6.2 Solid Waste Generation Projection ..................................................................................... 49
6.2.1 Methodology of Calculation.................................................................................... 49
6.2.2 Estimated Solid Waste Generation .......................................................................... 51
CHAPTER 7 RECOMMENDED INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ....... 53

7.1 Approach ........................................................................................................................... 53
7.2 Recommended Integrated Solid Waste Management for Residential Areas ......................... 54
7.2.1 Recommended Concept 1: Low Income Area.......................................................... 54
7.2.2 Recommended Concept for Middle Income Area .................................................... 56
7.2.3 Recommended Concept for High Income Area ....................................................... 58
7.3 Recommended Integrated Solid Waste Management for Non-Residential Areas ................. 60
7.4 Recommended Integrated Solid Waste Management for Markets ....................................... 62
7.5 Recommended Integrated Solid Waste Management for Soekarno-Hatta International Airport
........................................................................................................................................ 64
7.6 Recommended Integrated Solid Waste Management for Other Waste ................................. 65
7.6.1 Glass Waste ............................................................................................................ 65
7.6.2 Bulk Waste ............................................................................................................. 66
7.7 Hotline for Solid Waste Management Services ................................................................... 66
7.8 EHS Aspects Recommended ISWM System ...................................................................... 67
7.9 Social Aspects Recommended ISWM System .................................................................... 67
CHAPTER 8 RECOMMENDED TREATMENT AND RECYCLING FOR SOLID WASTE

MANAGEMENT ..................................................................................................................... 68
8.1 Recommended Treatment and Recycling in Community Level ........................................... 68
8.1.1 Recommended Solid Waste Management in Waste Bank ........................................ 68
8.1.2 Recommended Solid Waste Management Material Recovery Facility ..................... 68
8.1.3 Recommended Conceptual Design of Material Recovery Facility............................ 69
8.2 Treatment and Recycling Technologies Analysis for Central Level .................................... 70
8.2.1 Treatment and Recycling Technologies Options ...................................................... 70
8.2.2 Evaluation Criteria and Ranking for Treatment Technologies .................................. 73
8.2.3 Option Comparison and Selection For Treatment Technology ................................. 74
8.3 Intermediate Treatment Facility (ITF) for City of Tangerang .............................................. 77
8.3.1 Stage 1: Material Recovery Facility (MRF) ............................................................. 77
8.3.2 Stage 2: Anaerobic Digestion Processes .................................................................. 79
8.3.3 Stage 3: Electricity Generation ................................................................................ 83
CHAPTER 9 RECOMMENDATION FOR FINAL DISPOSAL AT RAWA KUCING

LANDFILL ........................................................................................................................... 84
9.1 Detailed Review of Feasibility Study for Rawa Kucing Landfill ......................................... 85
9.1.1 Field Survey and Investigation ................................................................................ 86
9.1.2 Population Growth .................................................................................................. 87
iv
9.1.3 Land Requirement Analysis for Landfill Rehabilitation .......................................... 87
9.1.4 Landfill Rehabilitation Concept Analysis ................................................................ 87
9.2 Detailed Review of DED for Rawa Kucing Landfill ........................................................... 88
9.2.1 Survey and Investigation ........................................................................................ 89
9.2.2 Landfill Cell ........................................................................................................... 89
9.2.3 Leachate Treatment Plant ....................................................................................... 89
9.2.4 Gas Collection System............................................................................................ 90
9.2.5 Monitoring System ................................................................................................. 90
9.2.6 Analysis and DED for Closure of Existing Cells ..................................................... 90
9.2.7 EHS Analysis ......................................................................................................... 90
9.2.8 Project and Financial Elements ............................................................................... 90
9.3 Recommended Rehabilitation and Re-engineering Phases .................................................. 90
9.4 Landfill Lifetime Analysis ................................................................................................. 91
CHAPTER 10 FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ............................................... 98

10.1 Existing Financial Aspects for Solid Waste Management ................................................... 98
10.1.1 Municipal Finances for City of Tangerang .............................................................. 98
10.1.2 Actual Expenditures and Curent Findings on Solid Waste Management Sector ....... 99
10.1.3 Solid Waste Management Revenues and Solid Waste Services Tariff.................... 101
10.1.4 Financial Capacity for City of Tangerang ............................................................. 102
10.1.5 Gaps on Financial Aspects of Solid Waste Management in City of Tangerang ...... 103
10.2 Recommendation Financial Option for Solid Waste Management .................................... 104
10.2.1 Financing Options ................................................................................................ 104
10.2.2 Potential Sources of Revenues .............................................................................. 104
10.2.3 Implementation Arrangements: Overview of Concessions, BOTs, and DBO
Arrangements ....................................................................................................... 105
10.3 Financial Analysis and Costing for Recommended Integrated Solid Waste Management .. 108
10.3.1 Capital Expenditures (CAPEX) ............................................................................ 108
10.3.2 Operating and Maintenance Expenditures (OPEX)................................................ 109
10.3.3 Other Cost Assumptions ....................................................................................... 111
10.3.4 Revenues, Tariff, and Collection Rate ................................................................... 112
10.3.5 Financial Analysis Summary ................................................................................ 114
10.4 Economic Analysis for Recommended Integrated Solid Waste Management .................... 116
10.4.1 Objectives and Overview of Economic Analysis ................................................... 116
10.4.2 Economic Internal Rate of Return ......................................................................... 118
CHAPTER 11 INVESTMENT PACKAGES FOR RECOMMENDED INTEGRATED

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ....................................................................................... 120
11.1 Investment Package 1: Collection and Transportation....................................................... 120
11.1.1 Technical Aspects ................................................................................................ 120
11.1.2 Financial Aspects ................................................................................................. 122
11.1.3 Implementation and Operational Arrangement ...................................................... 123
11.1.4 Risk Assesment .................................................................................................... 124
11.2 Investment Package 2: Material Recovery Facility ........................................................... 124
11.2.1 Technical Aspects ................................................................................................ 124
11.2.2 Financial Aspects ................................................................................................. 125
11.2.4 Risk Assesment .................................................................................................... 127
v
11.3 Investment Package 3: Intermediate Treatment Facility .................................................... 128
11.3.1 Technical Aspects ................................................................................................. 128
11.3.2 Financial Analysis and Costing ............................................................................. 129
11.3.4 Risk Assesment .................................................................................................... 134
11.4 Investment Package 4: Rehabilitation of Rawa Kucing Landfill ........................................ 135
11.4.1 Technical Aspects ................................................................................................. 135
11.4.2 Financial Aspects.................................................................................................. 136
11.4.4 Risk Assesment .................................................................................................... 137
11.5 Land Requirements .......................................................................................................... 137
11.5.1 Land Requirement for Material Recovery Facility ................................................. 137
11.5.2 Land Requirement for Intermediate Treatment Facility ......................................... 137
11.5.3 Land Requirement for Rawa Kucing Landfill ........................................................ 137
CHAPTER 12 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR RECOMMENDED INTEGRATED

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ....................................................................................... 139
12.1 Implementation Plan ........................................................................................................ 139
12.2 Phasing of Investment Packages ....................................................................................... 140
CHAPTER 13 CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND NEXT STEPS .............. 144

13.1 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 144
13.2 Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 145
13.3 Next Steps ....................................................................................................................... 146
vi
ANNEX
ANNEX A SITE VISIT REPORT ........................................................................................ A-1
A.1 Residential Areas .............................................................................................................. A-1
A.1.1 Low Income Areas ................................................................................................. A-1
A.1.2 Middle Income Areas ............................................................................................. A-9
A.1.3 High Income Areas............................................................................................... A-17
A.2 Markets .......................................................................................................................... A-24
A.3 Treatment Initiatives ....................................................................................................... A-28
A.4 Recycling Initiatives ....................................................................................................... A-36
ANNEX B REVIEW OF TECHNICAL OPTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF SOLID

WASTE MANAGEMENT CHAIN ...................................................................................... B-1
B.1 Technical Option for Waste Collection.............................................................................. B-1
B.2 Technical Option forWaste Transportation ........................................................................ B-3
B.3 Technical Option for Waste Treatment and Recycling ....................................................... B-7
B.3.1 Physical Process: Material Recovery Facility .......................................................... B-7
B.3.2 Biological Process: In Vessel Composting ............................................................ B-10
B.3.3 Waste to Energy ................................................................................................... B-14
ANNEX C DETAIL REVIEW OF ANAEROBIC DIGESTION TECHNOLOGY............ C-1

C.1 Anaerobic Digestion Processes ......................................................................................... C-1
C.2 Important Factors in Anaerobic Digestion of Solid Waste ................................................. C-1
C.2.1 Alkalinity and pH ................................................................................................... C-1
C.2.2 Temperature ........................................................................................................... C-1
C.2.3 Substrate Characteristics ......................................................................................... C-3
C.2.4 Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT) ........................................................................... C-4
C.2.5 Organic Loading Rate (OLR).................................................................................. C-4
C.2.1 Mixing Condition ................................................................................................... C-4
C.2.6 Inhibitory Substances ............................................................................................. C-4
C.3 Anaerobic Digestion Plant Component .............................................................................. C-5
C.3.1 Feedstock Receiving Unit ....................................................................................... C-6
C.3.2 Feedstock Storage................................................................................................... C-6
C.3.3 Feedstock Conditioning .......................................................................................... C-6
C.3.4 Feeding System ...................................................................................................... C-6
C.3.5 Armatures and Pipelines ......................................................................................... C-7
C.3.6 Heating System-Digester Heating ........................................................................... C-7
C.3.7 Anaerobic Digesters ............................................................................................... C-7
C.3.8 Maintenance of digesters ........................................................................................ C-7
C.3.9 Stirring Technologies ............................................................................................. C-8
C.3.10 Biogas Storage...................................................................................................... C-8
C.3.11 Biogas Cleaning and Conditioning ........................................................................ C-8
C.3.12 Digestate Storage .................................................................................................. C-9
C.4 Types of Anaerobic Digestion ........................................................................................... C-9
C.4.1 Wet and Dry Anaerobic Digestion .......................................................................... C-9
C.4.2 Batch and Continuous Feeding Systems ................................................................ C-10
C.4.3 Single and Multi Stage Processes .......................................................................... C-10
C.5 Products and By Products of Anaerobic Digestion Processes ........................................... C-11
C.5.1 Biogas .................................................................................................................. C-11
vii
C.5.2 Digestate .............................................................................................................. C-11
C.5.3 Wastewater ........................................................................................................... C-12
C.6 Biogas Utilization ........................................................................................................... C-12
ANNEX D COMMENTS FROM MID TERM PHASE ....................................................... D-1
ANNEX E TERM OF REFFERENCES (TORs) OF THE PROJECT................................ E-1
ANNEX F INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND COST RECOVERY ON

INDONESIA SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR
REGIONAL AND METROPOLITAN CITIES (WORLD BANK STUDY)....................... F-1
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Waste hierarchy – 4R approach ............................................................................ 3
Figure 2.1: Division of districts in City of Tangerang............................................................. 5

Figure 2.2: Population projection for City of Tangerang......................................................... 7
Figure 4.1: Organization Structure of Cleansing and Parks Management Department (DKP),
Kota Tangerang ................................................................................................. 22
Figure 4.2: Procedure for Upgrading Local Government Technical Implementation Unit
(UPTD) within SKPD to BLUD ......................................................................... 26
Figure 5.1: Fraction of waste generation from different sources of waste.............................. 30

Figure 5.2: Solid waste management service coverage in City of Tangerang (2009 – 2012) .. 31
Figure 5.3: Flow Diagram for existing solid waste management system in City of Tangerang
.......................................................................................................................... 32
Figure 5.4: Some example of individual waste container in City of Tangerang ..................... 33
Figure 5.5: Some example of individual waste container in City of Tangerang ..................... 33
Figure 5.6: Some example of non proper of waste disposal .................................................. 34
Figure 5.7: Waste collection in City of Tangerang ............................................................... 34
Figure 5.8: Transfer station in some market ......................................................................... 35
Figure 5.9: Statistics of waste managed at the Waste Bank ................................................... 36
Figure 5.10: Flow diagram of treatment and recycling activity in TPST ................................. 36
Figure 5.11: Waste recycling activity by third party ............................................................... 38
Figure 5.12: Existing layout of Rawa Kucing Landfill ........................................................... 43
Figure 5.13: Existing condition of final disposal in Rawa Kucing Landfill ............................. 46
Figure 7.1: Recommended concept for Concept 1 (low income areas) .................................. 55
Figure 7.2: Recommended concept for middle income level areas ........................................ 57
Figure 7.3: Recommended concept for high income level areas............................................ 59
Figure 7.4: Recommended concept for non-residential areas ................................................ 61
Figure 7.5: Recommended concept for non-residential areas ................................................ 63
Figure 8.1: Flow diagram of MRF for City of Tangerang ..................................................... 68

Figure 8.2: Layout of recommended MRF for City of Tangerang ......................................... 69
Figure 8.3: In-vessel composting for MRF in City of Tangerang .......................................... 70
Figure 8.4: Waste to Energy technology diagram ................................................................. 71
Figure 8.5: Schematic diagram of the IntermediateTreatment Facility for City of Tangerang 77
Figure 8.6: Schematic diagram of the MRF at the ITF .......................................................... 78
Figure 8.7: Schematic diagram of electricity production and distribution to the local electricity
grid .................................................................................................................... 83
Figure 9.1: Methodology used for landfill lifetime calculation ............................................. 91

Figure 9.2: Solid waste management in City of Tangerang for BAU condition ..................... 92
Figure 9.3: Solid waste management in City of Tangerang for BAU 2 condition .................. 92
Figure 9.4: Solid waste management in City of Tangerang for recommended concepts
condition ........................................................................................................... 93
ix
Figure 10.1: Contractual structure of a typical BOT Project or Concession ........................... 107
Figure 11.1: Plan layout of Investment Package 4-Rehabilitation for Rawa Kucing Landfill . 136
Figure A.1: Existing condition at Benua Indah Housing Complex ....................................... A-4
Figure A.2: Existing condition at Kenanga Village.............................................................. A-6
Figure A.3: Citizens dispose of their wastes in different containers (Parung Jaya Village) ... A-8
Figure A.4: Existing condition of Middle Income Residential-West Area .......................... A-12
Figure A.5: Existing condition at Poris Paradise Housing Complex ................................... A-14
Figure A.6: Existing condition at Pondok Bahari Indah Housing Complex ........................ A-16
Figure A.7: Existing condition at High Income Residential-West Area .............................. A-19
Figure A.8: Existing condition at Banjar Wijaya Housing Complex .................................. A-21
Figure A.9: Existing condition at Metro Garden Housing Complex ................................... A-23
Figure A.10: Existing condition at Tanah Tinggi Market ..................................................... A-25
Figure A.11: Existing condition at Lembang and Saraswati Market ..................................... A-27
Figure A.12: Existing condition of treatment and recycling activity at TPST Benua Hijau ... A-30
Figure A.13: Existing condition of treatment and recycling activity at TPST Cimone .......... A-33
Figure A.14: Existing condition of treatment and recycling activity at TPST Cemara/Al-
Mahmud ........................................................................................................ A-35
Figure A.15: Existing condition of recycling activity at Waste Bank Gawe Rukun .............. A-37
Figure B.1: Direct individual system................................................................................... B-1

Figure B.2: Indirect individual system ................................................................................ B-2
Figure B.3: Direct communal system .................................................................................. B-2
Figure B.4: Indirect communal system ................................................................................ B-3
Figure B.5: Process flow diagram of Material Recovery Facility ......................................... B-8
Figure B.6: Process flow diagram of In Vessel Composting .............................................. B-11
Figure B.7: Waste to Energy technology diagram ............................................................. B-14
Figure B.8: Process flow diagram for RDF technology ..................................................... B-16
Figure B.9: Process flow diagram of anaerobic digestion technology ................................ B-20
Figure B.10: Process flow diagram of incineration technology ............................................ B-23
Figure C.1: Schematic diagram of complete anaerobic digestion of complex polymers........ C-2
Figure C.2: Influence of temperature on the rate of anaerobic digestion process .................. C-3
Figure C.3: Different ways for biogas utilization............................................................... C-12
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Area of City of Tangerang ................................................................................... 5
Table 2.2: Population in City of Tangerang from 2003 to 2012 ............................................. 6
Table 2.3: Comparison of population projection calculations using different methods ........... 6
Table 3.1: Regulations Framework on Solid Waste Management by the Government of

Indonesia ............................................................................................................. 8
Table 3.2: Regulations Framework on Hazardous Waste by the Government of Indonesia .. 12
Table 3.3: Regulations Framework on Energy Management and Utilization by the
Government of Indonesia ................................................................................... 13
Table 3.4: Regulations Framework on Institutional Aspects by the Government of Indonesia
.......................................................................................................................... 16
Table 3.5: Regulations Framework on Environmental Aspects and Green House Gases by the
Government of Indonesia ................................................................................... 18
Table 3.6: Regulations for Solid Waste Management at City of Tangerang ......................... 19
Table 4.1: Comparison of Institutional Options for Local Government Provision of Solid
Waste Management Services.............................................................................. 29
Table 5.1: Percentage of waste composition in City of Tangerang ....................................... 30

Table 5.2: Composting activity in City of Tangerang .......................................................... 35
Table 5.3: Harvested area of food crops in 2012 ................................................................. 40
Table 5.4: Harvested area of paddy and second crops in Kabupaten Tangerang, 2011 ......... 40
Table 5.5: Projection of Electricity Demand in Indonesia From 2003 to 2020 ..................... 42
Table 5.6: Purchase price of electricity from Municipal Solid Waste Based Power Plant ..... 42
Table 5.7: Summary of existing condition at Rawa Kucing landfill ..................................... 44
Table 6.1: Waste generation per capita for City of Tangerang based on Master Plan ........... 48
Table 6.2: Waste generation per capita based on National Standard of Indonesia ................ 48
Table 6.3: Waste generation per capita in other South East Asian Countries ........................ 48
Table 6.4: Industrial Growth at City of Tangerang (units) ................................................... 50
Table 6.5: Growth of food/agriculture production in City of Tangerang (tons) .................... 50
Table 6.6: Regional GDP Growth at City of Tangerang (at constant price) .......................... 50
Table 6.7: Population Growth for City of Tangerang .......................................................... 50
Table 6.8: Estimated solid waste generation from residential source (High Income) ............ 51
Table 6.9: Estimated solid waste generation from residential source (Middle Income) ........ 51
Table 6.10: Estimated solid waste generation from residential source (Low Income) ............ 51
Table 6.11: Estimated solid waste generation from non-residential areas .............................. 52
Table 6.12: Estimated solid waste generation from markets .................................................. 52
Table 7.1: Waste collection process for Concept 1 (low income areas) ................................ 54
Table 7.2: Waste collection process for Concept 2 (middle income areas) ........................... 56
Table 7.3: Waste transportation scheme for Concept 2 ........................................................ 58
Table 7.4: Waste containers proposed for recommended concept for middle and high income
level areas.......................................................................................................... 58
xi
Table 7.5: Waste collection and transportation proposed for middle and high income level
area .................................................................................................................... 59
Table 7.6: Waste containers proposed for recommended concept for non-residential areas .. 61
Table 7.7: Waste collection and transportation proposed for non-residential areas ............... 61
Table 7.8: Waste containers proposed for recommended concept for markets ...................... 63
Table 7.9: Waste collection and transportation proposed of recommended concept for
markets .............................................................................................................. 64
Table 7.10: Waste generation from Soekarno-Hatta International Airport.............................. 64
Table 0.1: Staffing Requirement for the ISWM system during 30 years period.....................67
Table 8.1: Advantages and disadvantages of material recovery facility................................ 70

Table 8.2: Advantages and disadvantages of in vessel composting ...................................... 71
Table 8.3: Advantages and disadvantages of refuse derived fuel.......................................... 72
Table 8.4: Advantages and disadvantages of anaerobic digestion ........................................ 72
Table 8.5: Advantages and disadvantages of incineration .................................................... 72
Table 8.6: Options Comparison and Selection for Treatment Technology............................ 76
Table 8.7: Types of anaerobic digesters used ...................................................................... 80
Table 8.8: Properties of the combustible gas suitable for gas engine generators ................... 80
Table 8.9: Conceptual design criteria for anaerobic digestion plant for City of Tangerang ... 81
Table 8.10: Data and Assumption for conservative and realistic scenarios for Anaerobic
Digestion plant to electricity generation ............................................................. 82
Table 9.1: Total waste goes to landfill for 3 condition ......................................................... 93

Table 9.2: Annual precipitation in City of Tangerang (2010-2012) ...................................... 94
Table 9.3: Waste accumulation in landfill cell for 3 condition ............................................. 95
Table 9.4: The volume of daily cover, liner and cover system ............................................. 96
Table 9.3: Calculated landfill cells volume available at Rawa Kucing Landfill .................... 96
Table 9.6: Total estimated accumulation of waste ............................................................... 97
Table 10.1: Actual Revenues and Expenditures for City of Tangerang (in Rp.billion) ........... 98
Table 10.2: Revenues and Expenditure Ratios for City of Tangerang .................................... 98
Table 10.3: Balance Sheet for City of Tangerang in 2010 - 2012 (Rp. Billion) ...................... 99
Table 10.4: Detailed Actual O&M Cost for SWM of City of Tangerang (in Rp. million) ..... 100
Table 10.5: Actual SWM Expenditures for years 2011 to 2013 (Rp.billion) ........................ 100
Table 10.6: O&M Cost for SWM at City of Tangerang (Rp. million) .................................. 100
Table 10.7: O&M unit costs for waste transported from transfer points to final disposal
(Rp/m3) ............................................................................................................ 101
Table 10.8: Actual Revenues, Cost Recovery Indicators and the City Budget on SWM for
2011 to 2013 (in IDR Billion) .......................................................................... 101
Table 10.9: Actual Revenues, Expenditures and Budget for City of Tangerang during 2010-
2012 (Rp. Billion) ............................................................................................ 102
Table 10.10: Financial Capacity of Kota Tangerang 2010 – 2012 (Rp.Billion) ...................... 103
Table 10.11: Total CAPEX for Recommended ISWM System for City of Tangerangduring 30
years (with Conservative Pricing for ITF– in Rp million) ................................. 108
Table 10.12: Total CAPEX for Recommended ISWM System for City of Tangerang during 30
years (with Realistic Pricing for ITF– in Rp million) ........................................ 109
Table 10.13: Staffing Requirement for the ISWM system during 30 years period .................. 110
Table 10.14: Fuel requirement and prices for collection & transportation fleet .................... 110
xii
Table 10.15: Operating cost for MRF .................................................................................. 110
Table 10.16: Operating costs for landfilling .......................................................................... 110
Table 10.17: Environmental monitoring, social campaigns andother operational costs .......... 111
Table 10.18: Annual Operating Cost for Recommended ISWM system during 30 years period
(Rp. Million).................................................................................................... 111
Table 10.19: Escalation Factor ............................................................................................. 112
Table 10.20: Depreciation Percentages ................................................................................. 112
Table 10.21: Existing and Realistic SW ServiceTariff Schemes ............................................ 112
Table 10.22: Conservative / ongoing SW service fee escalation (%) ..................................... 113
Table 10.23: Realistic / ongoing SW service fee escalation (%) ............................................ 113
Table 10.24: Recyclables Values .......................................................................................... 113
Table 10.25: Revenues from Recommended ISWM system during 30 years period .............. 114
Table 10.26: Revenue from Recommended ISWM system during 30 years period ................ 114
Table 10.27: Outcome of Financial Model for Recommended ISWM System for City of
Tangerang for 30 years period – BAU, Conservative & Realistic Scenarios (in
Rp.million) ...................................................................................................... 115
Table 10.28: Economic Indicators of Proposed ISWM Investment Package and ITF Package 119
Table 10.29: Sensitivity Analysis (10% Increase in Cost and 10% Decrease in Benefits) ...... 119
Table 11.1: Investment Package 1 for collection and transportation component .................. 120
Table 11.2: CAPEX for Investment Package 1: SWM Collection & Transportation package
during 30 years period (Rp million) ................................................................. 122
Table 11.3: Phasing of CAPEX for Investment Package 1: Collection & Transportationfor the
first 5 year (Unit) ............................................................................................. 122
Table 11.4: Phasing of CAPEX for Investment Package 1: Collection & Transportation for the
first 5 year (at current price - Rp million) ......................................................... 123
Table 11.5: Annual Operating Cost for Investment Package 1: Collection & Transportation 123
Table 11.6: Risk assessment for Investment Package 1 ....................................................... 124
Table 11.7: Investment Package 2 for MRFs component at the local level .......................... 124
Table 11.8: Total production of processed recyclables and compost from MRFs at City of
Tangerang during 30 years ............................................................................... 125
Table 11.9: CAPEX for Investment Package 2: MRFs package during 30 years Period (Rp
million)............................................................................................................ 125
Table 11.10: Phasing of CAPEX for Investment Package 2: MRF for the first 5 year (Unit) . 125
Table 11.11: Phasing of CAPEX for Investment Package 2: MRF for the first 5 year ............ 125
Table 11.12: Annual Operating Cost for Investment Package 2: ITFs & MRFs at local level
during 30 years period (Rp. Million) ................................................................ 126
Table 11.13: Revenues from Investment Package 2 – MRF during 30 years period ............... 126
Table 11.14: Outcome of Financial Model for Investment Package 2 – MRF for 30 years period
Conservative Scenario (in Rp.million).............................................................. 126
Table 11.16: Data and Assumption for conservative and realistic scenarios for investment
package 3 – anaerobic digestion to electricity generation .................................. 128
Table 11.17: Result of Calculation on anaerobic digestion plant for City of Tangerang ......... 129
Table 11.18: CAPEX for Investment Package 3: Intermediate Treatment Facility (ITF) with AD
to Power Generation package during 30 years period (Conservative Scenario - Rp
million)............................................................................................................ 129
xiii
Table 11.19: CAPEX for Investment Package 3: Intermediate Treatment Facility (ITF) package
during 30 years period (Realistic Scenario - Rp million) ................................... 130
Table 11.20: Phasing of CAPEX for Investment Package 3: ITF/AD to Power Generation for
the first 5 year (unit)........................................................................................ 130
Table 11.21: Phasing of CAPEX for Investment Package 3 (at constant price - Rp million) .. 130
Table 11.22: Annual Operating Cost for Conservative Scenario of Investment Package 3: ITF
during 30 years period (Rp. Million) ................................................................ 130
Table 11.23: Annual Operating Cost for Realistic Scenario of Investment Package 3: ITF during
30 years period (Rp. Million) ........................................................................... 131
Table 11.24: Revenues from Investment Package 3 – ITF/AD during 30 years period ........... 131
Table 11.25: Revenues from Investment Package 3 – ITF during 30 years period ................. 131
Table 11.26: Outcome of Financial Model for Investment Package 3 - Anaerobic Digestion to
Electricity Generation for 30 years period Conservative Scenario (in Rp.million)
........................................................................................................................ 132
Electricity Generation for 30 years period Realistic Scenario (in Rp.million) .... 132
Table 11.28: Financial analysis for RDF technology ............................................................. 133
Table 11.30: Phasing of CAPEX for Investment Package 4: Landfill Development for the first
5 year (at current price - Rp.million)................................................................ 136
Table 11.31: Risk assessment for Investment Package 4 ..................................................... 1348
Table 11.32: Land requirement for recommended ISWM system in City of Tangerang ......... 138
Table 12.1: Implementation plan for ISWM system for City of Tangerang .......................... 139
Table 12.2: Phasing of implementation plan for ISWM system for City of Tangerang –
conservative scenario ....................................................................................... 140
Table 12.3: Recommended ISWM CAPEX implementation plan – conservative scenario
(Rp.million) ..................................................................................................... 141
Table 12.4: Phasing of implementation plan for ISWM system for City of Tangerang –
realistic scenario .............................................................................................. 142
Table 12.5: Recommended ISWM CAPEX implementation plan – realistic scenario
(Rp.million) ..................................................................................................... 143
Table A.1: Summary of the Existing Condition for Low Income Residential: Benua Indah
Housing Complex – West Area ........................................................................ A-1
Table A.2: Summary of the Existing Condition for Low Income Residential: Kenanga Village
– Middle Area .................................................................................................. A-5
Table A.3: Summary of the Existing Condition for Low Income Residential: Parung Jaya
Village – East Area .......................................................................................... A-7
Table A.4: Summary of the Existing Condition for Middle Income Residential: West Area A-9
Table A.5: Summary of the Existing Condition for Middle Income Residential: Poris Paradise
Housing Complex – Middle Area ................................................................... A-13
Table A.6: Summary of the Existing Condition for Middle Income Residential: Pondok
Bahari Indah Housing Complex – East Area ................................................... A-15
Table A.7: Summary of the Existing Condition for High Income Residential: West Area . A-17
Table A.8: Summary of the Existing Condition for High Income Residential: Banjar Wijaya
Housing Complex: Middle Area ..................................................................... A-20
xiv
Table A.9: Summary of the Existing Condition for High Income Residential: Metro Garden
Housing Complex East Area .......................................................................... A-22
Table A.10: Summary of the Existing Condition for the SWM Chain for Markets – Tanah
Tinggi Market ................................................................................................ A-24
Table A.11: Summary of the Existing Condition for the SWM Chain for Markets – Lembang
and Saraswati Market..................................................................................... A-26
Table A.12: Summary of the Existing Condition for the SWM Chain for Treatment Initiative –
TPST Benua Hijau ......................................................................................... A-28
TPST Cimone ................................................................................................ A-31
TPST Cemara/Al-Mahmud ............................................................................ A-34
Table A.15: Summary of the Existing Condition at Waste Bank Gawe Rukun ................... A-36
Table B.1: Roads classification ......................................................................................... B-3

Table B.2: Types of transportation fleet............................................................................. B-4
Table B.3: Technical and financial comparison between dump truck and compactor truck . B-5
Table B.4: Comparison of cummulative unit cost between dump truck and compactor truck ....
........................................................................................................................ B-5
Table B.5: The cost reduction of compactor truck compared to dump truck ....................... B-6
Table B.6: Typical MRF unit OPEX cost (based on US experience) .................................. B-8
Table B.7: The typical types and number of staff positions needed for MRFs .................... B-9
Table B.8: Cost of in-vessel composting reactor from differents vendor .......................... B-12
Table B.9: Typical CAPEX for in-vessel composting in different capacity ...................... B-12
Table B.10: Estimated CAPEX of RDF process for 350 tons/day capacity......................... B-17
Table B.11: Estimated OPEX of RDF process for 350 tons/day capacity ........................... B-17
Table B.12: Project literatures for RDF plant development ................................................ B-17
Table B.13: Project literature for anaerobic digestion technology ...................................... B-20
Table B.14: Project literature for incineration technology .................................................. B-24
Table C.1: Operationtemperature ranges for anaerobic digestion processes ........................ C-2
Table C.2: Types of anaerobic digesters used .................................................................... C-7
Table C.3: The minimum requirements of combustion properties for biogas ...................... C-8
Table C.4: Type of anaerobic digestion ........................................................................... C-10
Table C.5: Biogas production from anaerobic digestion processes ................................... C-11
Table C.6: Typical characteristics of digestate from dry anaerobic digestion of MSW ..... C-11
xv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
3R Reduce, Reuse and Recycle

4R Reduce, Reuse, Recycle and Recovery
APBD Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Daerah/Regional Revenue and Expenditures
Budget
ADB Asian Development Bank
BLUD Badan Layanan Umum Daerah/Regional Public Service Agency
BUMD Badan Usaha Milik Daerah/Regional Owned Enterprises
BUMN Badan Usaha Milik Negara/Country Owned Enterprises
BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand
CAPEX Capital Expenditures
CDIA Cities Development Initiative for Asia
COD Chemical Oxygen Demand
ITF Intermediate Treatment Facility
DKP Dinas Kebersihan, dan Pertamanan /Cleanliness and Parks Agency
DPRD Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah/Regional Parliaments
EHS Environmental, Health, and Safety
FIRR Financial Internal Rate of Return
GHG Green House Gases
ISWM Integrated Solid Waste Management
KPI Key Performance Indicators
LFG Landfill Gas
MRF Material Recovery Facility
MSW Municipal Solid Waste
NA Not Available
NPV Net Present Value
O&M Operating and Maintenance
OPEX Operating Expenditures
PAD Pendapatan Asli Daerah/Local Revenue
PPP Public Private Partnership
PV Present Value
RDF Refuse Derived Fuel
SOP Standard Operating and Procedure
SW Solid Waste
SWM Solid Waste Management
TPA Tempat Pemrosesan Akhir/Final Disposal Site
WTE Waste to Energy
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
UPTD Unit Pelaksanaan Teknis Daerah/Regional Government Technical Implementation
Unit
xvi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
The Government of Indonesia requested funding from the World Bank (WB) in the amount of
US$100 million to finance the “Solid Waste Management Improvement Project for Regional and
Metropolitan Cities”. The project development objective is to support improvements to solid
waste management in participating cities through selective interventions including waste
minimization, collection, transfer/transportation, treatment and/or final disposal in an integrated
manner.
The GOI and WB readiness criteria for inclusion of projects presented by the selected cities for
funding under the World Bank supported project are:
1- Feasibility Study;
2- Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) Study;
3- Land Acquisition plan and / or resettlement, if needed;
4- Sanitation Strategy for the City (SSK)/Sector Master Plan.
5- The completion of performance indicators of project implementation for monitoring
purposes.
6- Commitment to allocate “Matching Funds” from local government for waste collection
and transportation to landfill, in accordance with the division of roles.
7- The guarantee of the availability of land.
8- The completion of Project Management Unit (PMU) and Project Implementing Unit
(PIU)
9- The completion of project management plan (Project Management Manual).
10- The preparation of the organization that will operate the landfill / proposed treatment
plant.
11- The signing of MoU (Memorandum of Understanding) between Director General of
CiptaKarya(Ministry of Public Works) and Head of Local Government
The World Bank has been working with the GOI and the selective cities to review the available
documents, studies and master plans, visiting the sites and meeting with the City and relevant
stakeholders. Based on the requirements of the World Bank and the GOI, the City of Tangerang is
required to prepare a feasibility study for the most appropriate solid waste treatment technology,
for the GOI and WB review and consideration to be included under the World Bank project.
Accordingly, on 27 December 2012 the City Government of Tangerang applied to the Cities
Development Initiative for Asia (CDIA) for technical assistance in the solid waste management
sector, with the following two broad objectives:
1- Provide a recommended integrated and sustainable solid waste management system for
the City; and
2- Prepare a pre–feasibility study for the most appropriate solid waste treatment technology
for the City.
On 7 January 2013 CDIA approved the City Government of Tangerang request, and during the
period of May to June 2013 contracted a team of International and National solid waste specialists
xvii
covering the various aspects of the SWM sector to undertake the TA activities and tasks detailed
in the Terms of Reference (Annex E) developed for the project.
The City of Tangerangtook a very important action in 2011/2012 and developed a comprehensive
Master Plan for Solid Waste Management (SWM). The Consulting Firm contracted to prepare the
master plan with the following broad outcomes:
a. Assessment of the SWM chain from all perspectives including regulatory, institutional,
technical, financial, environmental and social;
b. Sampling program at the residential areas to come up with waste generation data and at
the existing Rawa Kucing landfill site to come up with waste density, and
c. Recommended optimization of Solid Waste (SW) minimization techniques (3R approach
– Reduce, Reuse and Recycle) and efficient treatment of the organic portion of the waste
for the whole city, and its different income level communities (low, middle and high
income), with the broad objective of diversion of waste requiring landfilling to waste to
energy treatment plant, leading to the preservation of valuable land space and extension
of the lifetime of the landfill.
Following the Master Plan development, the City of Tangerang took another important action of
developing a detailed Feasibility Study (FS) and Detailed Engineering Design (DED) for the
rehabilitation, closure and upgrading the existing RawaKucing dump site to a sanitary landfill.
OBJECTIVES OF CDIA STUDY

The CDIA study was designed to complement the efforts taken by the City of Tangerang, and
bring the Master Plan findings and recommendations to implementable concepts and pre-
feasibility / feasibility study stageon a phased approach. The following specific objectives have
been agreed upon with the City to be developed under this study:
1- Objective 1: Detailed review and appraisal of existing SWM system for the City of
Tangerangfrom collection to final disposal in order to provide recommendations and next
steps for the city to upgrade and substantially improve the SWM chain and operate a
sustainable and integrated solid waste management system in line with the City‟sMaster Plan
findings/directions and Government of Indonesia (GOI) directions/regulations;
2- Objective 2: Select the most appropriate treatment technology for the City of Tangerang;
3- Objective 3:Review the FS and DED for the rehabilitation and upgrading of the City‟s
existing RawaKucing dumpsite;
4- Objective 4: Prepare a pre–feasibility study for the most appropriate solid waste treatment
technology to serve the city of Tangerangfor the next 30 years (up to 2043);
5- Objective 5: Additional objective has been added in order to present a comprehensive study
for the whole sector which is preparing a pre-feasibility study for the whole solid waste
management chain from collection to final disposal for the recommended ISWM system to
serve the City of Tangerangfor the next 30 years (up to 2043); and
6- Objective 6: Dividing the ISWM system into stand alone investment packages, namely
collection and transportation, waste bank / material recovery facilities (MRFs) at the local
level Intermediate treatment facility (anaerobic digestion to electricity generation and
compost production) in order to assess separately the viability of each and the best
implementation and operational arrangement.
xviii
Main Findings of the CDIA Study:
The main findings and outcomes of the CDIA study which is presented in this Final Report are
summarized as follows:
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
A comprehensive regulatory framework for the solid waste sector has been well developed by the
Government of Indonesia (Central and Local Governments). The regulatory framework presents
the foundation upon which the solid waste sector will develop and the direction set by the
Government of Indonesia for the sector. The Central Government through the leading ministries,
namely, Ministries of Public Works, Environment and Home Affairs are the ones who are setting
the stage for the sector‟s legislations and regulations.
The regulatory framework as a whole directs the local governments to upgrade the whole solid
waste sector, through 3R approach (reduce, reuse and recycle), implementation of Intermediate
Treatment Facility, rehabilitation of open dumps and upgrading to sanitary landfills, extension of
landfills‟ lifetime, increase SW service coverage, increase SW cost recovery coverage, and last
but not least better institutional settings to effectively manage the sector.
Electricity tariff from MSW is well established and in fact has increased significantly in the past
three years from 900 Rp/kWh to 1450 Rp/kWh, which clearly indicates the Central Government‟s
encouragement and support for green sources of fuel, sustainable development, and maximization
of 4R approach and minimization of landfilling.
The major gaps within the regulatory framework that have been identified by the CDIA Team are:
a- Lack of comprehensive regulations in regards to compost (uses, applications, quality, pricing,
etc.)
b- Lack of regulations setting reasonable SW service fees/ cost recovery mechanism that is based
on willingness to pay survey at the different cities / levels of income and corresponding quality
of service.
INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
Based on the detailed World Bank study on institutional aspects for City of Tangerang1, it has
been concluded that existing institutional structure is not efficient in properly managing the SWM
sector, and requires improvement. The most suitable institutional arrangement is the Local
Government Public Service Agency (BLUD). The preference for the BLUD in this case is also
due to a probability that local governments and their DPRD are unlikely to accept SWM as a full
cost-recovery service any time soon. Although the Agency is not statutorily required to produce
profit, a provision which satisfies the requirements of UU No. 28/2009, it is obliged to fulfill
certain administrative, financial and substantive criteria which provide a more suitable basis for a
semi-commercial service operation, capable of delivering a better service with greater
accountability.
1
Institutional Development and Cost Recovery on Indonesia Solid Waste Management Improvement
Project for Regional and Metropolitan Cities, World Bank, June 2013.
xix
TECHNICAL ASPECTS
Existing SWM condition at City of Tangerang:
Solid waste sources and composition: Based on the comprehensive two years SWM master plan
developed by the City of Tangerangin 2011 / 2012, residential waste generation rates are the
highest at 75%, followed by market waste at 10% and all other wastes generate the remaining
15%. Solid waste composition is dominated by organics at an average of 61%, followed by
plastics and paper / cardboard wastes at 19% and 5%, respectively. Based on the waste sampling
program carried out at different generation points during the master plan study and other sampling
programs carried out throughout Indonesia densities, CDIA Team has used 350 kg/m3 waste
density at the collection and transportation fleet and 600 kg/m3 for the waste density at the landfill.
Solid waste generation: The total waste generation at the City of Tangerangin 2012 according to
the DKPand weighbridge data is 401,500 tons / year, with approximately 74% landfilled, 2%
recycled, 2.4% composted and 22 % unmanaged. This generation rate translates to average daily
waste generation rate at the City of Tangerangfor 2012 of 1100 tons/day.
Solid Waste Generation Per Capita: Based on the 2012 Master plan for the City of Tangerang,
weigh bridge data and studies carried out throughout Indonesia and similar countries in the
region, CDIA Team calculated waste generation increase based on growth in agriculture,
industrial growth, income and population growth. Based on the calculations, an increasing
waste generation per capita per day over the 30 years planning period for the low income
from 0.35 to 0.45 kg/c/d, middle income from 0.7 to 0.9 kg/c/d and high income from 0.8 to
1.0 kg/c/d has been used throughout the study.
Solid waste collection and transportation:

Residential: Daily mixed municipal solid waste collectionfrom all areas, however, mostly door to
door service for high income areas and direct communal (residets bring their wastes to collection
points) service for middle and low income areas using 6 m3 dump trucks. Roadside collection
points are provided with different design, material, and capacities, for low and
middlecommunities. Approximately 25% of the population is not served mainly because they are
living in areas with low to no proper access roads for the collection fleets.
Non-residential: Daily collection of mixed MSW followingcommunal collection system using 6
m3 dump trucks and waste is collected from different types of containers (fixed brick/concrete,
steel, plastics, etc. and different sizing/capacity/design).
Markets: Daily collection of market wastes using communal collection system, either using 6 m3
arm roll containers and trucks.
Transportation: TPSTs which are acting as transfer stations are not efficient as they are not well
equipped, major source of nuisance to neighboring communities, and major environment, health
and safety hazard. Dump trucks (6 m3) and arm roll trucks (6 m3) are used for transportation to the
final disposal site at RawaKucinglandfill.
The collection and transportation fleet available at City of Tangerangas of September 2013
are as follows:
a) Dump Trucks (6 m3) 125units (additional 69 units in 2013)
b) Arm Roll Trucks18 units (additional 12 unit in 2013)
xx
Treatment and Recycling Initiatives:
City of Tangerang developed a treatment and recycling initiative at the local level referred to as
TPST (TPST-Integrated Solid Waste Treatment Facility). In 2013 City of Tangerang has built 4
units of TPSTs which are BenuaHijau, Poris, Cimone and Cemara TPSTs. Sorting, bailing and
sales of recyclables, as well as treatment of organics using primitive composting techniques is
being followed.
The City also developed an ambitious waste bank program, targeting 1000 banks by 2015. To
date 120 waste banks have already been built and operational, with As of August 2013, the total
number of waste banks and are 120, with an estimated 2% sorting, segregation and recycling,
which is very low. There areapproximately 896composter units, and 4 composting windrow
systems located at RawaKucing landfill, waste banks and schools that sell compost in the City.
Having said that the quantity of compost produced and sold in the City is very low and estimated
at 26 tons / day of compost, which is equivalent to 2.4% of the total waste generated..
Rawa Kucing Landfill site:

Originally a query, it has been built and operating as an open dump site, the site started operation
in 1993 with total surface area of 34.8 Ha (this includes undergoing arrangement for acquiring 7
hectares). Today approximately 20 hectares are already filled up with waste and 5 hectares are
active zones. The waste depths at the different zones range between 5 to 20 meters. The site is
receiving mixed wastes from residential, commercial, market, industrial, and non-hazardous medical
wastes. The site does not have a liner, drainage system for rainfall management, leachate
management and treatment system and gas management system. The site is not operated properly to
preserve valuable landfill space area, minimize negative environmental and social impacts. The
operation does not take into consideration proper layering of waste, leveling, compaction, applying
temporary daily cover at the end of working day with clay layer to avoid rainfall percolation into the
waste layers and generation of more leachate (leading to ground water contamination). During rainy
season, the working cell is usually not accessible as trucks have difficulty to enter the site.
MARKET SURVEY
A market survey was carried out during the midterm phase of the project, and the main findings
are as follows:
Recyclables: Quantities today that are segregated/sorted and recycled are estimated at 2%, which
is very low. This amount can be increased significantly by providing an integrated system from
source of generation upto well equipped processing facilities.
The total of waste pickers in the streets and at the landfill are approximately 2000. There are
approximately 100 to 150 recyclables collectors, and approximately 50 processors / agents. There
are approximately 20 to 30 small to medium processing plants mostly with primitive equipment
(including Bekasi and Jakarta). Big factories are located in Surabaya, with very high demand
(processing capacity).
The prices of the different recyclables per kg are as follows:
a. Duplex / Cardboard IDR 2000 – 3000
b. Cleaned Aqua Cups IDR 7000 – 8500
c. Clear Plastic Sheets IDR 1000 – 1500
d. Cleaned Aqua Bottle IDR 4300 - 5500
xxi
There are 600composter units at the village level, 5 units at the integrated waste treatment plants
(TPSTs) and 5 units within waste banks that are actively producing compost in City of Tangerang.
Compost prices in several regions in Indonesia are as follows:
a. From waste banks in Tangerang: IDR 1500 – 3000 per kg (bagged)
b. From Jakarta area: IDR 1700 to 2000 per kg.
c. From Makassar: IDR 600 to 800 per kg (exl. transportation cost)
d. Manure: IDR 1800 to 2000 per kg
The commercial chemical fertilizers prices in Indonesia are as follows:

a. Urea (Jakarta price) IDR 10500 – 15000 per kg.
b. NPK (Jakarta price) IDR 17000 – 22500 per kg.
The estimated compost demand in Tangerang is 100510 tons per year and estimated compost
demand in the surrounding area / city in Banten province is 784300 tons / year.
a. Quantities today that are segregated/sorted and composted are estimated at 2.4% (26 tons /
day), which is very low. This amount can be increased significantly by providing an integrated
system from source of generation upto well equipped processing facilities.
b. Compost quality produced is inconsistent with major odor problems as the process turn
anaerobic due to lack of proper equipment and trained staff.
c. Compost market is very limited despite the high need of fertilizers. This high demand of
fertilizers can be met by more efforts from the City of Tangerangin promoting use of high
quality compost and marketing it widely. The City can start by the digestate that will be
generated from its Intermediate treatment plant, namely anaerobic digester to energy plant,
which is of very high quality as the process is automated.
d. Compost can be used as a soil conditioner and organic fertilizer in various sectors such as
agriculture, parks and gardens, land rehabilitation as well as an alternative soil cover at waste
disposal/landfill to meet the sanitary landfill standards.
Refuse Derive Fuel:

There is no clear recent data regarding the needs / demand on RDF use in Indonesia. The Ministry
of Industry for the Republic of Indonesia is currently conducting a study on the needs for RDF as
an alternative to low grade coal fuel for use in the cement industry. According to the Ministry,
expected results of the study should be published in early 2014. Potential buyers of RDF in
Indonesia are very limited, mainly two cement industries, Holcim and Indocement, while Holcim
being the main interested buyer for RDF.
Existing prices: Based on several meetings with the one interested buyer, namely Holcim, prices
proposed unofficially for high quality RDF are in the range of USD 25 to 35 per ton of RDF. This
requires further confirmation and negotiation with the potential buyer. According to the data
provided locally, an RDF plant will break even its operational costs at $40 and $50 per ton
for more than 1200 tons / day and less than 1200 tons / day capacity (economies of scale),
respectively.
Closest cement kiln to City of Tangerangis in Cibinong, which is very close and thus RDF has a
high demand in the Case of Tangerag. However under the current circumstances (limited
competition) and pricing, RDF technology is not financially viable for City of Tangerang.
xxii
Energy:
The Government of Indonesia through the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources issued
Regulation Number 19 for Year 2013 which provides purchase price of electricity generated from
municipal solid waste power plants for 1,450 Rp/kWh (interconnected to medium voltage) and
1,798 Rp/kWh (interconnected to low voltage). This regulation and price which increased in
the past 3 years by almost 50% (from 950 Rp/kWh) is a clear indication by the Government
of Indonesia in supporting and promoting renewable energy projects and sustainable
development.
GAP ANALYSIS
Waste generation data: There is no reliable data on the number of citizens from the different
levels of income and their geographical locations (areas/districts/villages).This data is essential to
enable accurate planning and design for the integrated SWM system for the City of Tangerang
and its different areas, districts and villages.
Waste collection and transportation:fleets and types of vehicles are not appropriate and
efficient; collection and transportation points are not properly designed and not suitable neither
for the fleets / crew to load the waste in a timely and EHS friendly manner, nor for the citizens to
properly dispose of their waste; TPSTs which are acting as transfer stations are not efficient as
they are not well equipped, major source of nuisance to neighboring communities, and major
environment, health and safety hazard are major EHS concerns / hazards to both the fleets‟ crews
and the citizens..
Waste treatment and recycling: very good concept in place, but inefficient design of the TPSTs
and lack of essential equipment / machinery at both TPSTs and the waste banks makes the
initiatives not as efficient as expected / planned for. Recycling is estimated at 2%and the waste
treatment target as per the master plan is 75%.
Waste disposal:Rawa Kucing is operated as a dumpsite, which represents a major environment,

health and safety hazard to the surrounding communities, crews on site and the valuable natural
resources. In addition, precious landfill space is being depleted with the poor disposal practices,
while acquisition of more landfill space is extremely problematic and expensive..
EHS hazards: Major EHS hazards for the Operator‟s crew and Citizens at the collection and
transportation points and the final disposal site. Environmental hazards from leachate and GHGs
emissions which negatively affects soil, groundwater / waterways and air; health hazards from
GHG emissions, obnoxious odors, spread of insects, rodents and disease due to lack of
cleanliness/containment of wastes; and safety hazards to the operator crew who are not properly
equipped, waste pickers at the dumpsite and citizens at / around collection / transportation points,
and living in close proximity to the landfill site.
Social Aspects:Given the City of Tangerang / DKP is planning to upgrade the sector from
collection to final disposal, the current method of operation of the informal sector and waste
pickers will not be suitable and compatible with modernizing the sector, and cannot be continued
in the same manner. The informal sector and specifically the waste pickers, whose livelihood
depends solely on waste, have to be incorporated in the new system..
xxiii
RECOMMENDED INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
The CDIA Team developed an ISWM system for the City of Tangerang, from collection to final
disposal, suitable and appropriate for the City and its Citizens, and categorized as follows:
1- Residential (divided into threesystems for low, middle and high income areas);
2- Non-residential which comprises non-hazardous solid wastes generated from commercial,
offices,institutions, industries, medical; and
3- Markets.
Residential areas:
Low income areas: each household willbe provided with 20 liters covered drum container
(green) and 20 liter cotton bag (yellow), for segregated collection of organics and inorganics,
respectively.Citizens who have access to communal collection points will disposetheir organic
wastes on daily basis at fixed time period at the communal 1.2 m3 containers (placed 50 meters
apart along the nearest main road) to be collected and transported to the ITF at RawaKucing site
using 6 m3 compactor trucks. Other low income citizens who do not have easy access to
communal collection points will be served by hand carts on daily basis, which will transport to the
nearestMaterial Recoverry Facility for processing using the in-vessel composting unit.. Citizens
will bring their recyclables once to twice per week in the cotton bags to the waste banks directly,
which are located in their neighborhoods. Citizens will get paid upto 50% of the market price of
recyclables (included in the financial analysis of CDIA) as an incentive / reward for bringing their
recyclables. Recyclables will be transferred to the Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs) located in
the area, to be cost efficiently processed and transported to the RawaKucingsite for sales on
monthly basis.
Middle income areas: Citizens will dispose of their organic wastes at communal collection
points equipped with 1.2 m3 capacity street containers once per day during fixed period of time.
Citizens will be provided by 20 liters yellow cotton bags for their inorganic wastes. For citizens
who have interest in the Waste Bank activity, they will bring their waste to the nearest Waste
Bank and get financial benefit. For citizens who have no interest in Waste Bank activities, they
will be served by the collection handcarts at fixed timing once to twice per week. Collection and
transportation fleet used for the organic wastes will be 6 m3 compactor trucks, on daily basis
(fixed time range) and inorganics will be transported to the nearest MRF in the area to be cost
efficiently processed and transported to the RawaKucing site for sales on monthly basis. Organics
will be treated at the ITF located at RawaKucing site.
High income areas: each household with be provided with two 120 liters plastic containers,
green and yellow, for segregated collection of organics and inorganics, respectively. Collection
and transportation fleet used will be 6 m3 compactor trucks, practiced once every 2 days (fixed
time range) and once every week (fixed time range) for organics and inorganics, respectively.
Waste treatment and recycling will be carried out at the Intermediate Treatment Facility (ITF)
located at the RawaKucing site.
Non-residential areas: non-residential areas include commercial, offices, institutions, non-

hazardous industrial and medical solid wastes and street sweeping. Streets will be equipped on 50
meters intervals (collection points) with 1.2 m3 green containers and yellow containers for
organics and inorganics, respectively. Collection and transportation will be carried out using 6m3
compactor trucks on daily basis (fixed timing). Large malls / shopping centers will be equipped
xxiv
with arm roll for the inorganics only, which will be removed on daily or every second day,
depending on the size of the mall and the quantities of recyclables generated (to ensure at least
80% fully loaded arm roll). Both organics and inorganics will be transported to the ITF at the
RawaKucingsite for treatment at the ITF and processing at the MRF, respectively.
Markets: Markets will be equipped with 6 m3 arm roll and 1.2 m3 yellow containers, for
organics and inorganics, respectively. Collection and transportation fleet will be arm roll trucks
and compactor trucks for organics and inorganics, respectively, on daily basis. Treatment of
organics and processing of recyclables will be carried out at the ITF and MRF located at
RawaKucingsite.
Glass wastes: Given that it is a hazardous type of waste, CDIA recommends segregation at the
household level and collection on monthly basis by the collection and transportation fleet
separately. Glass wastes will be transported to the MRF at the RawaKucingsite for storage and
sale at the end of each month. CDIA Team also recommends to City of Tangerang to cooperate
with the glass bottles producers following the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) policy
established by the Government of Indonesia through Regulation of the Minister of Environment
Number 13 Year 2012, in regards to the Implementation of Reduce, Reuse and Recycle through
Waste Bank, and the EPR towards wastes generated. EPR is a policy that was designed in order to
integrate the environmental cost into the whole process of production of the goods until the
product can no longer be used, so that the environmental protection becomes part of the cost
component of the market price of the product.
Bulk wastes: will be collected from specified locations per each region which will be assigned by
the City of Tangerang. Collection will be once per week, but also on request basis if the type of
bulk waste is problematic or large and requires to be moved in a timely manner, for example large
sofas, tables, chopped tree, etc. Citizens will be provided with hotline to request for bulk waste
collection and transportation. Bulk wastes will be taken to the RawaKucingsite for categorization
(electronics, furniture, etc.), storage and sales at the end of each month with other types of
recyclables. CDIA Team also recommends to the City of Tangerang to communicate with
interested NGOs who can refurbish bulk wastes for reuse by low income citizens/areas, for
example furniture, electronics, etc. That would serve low income areas and reduce storage
capacity required at the RawaKucingsite.
Hotline for SWM Services at City of Tangerang: CDIA Team recommended ISWM system
requires City of Tangerang operating a hotline for SWM services, with the following main
functions:
1- Receipt of any complaints, comments, suggestions, etc. from the Citizens of City of
Tangerang.
2- Requests for collection and proper disposal of bulk wastes generated from the Citizens of City
of Tangerang at no cost, on scheduled basis (once per week).
3- Requests for collection and proper processing of agricultural / green wastes generated from the
Citizens of City of Tangerang(once per week). This waste is important to the recommended
ITF treatment technology as it is fed into the plant as bulking agent.
Recommended Recycling system for City of Tangerang: City of Tangerang is divided into 3
service areas. Each service areawill be equipped with fourMaterial Recovery Facilities (MRFs),
with a capacity of 20 tons / day (at year 2015 / 2016) to 30 tons / day (at year 2030) for each MRF
xxv
during the 30 years lifetime of the facilities. Each MRF will require a total surface land of 900 m2
for the 30 years, starting with at least 200 m2 surface area. However, smaller land can be used if
land availability is limited, but in that case more frequent transportation trips from the MRFs to
the RawaKucingsite will be required as the storage capacity will decrease. MRFs will act as a cost
efficient means of collecting and processing recyclables from waste banks and low and middle
income areas to be compacted, bailed and transported to the RawaKucingsite for storage and sales
at the end of each month. MRFs will contribute in significantly decreasing ongoing high
transportation costs as well as extension of the lifetime of the landfill.
Recommended Treatment system for areas with no road access: Most of the low income areas
and few middle income areas do not have access to proper roads and accordingly cannot be served
by collection fleet. For these areas organic wastes will be transported by handcarts to the MRFs
that are equipped with 2.5 tons / day in-vessel composting unit (enclosed composting units).
Compost produced will be used by the communities for free.
RECOMMENDED INTERMEDIATE TREATMENT FACILITY

Based on the detailed review of the appropriate treatment technologies for the City of
Tangerangand the comprehensive evaluation criteria presented, the recommended ITF to be built
on the existing RawaKucingsite is Anaerobic digestion to electricity generation, which
comprises three stages to be built in series and are as follows:
Stage 1: Material recovery facility (MRF) - the main purpose of the MRF is to safeguard the
treatment plant downstream to ensure that the appropriate waste stream is fed into the
plant.
Stage 2: Anaerobic digestion plant (AD) –treat the organic portion of the waste and generate
biogas (methane) and residual also referred to as digestate (compost).
Stage 3: Electricity production – Utilization of the produced biogas to generate electricity
which is sold to the PLN grid as renewable source of energy.
Table below presents concisely the conceptual design criteria for the anaerobic digestion to
energy plant for City of Tangerang.
Criteria Design Comments
Type of Dry process; single stage and batch Most cost efficient, minimal land area
Anaerobic process (flexibility should be given requirement, low OPEX costs and
digestion to manufacturers to provide their requirements.
process technology as long as gas /
electricity generation is maximized)
Plant design 200 tons / day (organic municipal Plant starts with 400 tpd in 2016, upon
capacity: solid waste) – includes 20% successful implementation of the
additional capacity for the bulking recommended ISWM system
agent (to achieve 25:1 C/N ratio) and presented and successful operation of
compensate for any fluctuations in the AD to energy plant, expansion as
waste generation rates follows:
Year 2018: additional 100t/d
Year 2020: additional 100t/d
Year 2022: additional 200 t/d
Expands gradually to reach full
capacity of 2000tpd by 2037 to serve
30 years projections.
xxvi
Location At Rawa Kucing site Most cost efficient location given that
land is available and it‟s centrally
located.
Land 4 hectares Starts with 4 ha and requires
requirement: approximately an additional 1 ha
every incremental increase of 100t/d
capacity.
Electricity 2 to 10 MW MW will expand during the lifetime of
generation the project
Plant lifetime 30 years Infrastructure designed and
constructed for 30 years lifetime
RECOMMENDATION FOR RAWA KUCING LANDFILL

The City of Tangerang today has a contractor on site building a new sanitary cell of 2.3 hectares
and leachate treatment system comprising anaerobic and maturation ponds. CDIA Team
recommends the additional rehabilitation and re-engineering works for the whole site to
compliment what the City is doing, to be carried out on three phases as follows:
1. Phase 1: Excavation of all existing waste and put temporarily adjacent to the new sanitary cell
location that will be build following sanitary cell construction requirements. A new sanitary
cell of 8 hectares is required to receive all old waste from the existing site. A leachate
treatment plant will also be built in parallel to the construction of the new cell. After
construction of the new 8 hectares sanitary cell, old excavated waste will be put back into the
new sanitary cell (with proper compaction and adding a cover layer every 1 m of compacted
waste layer). The new cell will have remaining capacity to serve for 1 year until reaching final
capacity. During this year, phase 2 should be completed.
2. Phase 2: After completion of phase 1, start up for the construction of second cell for a total
area of 6 hectares, following sanitary landfill construction requirements.
3. Phase 3: Construction of the landfill facilities, which will include drainage works for the
whole site, operator and management / administrative office, laboratory building, workshop,
heavy equipment and vehicles hangar, washing hangar and landscaping for the whole site, This
Phase can start in parallel with Phase 1 as long as the construction will not delay Phase 1
completion time.
Purchase of heavy equipment is necessary and should be done as soon as possible, that includes
one landfill compactor and one excavator.
LANDFILL LIFETIME ANALYSIS

The landfill lifetime analysis indicates that the total accumulation of waste pile including waste,
daily cover, liner system and the total landfill cell available at the site will provide landfill
operational capacity until 2017/2018, 2016/2017 and 2025/2026 for business as usual, business as
usual with 100% collection coverage and the recommended ISWM system, respectively. That
means under the recommended ISWM system, the lifetime of the landfill will be extendedupto 4
times more compared to the business as usual operation.
xxvii
LAND REQUIREMENTS FOR ISWM SYSTEM
No new land requirements for ITF and landfill are needed until year 2020.However, MRFs
will require a total of 0.54 hectares for the 12 MRFs distributed in the City. The detailed land
requirements during the 30 years planning period for the various facilities for the City of
Tangerangis presented in the following table:
Initial Land Additional Land Requirement (Ha)

Year Requirement
2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2033 2037
(Ha)
MRF 0.54 0 0 0 0 0 0.54 0
Intermediate Treatment Facility 4 1 2 2 1 2 2 3
Landfill (Ha) 0 0 0 0 6.36 4.03 8.06
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Existing financial aspects for SWM sector:
The actual annual operation and maintenance expenditures for SWM sector according to DKP for
years2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 is Rp.27,949, 31,342, 38,588 and 46,955 million respectively. In
conclusion, the O&M budget for the SWM sector increased by approximately 20% annually from
2010 to date.
Unit costs for different aspects of SWM chain in 2012 were Rp.457,021, Rp.78,396, and
Rp.46,963 / ton for street sweeping, arm roll truck and dump truck for collection and
transportation to landfill, respectively.
SWM revenues and SWM service tariffs:

Most of the SWM billing is carried out by the DKP itself by the fleet staff. This is based on the
Mayor instructions to the Head of DKP to carry out collection of SWM service fees.
Cost recovery is too low compared to total budget required for SWM, covering only 1.4% and
1.1% for years 2011 and 2012, respectively. This percent increased in 2013 (up to June 2013) to
2.6%.City of Tangerang does not have a proper and reliable mechanism for cost recovery.
Identified Gaps on financial aspects:

Cost recovery: Despite the SWM services provided by DKP to the Citizens being poor, the cost
recovery / SW service fees are on the very low side. That presents a major financial burden on the
City of Tangerang to provide good service and complete coverage to all Citizens; Existing SWM
tariffs to the various levels of income is very low, as well as the projected tariff is as well very
low and fixed for all levels of income, which is not appropriate; no appropriate, transparent and
efficient mechanism for cost recovery is in place.
The analysis showed that - with estimated average tariff for low income of Rp.2500/HH (50% of
total HH), medium income of Rp.5000/HH (45% of total HH), high income of Rp.15.000/HH
(5% of total HH) - the fee collected in 2013 of around Rp.6 billion came from 24% of service fee
collection efficiency. This indicates that the ratio was significantly low.No clear record of
collection receipt also indicates that the collection method and billing is not sufficient. This would
need clear and obvious task division, procedure, collection strategy.Many of the waste collection
xxviii
facilities, waste collection frequency, reliability of the services which the community demanded
and the cost of collection are not suitable.
Other sources of finance: To date local government provides more than 95% of the total cost for
SWM services. Given that the City of Tangerang is committed to the master plan ambitious
targets in terms of full coverage of SWM, 3R approach and significant extension of the landfill
lifetime, budget have to increase to cover all these aspects. The City of Tangerang has to tap into
other sources of finance to support in modernizing and transforming the sector to a more
sustainable and integrated sector.
Financial analysis and costing for recommended ISWM system for City of Tangerang:
For the ISWM system, the financial analysis is presented as follows:
a- the existing system - business as usual – (for comparison reasons only); and
b- the recommended ISWM system.
Table below presents the financial analysis for the recommended ISWM system for the 30 years
planning period for the conservative and realistic scenarios for collection & transportation, MRFs,
ITF/Anaerobic digestion to electricity generation and landfilling of rejects / inert material. The
financial analysis took into consideration the additional requirements for both CAPEX and OPEX
during the 30 years period, which includes but not limited to replacement of equipment at the end
of its lifetime, preventative and required maintenance works, overhauling of gas generator
engines, additional staff, and escalation of prices for the various OPEX related items.
Recommended System
*w/ **w/ Realistic
Business
Conservative Tariff
As usual
Tariff Scenario Scenario
Initial CAPEX (at 2015-current prices) Rp.millions 658,971 645,213
Annual CAPEX Rp.millions 37,552 19,722 19,541
Annual OPEX Rp.millions 37,985 52,119 46,762
Annual CAPEX & OPEX Rp.millions 75,537 71,841 66,303
Annual Revenue Rp.millions 8,875 102,708 268,386
Annual Gap - Surplus (Deficit) Rp.millions (66,662) (68,321) (12,502)
Operating Ratio <1 4.28 1.72 0.58
NPV (Rp.millions) >0 (772,604) (2,049,626) (375,047)
Project FIRR >WACC 0.00% 0.00% 7.74%
Payback Period (years) - 16
The conclusions from the financial analysis of the Recommended ISWM system are as follows:
a- It is important to highlight that the BAU scenario is following the current 74% SW service
coverage for the population of City of Tangerang, while the conservative and realistic
scenarios are on the basis of 100% SW service coverage for the population of City of
Tangerang.
b- The realistic scenario of the recommended ISWM system has low annual gap of negative
Rp.12.50 billion, with efficient operating cost of 0.58 (<1), and FIRR of 7.74% which is still
under 12% and the payback period of 16 years.
c- Despite the annual gap for the realistic scenario of the recommended ISWM system, this
model is the most cost efficient and best SWM service coverage and quality of service (4R
approach and 25% disposal rate at the landfill – 3 to 4 times longer lifetime of the landfill)
xxix
compared to the BAU which does not provide full coverage, 4R approach and 100% disposal
of collected waste at the landfill.
CDIA Team divided the ISWM system into 4 investment packages since its financing sources,
implementation and operation arrangements are different, and are as follows:
INVESTMENT PACKAGE 1 – collection and transportation:

CDIA Team recommends for the City of Tangerang to implement the recommended collection
and transportation scheme in selected pilot areas (as first phase). Upon successful implementation
and operation for a period of 6 months, expand the coverage gradually in the following 2 years to
reach full capacity by year 2018. The table below presents the financial plan for the CAPEX
during the period of 2015 to 2018.
Total 2015 2016 2017 2018

Collection Equipment 34,538 8,342 8,342 8,342 9,510
a Drum Container 13,005 3,874 3,874 3,874 1,384
b Cotton Bag 2,471 736 736 736 263
3
c Collection Points (1.2 m ) - Organic 10,515 1,499 1,499 1,499 6,017
3
d Collection Points (1.2 m ) - Inorganic 1,889 270 270 270 1,079
e Waste Container (120 L) 260 77 77 77 28
f Arm Roll Container (6 m3) 5,349 1,730 1,730 1,730 159
g Handcarts (Organic) 107 17 17 17 57
h Handcarts (Inorganic) 943 140 140 140 523
Transportation Equipment 108,518 30,766 30,766 30,766 16,221
a Compactor Truck 76,668 21,667 21,667 21,667 11,667
b Arm Roll Truck 31,850 9,099 9,099 9,099 4,554
c Dump Truck - - - - -
Total 143,055 39,108 39,108 39,108 25,731
Recommended financing scheme for the CAPEX and OPEX of this package is to be provided
by the local government. Main reason being under existing pricing, the ISWM system is not
breaking even, and bringing a private operator will increase the financing gap even more. This is
primarily contributed by the relatively low revenues from cost recovery tariff.
INVESTMENT PACKAGE 2 – Material recovery facilities:

CDIA recommends for the City of Tangerang to implement the MRF investment package on
phased approach following the same pattern of implementation of the investment package 1, to
provide full service to the select pilot areas (new collection and transportation scheme, and new
MRF facilities to cost efficiently process recyclables to be transported to the ITF site
(RawaKucing site) and expand gradually to cover the full the City. The table below presents the
financial plan for the CAPEX during the period of 2015 to 2017 (construction of fourMRFs per
year).
Total 2015 2016 2017

Buildings, Civil Work & Utility 43,592 14,531 14,531 14,531
In Vessel Composting Reactor 4,844 1,615 1,615 1,615
Belt Conveyor 692 231 231 231
Compactor 646 215 215 215
Bailer 646 215 215 215
Total 50,419 16,806 16,806 16,806
xxx
Financial analysis for investment package 2, namely MRF is presented in the table below (in
million Rp):
Initial CAPEX (at 2015 - at current prices) 18,487

Annual CAPEX 473
Annual OPEX 1,039
Annual CAPEX & OPEX 1,512
Annual Revenue 17,954
Annual Gap - Surplus (Deficit) 4,470
Operating Ratio 0.16
NPV (Rp.millions) 134,094
Project FIRR 76.33%
Payback Period (years) 4
This package shows the surplus of around Rp. 4.470 billion every year with operating ratio of
0.16 which is very efficient. Further the NPV for 30 years is positive (around Rp.134.094 billion)
and FIRR is around 76% with 4 years payback period.
Recommended financing scheme for the CAPEX and OPEX of this package to be provided by
the City due to the fact that these facilities are at the low income areas, and the model is about
encouraging and providing incentives for Citizens to segregate their waste and bring the
recyclables to those WBs / MRFs, and get rewarded up to 50% of the market price for those
recyclables (CDIA Team estimate).
INVESTMENT PACKAGE 3 – Intermediate Treatment Facility (ITF – Anaerobic digestion

to electricity generation plant):
For the anaerobic digester to energy plant (ITF), CDIA Team developed two scenarios:
1- Conservative scenario: Higher CAPEX and OPEX estimates, with lower estimates of
revenues (lower biogas generation potential per ton of MSW, which is reflected on lower
methane and electricity generation; and lower compost generation percentage).
2- Realistic scenario: Realistic CAPEX and OPEX estimates, with realistic estimates of revenues
(realistic biogas generation potential per ton of MSW, which is reflected on realistic methane
and electricity generation; and realistic compost generation percentage).
The plant will be built on phases in order to minimize the risks related to the operation and extent
of success of the segregation works upstream (recommended ISWM system), etc. Phase 1 will be
400tons/d, and upon successful operation will be increased 100 tons / day every 2 years to reach
full capacity by year 2020.
Under each scenario four options were financially analyzed, which are as follows:
Option 1: revenues from electricity only;
Option 2: revenues from electricity & compost;
Option 3: revenues from electricity only with grant for plant CAPEX; and
Option 4: revenues from electricity & compost with grant for plant CAPEX.
Financial plan for the CAPEX during the first 5 years of the project:
CDIA recommends plant start up with 400tpd in 2016, and upon successful implementation of the
CDIA recommended ISWM system and operation of the AD to energy plant, expansion in
2018for an additional 100t/d and 2020 for an additional 100t/d. By year 2022 the plant will
operate full capacity to treat all organic waste generated from the City of Tangerang, and will
xxxi
expand gradually to reach 2000tons / day by 2037. Table below shows the financial plan for the
CAPEX during the first 5 years of the project.
Total 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

(Rp.million) 2 3 4 5 6
ITF / Aerobic Digester
a Anaerobic Digester Plant 612,031 397,782 - 104,480 - 109,769
b Heavy Equipment 9,907 9,907 - - - -
c Compost Packaging Line 248 248 - - - -
d Power Plant System
1- Gas Turbine 15,112 9,907 - 5,204 - -
2- Cabling, connections, etc 6,811 6,811 - - - -
3- Transformer for 1 MW
1,889 1,238 - 651 - -
Engine
645,998 425,894 - 110,335 - 109,769
Financial analysis for the conservative scenario:

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
Initial CAPEX (at 2015 - at
482,242 482,242 482,242 482,242
current prices)
Annual CAPEX 13,973 13,973 13,973 13,973
Annual OPEX 22,413 22,413 22,413 22,413
Annual CAPEX & OPEX 36,386 36,386 36,386 36,386
Annual Revenue 19,253 64,828 19,253 64,828
Annual Surplus (Deficit) (51,155) (35,660) (38,999) (23,504)
Operating Ratio <1 2.63 0.79 2.63 0.79
NPV (Rp. millions) >0 (1,534,640) (1,069,792) (1,169,964) (705,116)
Project FIRR >WACC 0.00% -6.44% 0.00% -6.10%
Payback Period (years) - - - -
The conclusion from the financial analysis of the four different options under the
conservative scenario for investment package 3 – anaerobic digestion to electricity generation
is that option 4, namely the initial CAPEX granted to the local government, with revenues being
accounted for from both electricity and compost. This option has the lowest annual deficit of
Rp.23.504 billion(equivalent to approximately US$2.04 million per year of deficit), due to the
granting of the initial CAPEX. Options 2 and 4 have operating ratio of 0.79, which indicates the
efficient operation.
Financial analysis for the realistic scenario:

468,483 468,483 468,483 468,483
current prices)
Annual CAPEX 13,792 13,792 13,792 13,792
Annual OPEX 17,121 17,121 17,121 17,121
Annual CAPEX & OPEX 30,912 30,912 30,912 30,912
Annual Revenue 58,038 148,784 58,038 148,784
Annual Gap - Surplus (Deficit) (33,958) (6,234) (22,331) 5,393
Operating Ratio <1 0.63 0.25 0.63 0.25
NPV (Rp. millions) >0 (1,018,736) (187,027) (669,916) 161,793
Project FIRR >WACC -4.12% 9.75% -3.61% 15.87%
Payback Period (years) - 17 - 16
The conclusion from the financial analysis of the four different options under the realistic
scenario for investment package 3 –is that only option 4, namely the initial CAPEX of AD with
electricity & compost financed by a grant that have the positive „annual gap‟, FIRR of above
xxxii
12%, positive NPV and operating ratio of under 1. Nevertheless all options have efficient
operating ratio (under 1).
Recommended financing model for investment package 3 is on granting the initial CAPEX
to the City of Tangerang, since from the financial analysis it is clear that this project will not
happen without on-granting the CAPEX. The main reasons being the relatively low electricity
tariff and modest compost market which is reflected on low compost price.
CDIA Team would like to highlight that given refuse derived fuel (RDF) is the second ranked
option, the team carried out detailed financial analysis based on local information provided by the
only interested buyer, namely Holcim. The conclusions from the financial analysis are RDF plant
will breakeven its operational costs for 1200 tons / day and 400 tons / day capacity at $40.5
and $50, respectively, and that includes CAPEX on-granted.
CDIA Team also develop the financial model for RDF implementation. Table below present the
financial for implementation of RDF.
Required capacity if Same capacity as

RDF selected2 AD3
Capacity (tons/day) 1200 400
Unit Cost for CAPEX (USD/ton) 110 157
Total CAPEX (million USD) 48.000 22.857
Unit Cost for OPEX (USD/ton) 13 16
4
Total OPEX (million USD) / yr 5.694 2.336
5
RDF Pellet Produced 32% 32%
RDF Pellet produced for City of Tangerang (tons/day) 384 128
RDF Pellet price (USD/ton) 40.5 50.0
Total revenues (Million USD/year) 5.68 2.34
From the table above, it can be concluded that the RDF plant will breakeven its operational
costs for 1200 tons / day and 400 tons / day capacity at $40.5 and $50, respectively.
INVESTMENT PACKAGE 4 – Landfill rehabilitation and re-engineering Development:

Phasing of CAPEX for Investment Package 4: Rehabilitation and re-engineering of RawaKucing
landfill during the first3 year (at current price - Rp.million)
Total 2015 2016 2017
(Rp.million) 2 3 4
Landfill Development
a Sanitary cell construction
270,944 115,223 57,611 98,110
& Leachate infrastructure
2
Based on mixed waste colection
3
for the sake of comparison of the same capacity as the anaerobic digestion technology
4
OPEX does not include profit for operator
5
Acc. To mass balance provided, RDF produced will be equal to 32% of input (110 tons of RDF generated from350t/d
raw MSW)
xxxiii
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
Economic benefits included in the calculations are a)- willingness to pay of households and non-
residential customers; b)- Sales of recyclables, compost and electricity generated and sold to the
grid based on the realistic scenario; c)- The economic value of avoided GHG emission from
improved landfill practice at the existing site during year 2 to year 20 of project lifetime; d)- The
economic value of avoided GHG emission from electricity generated from renewable sources
during year 1 to year 20 of project lifetime.
Economic costs included in the calculations are a)- Capital costs of collection & transportation,
MRF, ITF, landfill, and others excluding applicable taxes; and b)- Operating costs of collection &
transportation, MRF, ITF, landfill, and others excluding applicable taxes.
Results of the economic analysis show that the EIRR for the whole improved ISWM system is
30.53% exceeding the threshold of 12%. The NPV is positive at IDR 1,165,269 at the discount
rate of 12%. The Benefit to cost ratio is 1.46 which is above the threshold of 1. In sum, the project
is economically viable and generates net positive welfare to the society. It should be noted that
several environmental benefits, especially local environmental benefits (cost of water resources
pollution from leaked leachate, soil pollution, cost of valuable land used for landfilling, etc.) have
not been quantified, the main reason being the limited time of the study to gather reliable data to
carry out accurate estimations.
The EIRR for the ITF investment package is 14.95%. The NPV is positive with a surplus of IDR
190,181. The B/C ratio is 1.15 which is slight above 1. In sum, the project is economically viable
and generates net positive welfare to the society.
Sensitivity analysis test was conducted to examine the impact of an increase in cost and decrease
in benefit on the EIRR, NPV and B/C. In the scenario where benefits are reduced by 10% and cost
increases by 10%, the EIRR for proposed ISWM and ITF reduced to 20.53% and 10.77%
respectively which is under the threshold of 12% for ITF packages. But the EIRRfor ISWM is
still higher than the threshold EIRR of 12%. This implies that with 10% changes in benefits and
costs, the project is still economically viable.
IMPLEMENTATION & OPERATIONAL ARRANGEMENTS

It is recommended that the City of Tangerangimplements the ISWM system in a phased approach,
by selecting certain areas representing all the categories above, as PILOT areas. Upon the
successful operation of the system for a period of 6 months in the pilot areas, the City of
Tangerangshould embark in spreading the recommended ISWM system throughout the City.
Public awareness and community participation campaigns should start at least 3 months prior the
implementation of the system and continues throughout the first 2 years of the implementation of
the program to ensure that the public are well aware of the City and the Citizens roles and
responsibilities, for the successful implementation of the new ISWM system.
CDIA Team also proposes phased approach of waste segregation. The reason being difficulty to
ask citizens in any part of the world to move from one stream to more than three streams.
Accordingly, two phased approach is recommended:
xxxiv
Phase 1: At least 1 successful year of operating three waste streams as follows:
a) Stream 1: degradable waste (referred to as organic waste).
b) Stream 2: waste that can be reused and recycled (referred to as inorganic waste).
c) Stream 3: others (referred to glass and bulk waste).
Phase 2: After the succesfull implementation and operation of three streams segregation system
for at least a period of 1 year, City of Tangerangcan introduce to the citizens four streams
segregation system by adding hazardous and toxic materials waste into the solid waste collection
system.
Several implementation & operational arrangements could be used for the various SWM system
packages, which includes a)- business as usual where the city implements and operates the
systems; b)- concession which gives an operator the long term right to use all utility assets,
including responsibility for all operation and investment, however asset ownership remains with
the authority. Assets revert to the authority at the end of the concession period, including assets
purchased by the operator. In a concession the operator typically obtains its revenues directly
from the consumer and so it has a direct relationship with the consumer; c) build operate and
transfer (BOT) project which is typically used to develop a discrete asset rather than a whole
network and is generally entirely new or greenfield in nature. In a BOT Project the project
company or operator generally obtains its revenues through a fee charged to the utility/
government rather than tariffs charged to consumers; and d)-Design-Build-Operate (DBO)
project is where the public sector owns and finances the construction of a new project. The private
sector designs, builds and operates the project to meet certain agreed outputs. The documentation
for a DBO is typically simpler than a BOT or Concession as there are no financing documents and
will typically consist of a civil works contract plus an operating contract. The Operator is taking
no financing risk and will typically be paid a sum for the design-build of the plant and then an
operating fee for the operating period.
INVESTMENT PACKAGE 1:Given that the City of Tangerangis operating the collection and
transportation system and huge collection fleet is already owned by DKP as well as staff / crew, it
is recommended to have the City of Tangerangimplement and operate investment package 1,
namely the purchase of the required collection and transportation fleet and auxiliary equipment
and to be responsible for the operation of the collection and transportation system. City of
Tangerangshould have maintenance agreement with the compactor trucks supplier to carry out the
preventitive maintenance and any required mechanical or electrical fixing for period of 5 years
including provision, installation and at least 1 year warranty of spareparts.Upon satisfactory
performance, maintenance contracts should be extended, and at all times maintenance contracts
should be in place during the lifetime of the trucks.
INVESTMENT PACKAGE 2:Given that the waste bank concept is primarily community driven
program, with lots of interaction with the public, and the City with the support ofthe Environment
Agency have implemented thus far 130 waste banks with successful experiences on the program,
it is recommended to have the implementation of the investment package 2 by City of Tangerang,
specifically the expansion of waste banks, construction of 4 MRF per service area(total 12 MRFs)
and purchase and installation works of the recommended equipment and to be responsible for the
operation and maintenance of the MRFs.
xxxv
It is highly recommended that City of Tangeranghave maintenance agreements with 2 to 3 third
party maintenance facilities who will be responsible for preventative maintenance for the MRFs
and any required mechanical or electrical fixing for period of 5 years including provision,
installation and at least 1 year warranty of spareparts. Upon satisfactory performance,
maintenance contracts should be extended, and at all times maintenance contracts should be in
place during the lifetime of the MRFs.
Having said that, PSP is also a model that can be looked at, but requires a very comprehensive
tender document to ensure a win – win agreement be reached for the Citizens, City and the private
operator.
INVESTMENT PACKAGE 3: Given that the anaerobic digester to electricity generation plant
is designed specifically for each site, and the fact that this is a new technology in the context of
Indonesia with no local experience for the different aspects of development, and that optimization
of the operation has significant impact on the gas generation rates and consequently the electricity
generation potential, the CDIA Team recommends the following arrangements for the
development of the ITF:
1- Private sector participation (PSP) based on a Design, build and operate (DBO) arrangement /
contract for 10 years between the City of Tangerangand private sector, and the operation
contract will be renewed upon satisfactory performance of the operator.
2- Tender documents should be prepared in such a way to give freedom to manufacturers to
present their own technologies and evaluation criteria should be based among others on highest
biogas / methane generation per ton of waste / maximum electricity generation rates.
3- Design and build phases are paid separately.
4- Operation phase is paid based on base fee for actual operation costs per month plus a
percentage of the electricity sold to the grid (to provide an incentive for the operator to
optimize the operation of the plant and gas and electricity generation rates).
The above recommendations are for guidance, and a thorough legal and financial analysis is
required to ensure that a comprehensive bidding documents and tendering process is in place and
a win – win contract for both Local Government and the private operator is in place with proper
incentive for the private operator to design, build and operate the plant to achieve its highest
efficiency and revenues.
INVESTMENT PACKAGE 4:
CAPEX should be borne by the City of Tangerang. The operation of the landfill should be either
continued by the City but after on the job training is given to the operation Team for sanitary
landfill operations. Another option would be to have operation contract with private operator, or
the operator of the ITF facility, given that it is the same site, and the ITF plant will require
disposing of the inerts, as well as possibility of compost used as regular cover material. In that
case an operation fee should be included as well as tipping fee for any waste disposal coming
from sources other than DKP.
xxxvi
RISK ASSESSMENT & MITIGATION MEASURES
INVESTMENT PACKAGE 1:
Three major risks are identified under the proposed collection and transportation package which
are presented in the table below with the recommended mitigation measures.
Identified Risk Recommended mitigation measures

Compactor trucks require regular
City should have an after sales maintenance contract
maintenance with the manufacturer / supplier (part of the terms of
the procurement of the trucks) during the operational
lifetime of the equipment.
Compactor trucks require trained Part of the contract should also include training
operator program to the drivers and collection fleet for the
truck (mainly driver and collection fleet).
Imported trucks are very expensive, and Major cost item of compactor truck is for the truck
compactor trucks are not manufactured chassis which are available locally (Isuzu, Mitsubishi,
locally etc.). City has two options, either leave this upto the
truck chassis manufacture to purchase and install
from overseas, OR instruct in the tender documents
compactor units to be locally manufactured under
license. The later has advantage that the local
manufacturer would be the capable entity to provide
maintenance and training.
INVESTMENT PACKAGE 2 – MRFs:

A major risk is identified under the proposed MRF package which is presented in the table below
with the recommended mitigation measures.

Market prices influence by third City should sell the recyclables on monthly or quarterly basis
party traders locally and country wide. Regional sales should also be
exercised but quantities have to be larger, thus sales on
quarterly basis may make more financial sense to attract
overseas buyers. That would even bring the prices higher.
INVESTMENT PACKAGE 3 –Anaerobic digestion to electricity generation plant (ITF):

Three major risks are identified under the proposed investment package 3, namely anaerobic
digestion to electricity generation package which are presented in the table below with the
recommended mitigation measures.

Waste is not segregated at source Despite the fact that the ITF is equipped with MRF to
properly which means the MRF at the safeguard the anaerobic digester, City of
ITF level will receive organics with Tangeranghas the responsibility to ensure that the
higher inorganic rates than planned / segregation at source is effectively carried out.
designed for.
Lower waste quantity than the contracted Local government is responsible to ensure that the
for will be received by the plant minimum quantity contracted for to be received by
the ITF reaches the plant on daily basis. That is
already the case, City of Tangerangcollection and
disposal rate is 74%.
Operation of the plant to achieve highest Local government should have an operation contract
xxxvii
gas and electricity generation rates with the designer and builder of the plant to operate
and maintain the plant during its lifetime (10 years
O&M contract) to be renewed every 10 years upon
satisfactory performance of the operator.
A financial incentive has to be in the contract
between the Local Government and the operator to
ensure optimum operation and performance of the
plant is maintained at all time with highest gas and
electricity generation rates.
Phasing the capacity of the plant and starting with
400tons / day, which will be increased every 2 years
100 tons / day to reach full capacity by year 2022.
Compost market is very modest in Local government has to develop a strong campaign
Tangerangand in Indonesia in general. If for promoting compost. It has to be highlighted that
compost market can be created the compost generated from anaerobic digesters is of very
project will be financially profitable and high quality and cannot be compared to the existing
will subsidize other parts of the SWM windrow or passive composting plants / units that are
chain. operating in Indonesia.
CDIA Team considered in the financial model that
only 50% of the compost volumes will be sold at very
low price, and the remaining 50% to be used by the
local government for promotion purposes (given for
free), parks and green areas of the City and use as
final cover at landfill replacing purchase of daily /
intermediate cover.
It is important to note that CDIA Team does not consider local government having a power
purchase agreement (PPA) with PLN as risky in anyway given that there are clear regulations
with all necessary elements for establishing in a timely manner a PPA between the local
government and PLN.
INVESTMENT PACKAGE 4 – Rehabilitation and re-engineering of RawaKucing landfill

site:
Major risk identified under the proposed rehabilitation and re-engineering of RawaKucing
package is presented in the table below with the recommended mitigation measures.

Safety hazards during rehabilitation Contract with the contactor should include EHS clauses
works (excavation of old waste and following Indonesian and / or international standards to
methane gas emissions, explosion have proper safety precautions taken during constrction
hazards, landslides, etc.). phases.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS
Under the recommended ISWM system, standard operating procedures will be developed, on the
job training provided to the operators and continuous monitoring and supervision for all aspects of
SWM scheme to ensure proper operation. Tender and bidding documents for all new facilities to
be build under the ISWM system will include complying with the environmental standards for
Indonesia and / or international standards, to ensure that all effluent discharges, indoor and
outdoor air emissions, etc. does not negatively affect the environment. Health and safety during
construction and operation phases will also be included and addressed in the bidding and
tendering documents. Monitoring plans following the environmental monitoring plans (EMPs) for
xxxviii
all the facilities will be part of the operators‟ responsibilities, and relevant authorities will
supervise this works. The reasons being ensuring maximum EHS standards are maintained and
safeguarding the environment, as well as the expensive systems and technologies installed from
breakdown and ensuring maximum performance and lifetime following manufacturers‟
specifications.
SOCIAL ASPECTS
In total it is estimated that 1016 jobs will be created through the implementation of the ISWM
system proposed, with an addition of 2747 jobs during the 30 years planning period. Employment
creation for low-income population of the city will directly contribute to poverty reduction and
increased welfare by providing safety working environment, better working conditions and
increases in income. Waste pickers and informal sector shouldbe included under this ISWM
system, after undergoing adequate rehabilitation programs, health and medical checkups and on
the job training.
xxxix
RINGKASAN EKSEKUTIF
LATAR BELAKANG
Pemerintah Indonesia meminta pendanaan dari Bank Dunia sebesar US$ 100 juta untuk
membiayai "Proyek Peningkatan Pengelolaan Sampah Daerah dan Kota Metropolitan". Tujuan
pengembangan proyek ini adalah untuk mendukung peningkatan pengelolaan sampah di kota-kota
yang berpartisipasi melalui intervensi selektif termasuk minimalisasi, pengumpulan,
transfer/pengangkutan, pemrosesan dan/atau pembuangan akhir sampah dalam sistem yang
terpadu.
Kriteria kesiapan Pemerintah Indonesia dan Bank Dunia untuk memasukkan proyek yang
disajikan terhadap kota-kota yang dipilih untuk pendanaan di bawah proyek dukungan Bank
Dunia adalah:
1- Studi Kelayakan;
2- Studi Analisis Mengenai Dampak Lingkungan (AMDAL) dan Sosial;
3- Rencana Pembebasan Lahan dan/atau pemukiman kembali, jika diperlukan;
4- Strategi Sanitasi untuk Kota (SSK)/Master Plan Sektor.
5- Penyelesaian indikator kinerja pelaksanaan proyek untuk keperluan pemantauan.
6- Komitmen untuk mengalokasikan "Dana Pendamping" dari pemerintah daerah untuk
pengumpulan sampah dan pengangkutan ke TPA, sesuai dengan pembagian peran.
7- Jaminan ketersediaan lahan.
8- Penyelesaian Unit Pengelolaan Proyek dan Unit Pelaksana Proyek
9- Penyelesaian Rencana Pengelolaan Proyek (Manual Pengelolaan Proyek).
10- Penyusunan organisasi yang akan mengoperasikan TPA / pabrik pengolahan yang
diusulkan.
11- Penandatanganan MoU (Perjanjian Kesepahaman) antara Direktur Jenderal Cipta Karya
(Kementerian Pekerjaan Umum ) dan Kepala Pemerintah Daerah.
Bank Dunia bekerja sama dengan Pemerintah Indonesia dan kota-kota pilihan melakukan kajian
dokumen yang tersedia, studi-studi dan rencana induk/Master Plan, mengunjungi lokasi kota dan
bertemu dengan pihak Pemerintah Kota dan pemangku kepentingan yang terkait. Berdasarkan
persyaratan dari Bank Dunia dan Pemerintah Indonesia, Kota Tangerang diwajibkan untuk
menyusun studi kelayakan untuk teknologi pemrosesan yang paling tepat untuk dikaji dan
dipertimbangkan oleh Pemerintah Indonesia dan Bank Dunia guna dimasukkan ke dalam proyek
Bank Dunia.
Oleh karena itu, pada tanggal 27 Desember 2012 Pemerintah Kota Tangerang mengajukan kepada
Cities Development Initiative for Asia (CDIA6) untuk bantuan teknis di bidang pengelolaan
persampahan, dengan dua tujuan utama sebagai berikut:
1. Untuk memberikan rekomendasi sistim pengelolaan persampahan yang terpadu dan
berkelanjutan; dan
6
CDIA merupakan inisiatif regional yang didirikan pada tahun 2007 oleh Bank Pembangunan Asia dan Pemerintah
Jerman, dengan tambahan dukungan dana inti dari pemerintah Swedia, Austria, Spanyol dan Pemerintah Kota
Shanghai. Inisiatif ini memberikan bantuan teknis kepada kota-kota Asia berukuran sedang untuk menjembatani
kesenjangan antara rencana pembangunan dan pelaksanaan investasi infrastruktur mereka dengan pendanaan
domestik, internasional, publik dan/atau swasta.
xl
2. Menyiapkan pra-studi kelayakan untuk teknologi pengolahan sampah yang paling sesuai
untuk Kota Tangerang.
Pada tanggal 7 Januari 2013 CDIA menyetujui permintaan Pemerintah Kota Tangerang, dan
selama periode Mei hingga Juni 2013 CDIA mengontrak tim spesialis persampahan Internasional
dan Nasional yang meliputi berbagai aspek sektor pengelolaan persampahan untuk melakukan
kegiatan bantuan teknis dan tugas-tugas rinci dalam Kerangka Acuan (Lampiran E) yang
dikembangkan untuk proyek tersebut.
Kota Tangerang mengambil tindakan yang sangat penting pada tahun 2011/2012 dan
mengembangkan Rencana Induk pengelolaan persampahan yang komprehensif. Perusahaan
konsultan dikontrak untuk menyiapkan rencana induk dengan hasil yang luas sebagai berikut:
a. Penilaian rantai pengelolaan sampah dari semua perspektif termasuk peraturan,
kelembagaan, teknis , keuangan, lingkungan dan sosial;
b. Program pengambilan contoh di daerah pemukiman untuk mendapatkan dan menyajikan
data timbulan sampah dan di lokasi TPA Rawa Kucing untuk memperoleh data densitas
sampah, dan
c. Rekomendasi optimalisasi cara minimisasi Sampah Padat (pendekatan 3R - Reduce,
Reuse dan Recycle) dan pengolahan yang efisien dari bagian organik sampah untuk
seluruh kota serta masyarakatnya dengan tingkat pendapatan yang berbeda (rendah,
menengah dan berpendapatan tinggi) dengan tujuan umum pengalihan limbah dari
penimbunan sampah menjadi instalasi pengolahan energi yang mengarah ke pelestarian
ruang tanah yang berharga serta perpanjangan masa pakai TPA.
Mengikuti perkembangan Rencana Induknya, Kota Tangerang mengambil tindakan penting

lainnya dengan mengembangkan Studi Kelayakan (FS) terinci dan Detailed Engineering Design
(DED) untuk rehabilitasi, penutupan, dan peningkatan TPA Rawa Kucing yang ada saat ini
menjadi TPA saniter.
TUJUAN STUDI CDIA

Studi CDIA ini dirancang untuk melengkapi upaya yang dilakukan oleh Kota Tangerang, dan
membawa temuan dan rekomendasi menuju konsep yang dijabarkan serta tahap pra-kelayakan
melalui pendekatan bertahap. Tujuan khusus yang telah disepakati dengan pihak Kota Tangerang
dan akan dikembangkan dalam proyek ini meliputi:
1- Tujuan 1: Kajian dan penilaian rinci dari sistim pengelolaan sampah yang ada di Kota
Tangerang mulai dari pengumpulan sampai dengan pemrosesan akhir dalam rangka
memberikan rekomendasi dan langkah selanjutnya bagi Kota Tangerang untuk meningkatkan
dan secara substansial memperbaiki rantai pengelolaan sampah serta mengoperasikan sistim
pengelolaan sampah yang berkelanjutan dan terpadu untuk kota sejalan dengan
temuan/arahan Rencana Induk Kota Tangerang dan peraturan-peraturan/arahan Pemerintah
Indonesia;
2- Tujuan 2: Memilih teknologi pengolahan yang paling sesuai untuk diaplikasikan di Kota
Tangerang;
3- Tujuan 3: Mengkaji Studi Kelayakan dan DED yang ada untuk rehabilitasi dan peningkatan
TPA Rawa Kucing;
xli
4- Tujuan 4: Menyiapkan pra-studi kelayakan untuk teknologi pengolahan sampah yang paling
tepat untuk Kota Tangerang selama 30 tahun ke depan (hingga tahun 2043);
5- Tujuan 5: Tujuan tambahan telah dimasukkan ke dalam laporan ini untuk menyajikan kajian
komprehensif untuk seluruh sektor yakni mempersiapkan pra-studi kelayakan untuk
keseluruhan rantai pengelolaan sampah mulai dari pengumpulan sampai pemrosesan akhir
untuk sistem Pengelolaan Sampah Terpadu yang direkomendasikan untuk melayani Kota
Tangerang selama 30 tahun ke depan (hingga 2043), dan
6- Tujuan 6: Membagi sistem Pengelolaan Sampah Terpadu menjadi paket investasi mandiri ,
yaitu pengumpulan dan pengangkutan, bank sampah / fasilitas pemulihan bahan (MRF) di
tingkat lokal dan fasilitas pengolahan antara (anaerobic digestion menjadi pembangkit listrik
dan produksi kompos) untuk secara terpisah menilai kelangsungan hidup masing-masing
sistim dan pengaturan pelaksanaan dan operasional terbaik dari sistim tersebut.
Temuan Utama Studi CDIA:

Temuan utama dan hasil dari studi CDIA yang disajikan dalam Laporan Akhir ini dirangkum
sebagai berikut:
KERANGKA PERATURAN
Pemerintah Indonesia (Pusat dan Daerah) telah mengembangkan kerangka peraturan yang
komprehensif terhadap sektor persampahan. Kerangka peraturan tersebut memberikan landasan
yang mana dengannya sektor ini akan berkembang dengan arahan yang ditetapkan oleh
Pemerintah Indonesia. Pemerintah Pusat melalui kementerian terkait, yaitu Kementerian
Pekerjaan Umum, Lingkungan Hidup dan Kementerian Dalam Negeri merupakan lembaga yang
menetapkan perundang-undangan dan peraturan sektor persampahan ini.
Kerangka peraturan secara keseluruhan mengarahkan pemerintah daerah untuk meningkatkan

seluruh sektor persampahan melalui pendekatan 3R (reduce, reuse, recycle), implementasi
Fasilitas Pengolahan Antara, rehabilitasi penimbunan terbuka dan peningkatan menjadi TPA
saniter, perpanjangan masa pakai TPA, meningkatkan cakupan pelayanan persampahan,
meningkatkan cakupan pemulihan biaya persampahan, dan yang tidak kalah pentingnya adalah
pengaturan kelembagaan yang lebih baik untuk secara efektif mengelola sektor ini.
Tarif listrik atas energi dari pengelolaan persampahan sudah ada dan bahkan telah meningkat
secara signifikan dalam tiga tahun terakhir dari Rp. 900 / kWh menjadi Rp. 1450 / kWh yang jelas
menunjukkan dorongan Pemerintah Pusat dan dukungan untuk sumber bahan bakar hijau,
pembangunan berkelanjutan, dan memaksimalkan pendekatan 4R dan minimalisasi penimbunan
sampah.
Kesenjangan utama yang diidentifikasi oleh Tim CDIA dalam kerangka peraturan adalah:
a- Kurangnya peraturan menyangkut standar aplikasi penggunaan, kualitas, harga kompos,
b- Kurangnya peraturan yang mengatur retribusi / pemulihan biaya yang wajar yang didasarkan
pada survey kesediaan untuk membayar pada berbagai tingkat pendapatan serta kurangnya
kualitas layanan persampahan yang sesuai.
xlii
KERANGKA KELEMBAGAAN
Berdasarkan studi rinci yang dilakukan Bank Dunia terhadap aspek kelembagaan Kota
Tangerang7 disimpulkan bahwa struktur kelembagaan yang ada tidak efisien dalam mengatur
sektor pengelolaan persampahan dan membutuhkan perbaikan. Pengaturan kelembagaan yang
paling cocok adalah Badan Layanan Umum Daerah (BLUD). Pilihan untuk BLUD ini juga
dikarenakan oleh kemungkinan bahwa pemerintah Kota Tangerang dan DPRD-nya tidak dapat
menerima pengelolaan persampahan sebagai suatu bentuk layanan pemulihan biaya penuh segera
dalam waktu dekat. Meskipun menurut undang-undang BLUD ini tidak diperlukan menghasilkan
keuntungan, sebagai ketentuan yang memenuhi persyaratan UU No 28/2009 wajib memenuhi
beberapa kriteria administrasi, keuangan dan substantif tertentu yang memberikan dasar yang
lebih cocok untuk operasi layanan semi-komersial, mampu memberikan layanan yang lebih baik
dengan akuntabilitas yang lebih besar.
ASPEK TEKNIS
Kondisi Pengelolaan Persampahan Kota Tangerang Saat Ini:
Sumber dan komposisi sampah: Berdasarkan Rencana Induk Pengelolaan Persampahan yang
dikembangkan Kota Tangerang pada tahun 2011/2012, tingkat timbulan sampah perumahan
adalah yang tertinggi sebesar 75%, diikuti oleh sampah pasar sebesar 10% dan sisa sampah
lainnya menghasilkan timbulan 15%. Komposisi sampah didominasi oleh bahan organik sebesar
rata-rata 61%, diikuti oleh plastik dan kertas/karton masing-masing sebesar 19% dan 5%.
Berdasarkan pengambilan contoh yang dilakukan di beberapa titik timbulan sampah selama studi
penyusunan Rencana Induk serta program pengambilan contoh lainnya di Indonesia, Tim CDIA
menggunakan kepadatan sampah 350 kg/m3 pada titik pengumpulan dan armada pengangkutan
serta 600 kg/m3 untuk kepadatan sampah di TPA.
Timbulan sampah padat: Total timbulan sampah di Kota Tangerang pada tahun 2012 sesuai
dengan data DKP dan jembatan timbang di TPA adalah 401,500 ton / tahun dimana 74 % diproses
penimbunan di TPA, 2% didaur-ulang, 2,4% dikomposkan dan 22% tidak tertangani. Angka-
angka timbulan sampah ini diterjemahkan menjadi tingkat timbulan sampah rata-rata harian di
Kota Tangerang untuk tahun 2012 sebesar 1100 ton / hari.
Pengumpulan dan Pengangkutan Sampah:

Perumahan: Pengumpulan sampah campuran dilakukan setiap hari di Kota Tangerang. Daerah
berpendapatan tinggi sebagian besar dilayani dari rumah ke rumah, sedangkan kawasan
perumahan berpendapatan menengah dan rendah secara komunal langsung (warga membawa
sampah mereka ke TPS) dilayani oleh dump truck berukuran 6 m3. Tempat pengumpulan sampah
yang disediakan bagi masyarakat di pinggir jalan kawasan rendah dan menengah memiliki
bentuk, bahan, desain dan kapasitas yang berbeda. Sekitar 25% penduduk kota yang tidak
terlayani utamanya disebabkan karena mereka bertempat tinggal yang kurang atau tidak memiliki
akses jalan yang dapat dilalui armada pengumpul sampah.
Non-perumahan: Pengumpulan sampah campuran secara harian mengikuti cara pengumpulan

komunal yang menggunakan dump truck 6 m3 dimana sampah dikumpulkan dari kotak sampah
yang berbeda jenisnya (tembok bata/beton, besi, plastik, dll. dan ukuran/kapasitas dan desain yang
berbeda).
7
Institutional Development and Cost Recovery on Indonesia Solid Waste Management Improvement Project for
Regional and Metropolitan Cities, World Bank, June 2013.
xliii
Pasar: Pengumpulan sampah harian berupa sistem pengumpulan komunal menggunakan
container dan truk armroll 6 m3.
Pengangkutan: TPST yang berfungsi sebagai stasiun transfer tidak efisien karena tidak
diperlengkapi dengan peralatan yang benar yang menyebabkan gangguan kebisingan bagi warga
dan menimbulkan masalah utama terhadap Lingkungan, Kesehatan dan Keselamatan.
Pengangkutan sampah ke tempat pemrosesan akhir di TPA Rawa Kucing menggunakan Dump
truck 6 m3 serta truk arm roll 6 m3.
Armada pengumpulan dan pengangkutan yang tersedia di Kota Tangerang pada bulan
September 2013 adalah sebagai berikut:
a) Dump Truck (6 m3) 125 unit (tambahan 69 unit di tahun 2013)
b) Truk Arm Roll 18 unit (tambahan 12 unit di tahun 2013)
Inisiatif Pengolahan dan Daur Ulang:

Kota Tangerang mengembangkan inisiatif pengolahan dan daur ulang sampah di tingkat lokal
yang disebut TPST (Tempat Pengolahan Sampah Terpadu). Pada 2013 Kota Tangerang
membangun 4 unit TPST yaitu di Benua Hijau, Poris, Cimone dan Cemara. Penyortiran,
pengepakan/kemasan dan penjualan barang daur ulang serta pengolahan bahan organik
menggunakan teknik pengomposan sederhana.
Kota Tangerang juga mengembangkan program bank sampah yang ambisius dengan menargetkan
1000 bank pada tahun 2015. Sampai saat ini 120 bank sampah telah dibangun dan beroperasi
dengan jumlah prosentase penyortiran, pemilahan dan daur ulang diperkirakan sebesar 2 % yang
mana masih sangat rendah. Terdapat sekitar 4 sistem windrow kompos yang berlokasi di TPA
Rawa Kucing,, 896 unit komposter, bank sampah dan sekolah yang menjual kompos di Kota
Tangerang. Jumlah kompos yang diproduksi dan dijual di kota ini sangat rendah dan diperkirakan
sebesar 26 ton kompos per hari yang setara dengan 2,4 % dari total sampah yang dihasilkan.
TPA Rawa Kucing:

Awalnya adalah sebuah lahan tambang pasir yang kemudian dibangun dan mulai dioperasikan
sebagai tempat pembuangan sampah terbuka pada tahun 1993 dengan total lahan 34,8 Ha
(termasuk lahan seluas 7 hektar yang akan dibebaskan ) . Saat ini diperkirakan sekitar 20 hektar
sudah terisi dengan sampah dan 5 hektar adalah zona aktif. Kedalaman sampah di zona yang
berbeda berkisar antara 5 sampai 20 meter. Lokasi TPA ini menerima sampah campuran dari
perumahan, kawasan komersial, pasar, industri, dan limbah medis yang tidak berbahaya. Lahan
ini tidak memiliki lapisan liner, sistim drainase untuk pengelolaan air hujan, pengelolaan lindi dan
gas. TPA ini tidak dioperasikan dengan benar untuk melestarikan kawasan ruang TPA yang
berharga, serta guna meminimalkan dampak negatif bagi lingkungan dan sosial. Pengoperasian
TPA tidak mempertimbangkan cara pelapisan sampah yang tepat, perataan dan pemadatannya,
juga tidak menerapkan penutupan harian sementara denganan tanah pada saat akhir hari kerja
untuk menghindari perkolasi curah hujan ke dalam lapisan sampah dan timbulan lindi yang
berlebihan yang menyebabkan kontaminasi air tanah. Selama musim hujan , sel kerja biasanya
tidak dapat diakses karena truk mengalami kesulitan untuk masuk ke lokasi TPA.
xliv
SURVEY PASAR
Survey pasar daur ulang dilakukan selama tahap kajian antara proyek ini yang mana temuannya
adalah sebagai berikut :
Daur Ulang: Kuantitas yang dipilah/disortir dan didaur ulang saat ini diperkirakan mencapai 2%
yang mana sangat rendah. Jumlah ini dapat ditingkatkan secara signifikan dengan menyediakan
sistem yang terintegrasi dari sumber timbulannya hingga ke fasilitas pengolahan yang lengkap.
Total jumlah pemulung di jalanan dan di TPA diperkirakan sekitar 2000 orang. Diperkirakan ada
sekitar 100 hingga 150 lapak pengepul, dan 50 agen/pemroses. Terdapat juga sekitar 20 hingga 30
kecil untuk pabrik pengolahan berskala kecil hingga menengah yang sebagian besar
menggunakan peralatan sederhana (termasuk yang berada di Bekasi dan Jakarta). Pabrik-pabrik
besar dengan permintaan yang sangat tinggi dan kapasitas pengolahan besar berada di Surabaya.
Harga berbagai jenis bahan daur ulang per kilogram saat ini adalah:
a. Duplex / Karton IDR 2000 – 3000
b. Gelas aqua bersih IDR 7000 – 8500
c. Lembar plastik bening IDR 1000 – 1500
d. Botol aqua bersih IDR 4300 – 5500
Ada 600 unit komposter di tingkat kelurahan, 5 unit di TPST dan 5 unit di Bank Sampah yang
aktif memproduksi kompos di Tangerang.
Harga kompos di beberapa wilayah di Indonesia adalah sebagai berikut :
a. Dari Bank Sampah Tangerang: IDR 1500 – 3000 per kg (dalam karung)
b. Dari wilayah Jakarta: IDR 1700 - 2000 per kg.
c. Dari wilayah Makassar: IDR 600 - 800 per kg (diluar biaya pengangkutan)
d. Pupuk kandang: IDR 1800 - 2000 per kg
Harga pupuk kimiawi di Indonesia adalah sebagai berikut :

a. Urea (harga Jakarta) IDR 10500 – 15000 per kg.
b. NPK (harga Jakarta) IDR 17000 – 22500 per kg.
Permintaan kompos di Tangerang diperkirakan mencapai 100.510 ton per tahun dan perkiraan
permintaan kompos di daerah sekitarnya / kota di provinsi Banten adalah 784.300 ton / tahun.
a. Kuantitas yang dipilah/disortir dan dikomposkan saat ini diperkirakan mencapai 2,4% (26 Ton
/ hari) yang mana jumlah tersebut sangat rendah. Jumlah ini dapat ditingkatkan secara
signifikan dengan menyediakan sistem yang terintegrasi dari sumber timbulan hingga ke
fasilitas pengolahan yang dilengkapi dengan baik.
b. Kualitas kompos yang dihasilkan tidak konsisten dengan masalah utama pada bau akibat
proses yang berubah menjadi aerobic karena kurangnya peralatan yang memadai dan staf yang
terlatih
c. Pasar kompos sangat terbatas walau kebutuhan pupuk tinggi. Permintaan pupuk yang tinggi ini
dapat dipenuhi dengan melakukan lebih banyak usaha promosi penggunaankompos berkualitas
tinggi dan memasarkannya secara luas. Kota Tangerang dapat memulainya dengan digestasi
yang akan dihasilkan dari instalasi pengolahan antara yaitu instalasi anaerobic digester
menjadi energi yang mana kualitasnya sangat tinggi karena diproses secara otomatis. .
xlv
d. Kompos dapat digunakan sebagai penyubur tanah dan pupuk organik di berbagai sektor seperti
pertanian, taman dan kebun, rehabilitasi lahan serta alternatif penutup tanah diTPA untuk
memenuhi standar sanitary landfill.
Refuse Derived Fuel :

Tidak ada data terbaru yang jelas mengenai kebutuhan / permintaan penggunaan RDF di
Indonesia. Kementerian Perindustrian Republik Indonesia saat ini sedang melakukan penelitian
menyangkut kebutuhan untuk RDF sebagai alternatif untuk bahan bakar batubara kelas rendah
bagi penggunaan dalam industri semen. Hasil penelitian ini diharapkan dapat dipublikasikan pada
awal 2014. Pembeli potensial RDF di Indonesia sangat terbatas utamanya hanya dua industri
semen yaitu Holcim dan Indocement. Saat ini Holcim yang paling tertarik untuk membeli RDF.
Harga saat ini: Berdasarkan pada beberapa kali pertemuan dengan salah satu pembeli yang
tertarik, yaitu Holcim, harga yang diajukan secara tidak resmi untuk RDF kualitas tinggi berada
pada kisaran $ 25 - 35 per ton RDF. Hal ini memerlukan konfirmasi dan negosiasi lebih lanjut
dengan pembeli potensial. Berdasarkan data yang diperoleh di lingkungan lokal saat ini,
pabrik RDF akan impas biaya operasionalnya pada $ 40 dan $ 50 per ton masing-masing
untuk kapasitas lebih dari 1200 ton/hari dan kurang dari 1200 ton/hari (skala ekonomis).
Kiln semen terdekat dengan Kota Tangerang terletak di Cibinong yang mana sangat dekat
sehingga permintaan RDF ini sangat tinggi untuk Kota Tangerang. Namun dengan keadaan
kurangnya persaingan saat ini dan harga yang ada membuat teknologi RDF tidak layak
secara finansial bagi Kota Tangerang.
Energi:
Pemerintah Indonesia melalui Kementerian Energi dan Sumber Daya Mineral mengeluarkan
Peraturan Nomor 19 Tahun 2013 yang memberikan harga pembelian listrik yang dihasilkan dari
pembangkit listrik dari sampah kota sebesar Rp. 1.450/kWh (terinterkoneksi pada tegangan
menengah) dan 1.798 Rp/kWh (terinterkoneksi pada tegangan rendah). Peraturan yang
ditetapkan dan harga yang meningkat dalam 3 tahun terakhir mencapai hampir 50% (dari
Rp. 950/kWh ) merupakan indikasi yang jelas dari Pemerintah Indonesia dalam
mendukung dan mempromosikan proyek-proyek energi terbarukan dan pembangunan
berkelanjutan.
ANALISIS KESENJANGAN
Data timbulan sampah: Tidak ada data handal untuk dijadikan acuan terkait dengan jumlah
penduduk dari berbagai tingkat pendapatan dan lokasi geografis mereka
(wilayah/kecamatan/kelurahan). Data ini penting untuk memungkinkan perencanaan yang akurat
dan desain untuk sistim Pengelolaan Sampah Terpadu bagi Kota Tangerang dan berbagai wilayah
berbeda di kecamatan dan kelurahannya.
Pengumpulan dan pengangkutan sampah: armada dan jenis kendaraan pengumpulan dan
pengangkutan tidak tepat dan tidak efisien; TPS tidak dirancang dengan benar dan tidak sesuai
dengan bagi armada dan kru pengumpul untuk memuat sampah dengan cepat dan bersih, bahkan
juga tidak cocok bagi warga untuk dapat meletakkan sampah mereka dengan benar. TPST yang
bertindak sebagai stasiun peralihan tidak efisien karena tidak dilengkapi dengan baik dengan
xlvi
peralatan yang memadai dan menjadi, sumber utama gangguan bagi masyarakat sekitarnya serta
berdampak terhadap lingkungan, kesehatan dan keselamatan baik bagi kru armada maupun warga.
Pengolahan dan daur ulang sampah: Konsep yang sangat baik sudah ada namun desain TPST
tidak efisien dan kurangnya peralatan penting / mesin di TPST dan bank sampah membuat
inisiatif daur-ulang tidak seefisien seperti yang diharapkan / direncanakan. Prosentase daur ulang
diperkirakan sekitar 2% dan target pengolahan sampah sesuai Rencana Induk adalah 75%.
Pembuangan Sampah: TPA RawaKucing yang dioperasikan sebagai tempat pembuangan

sampah merupakan bahaya utama terhadap lingkungan, kesehatan dan keselamatan masyarakat
sekitarnya, kru pekerja di lokasi TPA dan bahkan juga terhadap sumber daya alam yang
berharga. Selain itu, ruang TPA yang bernilai akan berkurang habis dengan cara pembuangan
yang tidak baik sementara di pihak lain untuk melakukan pembebasan lahan TPA sangat
bermasalah dan mahal.
Bahaya Lingkungan, Kesehatan dan Keselamatan: Bahaya Lingkungan, Kesehatan dan

Keselamatan utama untuk kru pengelola dan penduduk ada di TPS dan TPA. Bahaya lingkungan
dari lindi dan emisi gas rumah kaca yang negatif mempengaruhi tanah, air tanah / air dan udara;
bahaya kesehatan dari emisi gas rumah kaca, bau yang menjengkelkan, penyebaran serangga,
tikus dan penyakit akibat kurangnya kebersihan / penanganan sampah, dan bahaya keselamatan
kepada kru operator yang tidak dilengkapi dengan baik, pemulung yang berada di tempat
pembuangan sampah dan warga yang berada di sekitar TPS dan bertempat tinggal dekat dengan
TPA.
Aspek Sosial: Mengingat Kota Tangerang / DKP berencana untuk meningkatkan sektor ini mulai
dari pengumpulan hingga ke pemrosesan akhir maka metode operasi sektor informal dan
pemulung yang ada saat ini tidak akan cocok dan kompatibel dengan modernisasi sektor ini dan
tidak dapat dilanjutkan dengan cara yang sama. Sektor informal dan khususnya pemulung, yang
kehidupannya tergantung hanya pada sampah harus dimasukkan dalam sistem baru.
Timbulan sampah per kapita:

Berdasarkan Rencana Induk 2012 untuk Kota Tangerang, data jembatan timbang TPA Rawa
Kucing dan studi yang dilakukan di seluruh Indonesia dan negara-negara di kawasan yang sama,
Tim CDIA menghitung peningkatan timbulan sampah berdasarkan pertumbuhan sektor
pertanian, industri, pendapatan dan pertumbuhan penduduk. Berdasarkan perhitungan,
selama penelitian digunakan peningkatan timbulan sampah per kapita per hari selama 30
tahun periode perencanaan untuk berpendapatan rendah 0,35 - 0,45 kg/kapita/hari,
berpendapatan menengah 0,7 - 0,9 kg/kapita/hari dan bependapatan tinggi dari 0,8 sampai
1,0 kg/kapita/hari.
xlvii
REKOMENDASI SISTIM PENGELOLAAN SAMPAH TERPADU
Tim CDIA mengembangkan sistim Pengelolaan Persampahan Terpadu untuk Kota Tangerang,
mulai dari pengumpulan hingga ke pemrosesan akhir yang cocok dan sesuai untuk kota dan
warganya yang dikategorikan sebagai berikut :
1- Perumahan (dibagi menjadi dua sistem untuk berpendapatan rendah dan pendapatan menengah
dan tinggi) ;
2- Non - perumahan yang terdiri dari sampah non-B3 yang dihasilkan dari kawasan komersial,
perkantoran, lembaga, sektor industri dan medis non-B3, dan
3- Pasar
Daerah perumahan:
Daerah berpendapatan rendah: setiap rumah tangga akan diberi kontainer drum 20 liter
berpenutup (berwarna hijau) dan kantong katun kapasitas 20 liter (berwarna kuning) masing-
masing untuk pengumpulan terpisah sampah organik dan anorganik. Warga yang memiliki akses
ke tempat pengumpulan komunal akan membuang sampah organik mereka setiap hari pada
jangka waktu tertentu di kontainer komunal 1,2 m3 (ditempatkan berjarak 50 meter di sepanjang
jalan utama terdekat) untuk dikumpulkan dan diangkut dengan menggunakan truk compactor 6
m3 ke ITF di TPA RawaKucing . Masyarakat berpenghasilan rendah lainnya yang tidak memiliki
kemudahan akses ke tempat pengumpulan komunal akan dilayani oleh gerobak tangan setiap hari
yang akan diangkut ke Fasilitas Pemulihan Bahan terdekat untuk diproses dan diolah di dalam
unit in-vessel composting . Warga akan membawa barang daur ulang mereka 1 – 2 kali per
minggu dalam kantong katun secara langsung ke bank sampah yang terletak di lingkungan
mereka. Warga akan dibayar sebesar 50 % dari harga pasar daur ulang (termasuk dalam analisis
keuangan CDIA) sebagai insentif/penghargaan untuk membawa barang daur ulang mereka.
Barang daur ulang akan dipindahkan ke Fasilitas Pemulihan Bahan (MRF) yang terletak di daerah
ini untuk selanjutnya diproses secara efisien dan dikirim ke TPA Rawa Kucing untuk dijual secara
bulanan.
Daerah berpendapatan menengah: Warga akan membuang sampah organik mereka di tempat
pengumpulan komunal yang dilengkapi dengan kontainer berkapasitas 1,2 m3 sekali per hari
dengan jadwal waktu yang tetap. Warga akan diberikan kantong katun berwarna kuning
berukuran 20 liter untuk sampah anorganik mereka. Bagi warga yang memiliki minat dalam
kegiatan Bank Sampah, mereka akan membawa sampah mereka ke Bank Sampah terdekat dan
mendapatkan keuntungan finansial. Bagi warga yang tidak memiliki minat dalam kegiatan Bank
Sampah, mereka akan dilayani oleh gerobak pengumpul pada jadwal waktu yang tetap satu
sampai dua kali per minggu. Armada pengumpulan dan pengangkutan yang digunakan
untuksampah organik adalah truk compactor 6 m3, setiap hari (jadwal waktu yang tetap) dan
barang anorganik akan diangkut ke MRF terdekat di daerah tersebut untuk diproses secara efisien
dan dikirim ke TPA RawaKucing untuk penjualan secara bulanan. Bahan organik akan diolah di
ITF yang terletak di RawaKucing.
Daerah berpendapatan tinggi: Setiap rumah tangga akan disediakan dua wadah kontainer
plastik kapasitas 120 liter berwarna hijau dan kuning, masing-masing untuk pengumpulan terpisah
bahan organik dan anorganik. Armada pengumpulan dan pengangkutan yang digunakan adalah
truk compactor 6 m3 pemadat truk, beroperasi setiap 2 hari sekali (jadwal waktu yang tetap) untuk
organik dan sekali setiap minggu (jadwal waktu yang tetap) untuk anorganik. Pengolahan dan
xlviii
daur ulang sampah akan dilakukan di Fasilitas Pengolahan Antara (ITF) yang terletak di lokasi
TPA RawaKucing.
Daerah non-perumahan: daerah non-perumahan termasuk kawasan komersial, kantor, lembaga,

sampah limbah padat industri dan medis non- B3 dan penyapuan jalanan. Jalanan akan dilengkapi
kontainer TPS berjarak interval 50 meter berukuran 1,2 m3 berwarna hijau untuk bahan organik
dan kontainer kuning untuk anorganik. Pengumpulan dan pengangkutan akan dilakukan dengan
menggunakan truk compactor 6 m3 setiap hari (waktu tetap). Mal besar / pusat perbelanjaan akan
dilengkapi dengan arm roll hanya untuk bahan anorganik yang akan diangkat setiap hari atau
setiap dua hari, tergantung pada ukuran besarnya mal dan kuantitas daur ulang yang dihasilkan
(untuk memastikan setidaknya 80% kapasitas armroll terisi). Kedua jenis sampah organik dan
anorganik akan diangkut ke ITF di TPA Rawa Kucing untuk pengolahan masing-masing di ITF
dan MRF.
Pasar: Pasar akan dilengkapi dengan container armroll kapasitas 6 m3 dan 1,2 m3 berwarna
kuning masing-masing untuk sampah organik dan anorganik. Armada pengumpulan dan
pengangkutan kedua jenis sampah tersebut berupa truk arm roll dan truk compactor yang bertugas
setiap hari. Pengolahan bahan organik dan pemrosesan bahan daur ulang akan dilakukan di ITF
dan MRF yang terletak di TPA Rawa Kucing.
Limbah kaca : Mengingat bahwa limbah ini adalah jenis yang berbahaya, CDIA
merekomendasikan pemilahan di tingkat rumah tangga dan pengumpulan secara bulanan oleh
armada pengumpulan dan pengangkutan dilakukan secara terpisah. Limbah kaca akan diangkut ke
MRF di TPA Rawa Kucing untuk disimpan dan dijual pada setiap akhir bulan. Tim CDIA juga
merekomendasikan kepada Kota Tangerang untuk bekerja sama dengan produsen botol kaca
dengan mengikuti kebijakan Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) yang ditetapkan oleh
Pemerintah Indonesia melalui Peraturan Menteri Lingkungan Hidup Nomor 13 Tahun 2012 dalam
hal Pelaksanaan Reduce, Reuse dan Recycle melalui Bank Sampah dan EPR terhadap limbah yang
dihasilkan. EPR adalah kebijakan yang dirancang untuk mengintegrasikan biaya lingkungan ke
dalam seluruh proses produksi barang sampai produk tidak dapat lagi digunakan sehingga
perlindungan lingkungan menjadi bagian dari komponen biaya dari harga pasar produk.
Sampah gelondongan: akan dikumpulkan dari lokasi yang ditetapkan per masing-masing daerah
yang akan ditentukan oleh Kota Tangerang. Pengumpulan dilakukan sekali per minggu, tetapi
juga atas dasar permintaan jika jenis sampah massal yang bermasalah atau besar dan
membutuhkan dipindahkan pada waktu yang tepat, misalnya sofa besar, meja, potongan pohon,
dll. Masyarakat akan disediakan jalur telepon khusus (hotline) untuk meminta dilakukan
pengumpulan dan pengangkutan sampah gelondongan itu. Sampah jenis tersebut akan dibawa ke
TPA Rawa Kucing untuk digolongkan jenisnya (elektronik, perabotan, dll). Penyimpanan dan
penjualannya dilakukan pada setiap akhir bulan bersamaan dengan barang daur ulang jenis
lainnya. Tim CDIA juga merekomendasikan ke Kota Tangerang untuk berkomunikasi dengan
LSM yang tertarik dapat membarui sampah gelondongan untuk digunakan kembali oleh
masyarakat di lingkungan berpenghasilan rendah, misalnya perabotan, elektronik, dll. Hal tersebut
akan melayani masyarakat di daerah pendapatan rendah sekaligus mengurangi kapasitas
penyimpanan yang diperlukan di TPA Rawa Kucing.
xlix
Hotline (jalur telepon khusus) untuk Layanan Pengelolaan Sampah di Kota Tangerang: Tim
CDIA merekomendasikan sistem pengelolaan Persampahan di Kota Tangerang mengoperasikan
hotline untuk layanan pengelolaan sampah dengan fungsi utamanya sebagai berikut:
1. Menerima keluhan, saran, komentar, dll dari warga Kota Tangerang
2. Menerima permintaan untuk pengumpulan dan pengangkutan sampah gelondongan yang
dihasilkan oleh masyarakat Kota Tangerang tanpa biaya dan terjadwal (sekali seminggu).
3. Menerima permintaan untuk pengumpulan dan pengolahan sampah pertanian / hijau yang
dihasilkan dari warga Kota Tangerang. Sampah jenis ini penting bagi teknologi pengolahan
yang direkomendasikan karena akan dimasukkan ke dalam sistim instalasi sebagai bahan
gelondongan pencampur/bulking agent.
Rekomendasi Sistim Daur Ulang Untuk Kota Tangerang: Kota Tangerang dibagi atas 3
wilayah layanan. Tiap wilayah layanan akan dilengkapi dengan empat Fasilitas Pemulihan Bahan
(MRF) dengan kapasitas 20 ton/hari (pada tahun 2015/2016) hingga 30 ton/hari (tahun 2030)
untuk masing-masing MRF selama 30 tahun masa pakai fasilitas tersebut. Setiap MRF akan
membutuhkan total lahan seluas 900 m2 selama 30 tahun, dimulai dengan luas permukaan
minimal 200 m2. Namun, lahan yang lebih kecil dapat digunakan jika ketersediaan lahan terbatas,
tetapi efektifnya lahan yang kecil ini hanya jika rit pengangkutan dari MRF ke TPA Rawa Kucing
lebih banyak frekuensinya karena kapasitas penyimpanan juga akan berkurang di MRF. Fasilitas
MRF ini akan bertindak sebagai suatu bentuk pengumpulan dan pengangkutan barang daur ulang
berbiaya rendah dari bank sampah dan daerah pemukiman pendapatan rendah dan menengah
untuk dipadatkan, dikemas dan selanjutnya diangkut ke TPA Rawa Kucing untuk disimpan dan
dijual pada setiap akhir bulan. MRF akan memberikan andil dalam mengurangi biaya
pengangkutan sebagaimana halnya juga ikut andil memperpanjang masa pakai TPA.
Rekomendasi Sistem Pengolahan untuk daerah yang tidak memiliki akses jalan: Sebagian
besar daerah berpendapatan rendah dan beberapa daerah berpendapatan menengah tidak memiliki
akses jalan yang baik dan sesuai sehingga tidak dapat dilayani oleh armada pengumpulan sampah.
Untuk daerah-daerah ini sampah organiknya akan diangkut oleh gerobak ke MRF yang
dilengkapi dengan unit pengolahan kompos/ in-vessel composting berkapasitas 2,5 ton / hari (unit
kompos tertutup). Kompos yang dihasilkan akan digunakan oleh masyarakat secara gratis.
REKOMENDASI INTERMEDIATE TREATMENT FACILITY (ITF)

Berdasarkan tinjauan rinci menyangkut teknologi pengolahan yang tepat untuk Kota Tangerang
dan penyajian kriteria evaluasi menyeluruh, direkomendasikan ITF yang akan dibangun di TPA
Rawa Kucing adalah anaerobic digestion dengan pembangkitan listrik, yang akan dibangun
melalui tiga tahap sebagai berikut:
Tahap 1: Fasilitas Pemulihan Bahan (MRF) - tujuan utama MRF adalah untuk melindungi
instalasi pengolahan hilir untuk memastikan bahwa aliran limbah yang tepat
dimasukkan ke instalasi pengolahan.
Tahap 2: Instalasi anaerobic digestion (AD) – mengolah bahan organik sampah dan
menghasilkan biogas (metan) serta residu yang disebut juga digestate (kompos).
Tahap 3: Produksi Listrik - Pemanfaatan biogas yang dihasilkan untuk menghasilkan listrik
yang dijual ke jaringan PLN sebagai sumber energi terbarukan.
l
Tabel di bawah ini menyajikan secara ringkas kriteria desain konseptual instalasi anaerobic
digestion untuk Kota Tangerang.
Kriteria Desain Komentar

Jenis proses Proses kering; tahap tunggal dan Paling efisien dari segi biaya,
Anaerobic proses batch (namun, dalam persyaratan luas lahan minimal,
digestion dokumen tender perlu diberikan kebutuhan biaya OPEX rendah.
fleksibilitas kepada pihak pabrikan
untuk menyediakan teknologi
mereka dengan tujuan untuk
menghasilkan gas dan bangkitan
listrik maksimal).
Kapasitas 200 ton / hari (sampah organik kota) Instalasi pengolahan dimulai dengan
Desain Instalasi: - termasuk kapasitas tambahan 20% 400 Ton/hari pada tahun 2016.
untuk bahan pencampur Setelah berhasil melaksanakan
tambahan/bulking agent (untuk pemilahan yang direkomendasikan
mencapai rasio C/N 25:1) dan Tim CDIA serta pengoperasian
mengkompensasi fluktuasi laju Anaerobic Digester menjadi energi
timbulan sampah. maka perluasan akan menjadi sebagai
berikut:
Tahun 2018: tambahan 100 ton/hari
Penambahan kapasitas dilakukan
secara bertahap untuk mencapai
kapasitas penuh 2000 ton/hari pada
tahun 2037 guna melayani proyeksi
layanan 30 tahun..
Lokasi TPA Rawa Kucing Lokasi yang paling efisien dari segi
biaya mengingat bahwa lokasi lahan
sudah tersedia dan letaknya terpusat.
Kebutuhan 4 hektar Mulai dengan 4 ha dan membutuhkan
lahan: tambahan sekitar 1 ha setiap kenaikan
tambahan kapasitas 100 ton/hari.
Pembangkitan 2 hingga 10 MW Kapasitas MW akan berkembang
Listrik selama masa berlangsungnya proyek.
Masa pakai 30 tahun Infrastruktur dirancang dan dibangun
instalasi untuk bertahan selama 30 tahun.
REKOMENDASI UNTUK TPA RAWA KUCING

Kota Tangerang saat ini memiliki kontraktor di lokasi TPA membangun sel saniter baru seluas2,3
hektar dan sistem pengolahan lindi yang terdiri dari kolam anaerobik dan pematangan. Tim CDIA
Tim merekomendasikan pekerjaan rehabilitasi tambahan dan re-engineering untuk seluruh lahan
ini sebagai bentuk penghormatan terhadap apa yang dilakukan pihak kota, dalam bentuk tiga
tahap sebagai berikut:
Tahap 1: Penggalian semua sampah yang ada dan menempatkannya sementara berdekatan
dengan lokasi sel sanitasi baru yang akan dibangun mengikuti persyaratan konstruksi
sel sanitasi. Diperlukan sebuah sel sanitasi baru seluas 8 hektar untuk menerima
semua sampah lama dari lokasi yang ada. Sebuah instalasi pengolahan lindi juga akan
dibangun secara paralel dengan pembangunan sel baru. Setelah pembangunan sel
li
saniter baru 8 hektar, sampah lama yang digali akan dimasukkan kembali ke dalam
sel saniter baru (dengan pemadatan yang tepat dan menambahkan lapisan penutup
setiap 1 m lapisan sampah yang dipadatkan). Sel baru akan memiliki kapasitas tersisa
untuk melayani selama 1 tahun sampai mencapai kapasitas akhir. Selama tahun ini,
tahap 2 harus diselesaikan.
Tahap 2: Setelah selesai tahap 1, dimulai pembangunan sel kedua dengan total luas 6 hektar,
mengikuti persyaratan konstruksi TPA saniter.
Tahap 3: Pembangunan fasilitas TPA, yang akan mencakup pekerjaan drainase seluruh sistim
di TPA termasuk operator dan pengelola, kantor, gedung laboratorium, bengkel, alat
berat dan hangar kendaraan, tempat pencucian kendaraan. Tahap ini dapat mulai
secara paralel dengan Tahap 1 selama konstruksi tidak akan menunda penyelesaian
pekerjaan Tahap 1.
Pembelian alat berat perlu dan harus dilakukan sesegera mungkin, yang mencakup satu pemadat
TPA dan satu excavator.
Pengoperasian lokasi ini harus ditingkatkan secara signifikan untuk membawanya ke tingkat TPA
saniter dengan cara :
a) mengendalikan sampah yang masuk, menolak limbah berbahaya, kalibrasi jembatan timbang
mengikuti spesifikasi pembuat untuk memastikan tersediaanya data yang akurat terkait
jumlah sampah yang masuk ke TPA,
b) pengoperasian TPA saniter yang tepat yang meliputi penyebaran dan pemadatan sampah,
penutupan tanah harian setebal 10 sampai 15 cm, pengontrolan dimensi lahan kerja (lebar
maksimum 8 sampai 10 meter), kemiringan sel kerja tidak boleh melebihi 1 sampai 3 m
(vertikal terhadap horizontal) dan penutupan tanah antara menengah minimal 0,3 meter
lapisan tanah kedap air;
c) pemulung tidak diizinkan untuk berada di sel kerjanamun akan diberikan pekerjaan di dalam
sistem pengelolaan sampah yang disarankan dengan mengikuti pelatihan rehabilitasi yang
tepat, magang untuk pekerjaan baru mereka, pemeriksaan kesehatan dan medis, dll;
d) pengelolaan dan pemantauan berkelanjutan terhadap lindi dan gas,
e) pemantauan air tanah dan muka air, dan
f) petunjuk operasi harus direvisi dan diikuti serta manual terkait Lingkungan, Kesehatan dan
Keselamatan harus disiapkan dan diikuti secara ketat.
ANALISIS MASA PAKAI TPA

Analisis umur TPA menunjukkan bahwa total akumulasi tumpukan sampah termasuk sampah itu
sendiri, penutup harian, sistem lapisan liner dan total sel yang ada di TPA akan menyediakan
kapasitas operasional TPA masing-masing untuk bisnis seperti biasa sampai tahun 2017/2018,
bisnis seperti biasa dengan 100 % cakupan pengumpulan sampah sampai 2016/2017 dan sistem
Pengelolaan Sampah Terpadu yang direkomendasikan sampai tahun 2025/2026. Itu berarti bahwa
melalui sistim pengelolaan Sampah Terpadu yang direkomendasikan akan meningkatkan masa
pakai TPA hingga 4 kali lebih lama dibandingkan dengan pengoperasian sebagaimana biasanya.
lii
KEBUTUHAN LAHAN UNTUK SISTIM PENGELOLAAN SAMPAH TERPADU
Tidak diperlukan adanya tambahan lahan baru hingga tahun 2020. Namun, dibutuhkan
lahan seluas 0,54 hektar untuk 12 MRF yang tersebar di dalam Kota Tangerang. Kebutuhan lahan
secara rinci selama jangka waktu 30 tahun yang direncanakan untuk berbagai fasilitas untuk Kota
Tangerang disajikan pada tabel di bawah ini.
Kebutuhan Kebutuhan Lahan Tambahan (Ha)

Fasilitas Lahan Awal
(Ha) 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2033 2037
Fasilitas Pemulihan Bahan (MRF) 0,54 0 0 0 0 0 0,54 0
Fasilitas Pengolahan Antara (ITF) 4 1 2 2 1 2 2 3
TPA 0 0 0 0 6,36 4,03 8,06
ANALISIS KEUANGAN
Aspek keuangan untuk sektor Pengelolaan Persampahan saat ini:
Menurut DKP, pengeluaran tahunan untuk operasional dan pemeliharaan sektor pengelolaan
persampahan untuk tahun 2009, 2010, 2011 dan 2012 adalah masing-masing sebesar 27.949,
31.342, 38.588 dan 46.955 juta rupiah. Kesimpulannya, anggaran O&M sektor pengelolaan
persampahan meningkat sebesar 20% per tahun dari 2010 sampai saat ini.
Unit biaya untuk aspek yang berbeda dari rantai sektor pengelolaan persampahan pada 2012
adalah 59.906, 146.689 dan 557.554 rupiah per ton masing-masing untuk menyapu jalan,
pengumpulan dan pengangkutan sampah dan operasional TPA.
Pendapatan Pengelolaan Persampahan dan Tarif Layanan Pengelolaan Persampahan:

Sebagian besar penagihan pengelolaan persampahan dilakukan oleh DKP sendiri melalui staf
armada pengangkutannya. Hal ini sesuai Perintah Walikota kepada Kepala DKP untuk melakukan
pengumpulan retribusi sampah.
Pemulihan biaya terlalu rendah dibandingkan dengan jumlah anggaran yang dibutuhkan untuk
pengelolaan sampah yang mana hanya mencakup 1,4 % pada tahun 2011 dan 1,1 % pada tahun
2012. Persentase ini meningkat di tahun 2013 (hingga Juni 2013) menjadi 2,6 %. Kota Tangerang
tidak memiliki mekanisme pemulihan biaya yang handal dan memadai.
Kesenjangan yang diidentifikasi pada aspek keuangan:

Pemulihan Biaya: Meskipun layanan persampahan yang disediakan oleh DKP kepada
masyarakat dianggap buruk namun pemulihan biaya / retribusi layanan persampahan berada pada
titik yang sangat rendah yang memberikan beban keuangan besar pada Kota Tangerang untuk
memberikan pelayanan yang baik dan cakupan yang lengkap terhadap semua warga; tariff
retribusi pengelolaan persampahan saat ini untuk berbagai tingkat pendapatan sangat rendah serta
tarif yang diproyeksikan ke depan juga sangat rendah dan tetap untuk semua tingkat pendapatan
yang mana hal ini bukanlah mekanisme yang transparan dan tepat untuk suatu pemulihan biaya.
Hasil analisis menunjukkan bahwa - dengan perkiraan tarif rata-rata pendapatan rendah
Rp.2500/KK (50% dari total KK), pendapatan menengah Rp.5000/KK (45% dari total KK),
pendapatan tinggi Rp.15.000/KK (5% dari total HH) - biaya yang dikumpulkan pada tahun 2013
dari sekitar Rp.6 miliar berasal dari 24% efisiensi pengumpulan retribusi. Hal ini menunjukkan
liii
bahwa rasio secara signifikan rendah. Tidak adanya catatan yang jelas tentang kuitansi
penerimaan juga menunjukkan bahwa metode pengumpulan dan penagihan tidaklah cukup. Hal
ini membutuhkan pembagian tugas yang jelas dan jelas, serta prosedur dan strategi penagihan.
Banyak fasilitas pengumpulan sampah, frekuensi pengumpulan sampah, keandalan layanan yang
dituntut oleh masyarakat namun biaya pengumpulan sampah tidak sesuai.
Sumber pembiayaan lainnya: Saat ini pemerintah daerah menyediakan lebih dari 95% total
biaya untuk layanan pengelolaan sampah. Mengingat bahwa Kota Tangerang berkomitmen
terhadap target ambisius dalam hal cakupan penuh pengelolaan sampah, pendekatan 3R dan
perluasan signifikan dari umur TPA, sehingga anggaran harus ditingkatkan untuk mencakup
semua aspek ini. Kota Tangerang memiliki sumber pembiayaan lain untuk mendukung dalam
memodernisasi dan mentransformasi sektor ini ke sektor yang lebih berkelanjutan dan terpadu .
Analisis keuangan dan pembiayaan sistim Pengelolaan Sampah Terpadu yang

direkomendasikan untuk Kota Tangerang:
Untuk sistim Pengelolaan Sampah Terpadu, analisis keuangannya disajikan sebagai berikut:
a- sistem yang ada – bisnis seperti biasa - (untuk alasan perbandingan saja), dan
b- sistem Pengelolaan Sampah Terpadu yang direkomendasikan.
Analisis keuangan dilakukan untuk sistem Pengelolaan Sampah Terpadu yang disarankan
terhadap CAPEX, OPEX, pendapatan dan indikator keuangan untuk periode 30 tahun skenario
konservatif dan realistis dari pengumpulan dan pengangkutan, MRF, ITF / anaerobik digestion
untuk pembangkitan listrik dan penimbunan bahan residu / inert. Analisis keuangan
mempertimbangkan persyaratan tambahan untuk CAPEX dan OPEX selama periode 30 tahun,
yang mana termasuk namun tidak terbatas pada penggantian peralatan pada akhir masa pakainya,
pekerjaan perawatan pencegahan dan pemeliharaan yang diperlukan, overhaul mesin gas
generator, staf tambahan , dan eskalasi harga untuk berbagai item terkait OPEX.
Sistim yang direkomendasikan

Bisnis seperti Skenario Tarif Skenario Tarif
biasa Konservatif Realistis
CAPEX Awal (pada tahun 2015
Rp. Juta 658.971 645.213
– harga saat ini)
CAPEX tahunan Rp. Juta 37.552 19.722 19.541
OPEX tahunan Rp. Juta 37.985 52.119 46.762
CAPEX & OPEX tahunan Rp. Juta 75.537 71.841 66.303
Pendapatan tahunan Rp. Juta 8.875 102.708 268.386
Gap - Surplus (Defisit) tahunan Rp. Juta (66.662) (68.321) (12.502)
Rasio Operasi <1 4,28 1,72 0,58
NPV (Rp. Juta) >0 (772.604) (2.049.626) (375.047)
FIRR Proyek >WACC 0,00% 0,00% 7,74%
Periode Pembayaran Kembali tahun - 16
Kesimpulan dari analisis keuangan sistem pengelolaan sampah terpadu yang direkomendasikan
adalah sebagai berikut :
a- Penting untuk digarisbawahi bahwa skenario bisnis seperti biasa/BAU mengikuti cakupan
layanan sampah saat ini sebesar 74% untuk penduduk Kota Tangerang, sedangkan skenario
konservatif dan realistis atas dasar 100% cakupan layanan sampah untuk penduduk Kota
Tangerang.
liv
b- Skenario realistis dari sistem pengelolaan sampah terpadu yang direkomendasikan memiliki
gap tahunan yang rendah yaitu negatif Rp. 12,50 miliar dengan biaya operasi yang efisien
0,58 ( < 1 ) serta FIRR 7,74% yang mana masih di bawah 12 % dan periode pembayaran
kembali 15 tahun.
c- Meskipun kesenjangan tahunan untuk skenario realistis dari sistem pengelolaan sampah
terpadu yang direkomendasikan, model ini adalah yang paling efisien biaya dan mempunyai
cakupan dan kualitas layanan pengelolaan sampah terbaik (pendekatan 4R dan laju
pembuangan di TPA 25% - 3 sampai 4 kali umur TPA lebih lama) dibandingkan dengan
bisnis seperti biasa/BAU yang tidak menyediakan cakupan penuh, pendekatan 4R dan
pembuangan 100 % sampah yang dikumpulkan di TPA.
Tim CDIA membagi sistem Pengelolaan Sampah Terpadu menjadi 3 paket investasi karena
sumber pembiayaan, pelaksanaan dan pengaturan operasinya yang berbeda sebagai berikut:
PAKET INVESTASI 1 – pengumpulan dan pengangkutan:

Tim CDIA merekomendasikan Kota Tangerang untuk melaksanakan skema pengumpulan dan
pengangkutan yang dianjurkan di wilayah percontohan yang dipilih (sebagai tahap pertama).
Setelah sukses pelaksanaan dan pengoperasian untuk jangka waktu 6 bulan, cakupan diperluas
secara bertahap dalam 2 tahun berikutnya untuk mencapai kapasitas penuh pada tahun 2018.
Tabel di bawah ini menyajikan CAPEX selama periode 2015-2018
Total 2015 2016 2017 2018
Peralatan Pengumpulan Sampah 34.538 8.342 8.342 8.342 9.510

a Kontainer Drum 13.005 3.874 3.874 3,874 1.384
b Kantong katun 2.471 736 736 736 263
c TPS (1,2 m3) – Organik 10.515 1.499 1.499 1.499 6.017
d TPS (1,2 m3) – Anorganik 1.889 270 270 270 1.079
e Kontainer Sampah (120 L) 260 77 77 77 28
f Kontainer Arm Roll (6 m3) 5.349 1.730 1.730 1.730 159
g Gerobak (Organik) 107 17 17 17 57
h Gerobak (Anorganik) 943 140 140 140 523
Peralatan Pengangkutan 108.518 30.766 30.766 30.766 16.221
a Truk Compactor 76.668 21.667 21.667 21.667 11.667
b Truk Arm Roll 31.850 9.099 9.099 9.099 4.554
Total 143.055 39.108 39.108 39.108 25.731
Rekomendasi skema pendanaan untuk CAPEX dan OPEX paket ini harus disediakan oleh
pemerintah daerah. Alasan utama berada di bawah harga yang ada sekarang, sistem pengelolaan
sampah terpadu tidak kembali modal, dan membawa operator swasta akan semakin lebih
meningkatkan kesenjangan pembiayaan. Hal ini terutama disebabkan oleh pendapatan dari tarif
pemulihan biaya yang relatif rendah.
INVESTMENT PACKAGE 2 – Material recovery facilities:

CDIA merekomendasikan Kota Tangerang untuk melaksanakan paket investasi MRF melalui
pendekatan bertahap dengan mengikuti pola yang sama dari pelaksanaan paket investasi 1 untuk
memberikan layanan penuh kepada daerah percontohan yang dipilih (skema pengumpulan dan
pengangkutan baru, dan fasilitas MRF baru untuk memproses barang daur ulang secara efisien
yang selanjutnya diangkut ke ITF di TPA Rawa Kucing, serta secara bertahap memperluas
lv
cakupan pelayanan sampah kota secara keseluruhan. Tabel di bawah ini menyajikan rencana
keuangan untuk CAPEX selama periode 2015 - 2017 (pembangunan dua MRF per tahun).
Total 2015 2016 2017

a Bangunan, Pekerjaan Sipil & Utility 43.592 14.531 14.531 14.531
b Reaktor In Vessel Composting 4.844 1.615 1.615 1.615
c Belt Conveyor 692 231 231 231
d Compactor 646 215 215 215
e Bailer 646 215 215 215
Total 50.419 16.806 16.806 16.806
Analisis keuangan untuk paket investasi 2, yaitu MRF disajikan dalam tabel di bawah (dalam
jutaan Rp):
CAPEX Awal (pada tahun 2015 – harga saat ini) 18.487

CAPEX tahunan 473
OPEX tahunan 1.039
CAPEX & OPEX tahunan 1.512
Pendapatan tahunan 17.954
Gap - Surplus (Defisit) tahunan 4.470
Rasio Operasi 0,16
NPV (Rp. Juta) 134.094
FIRR Proyek 76,33%
Periode Pembayaran Kembali (tahun) 4
Paket ini menunjukkan surplus sekitar Rp. 4,470 miliar setiap tahun dengan rasio operasi sebesar
0,16 yang sangat efisien. Selanjutnya NPV selama 30 tahun adalah positif (sekitar Rp. 134,094
miliar) dan FIRRsekitar 76% dengan 4 tahun periode pembayaran kembali.
Rekomendasi skema pendanaan untuk CAPEX dan OPEX dari paket ini yang akan diberikan
oleh Kota Tangerang terkait fakta bahwa fasilitas ini berada di daerah berpenghasilan rendah, dan
model yang diberikan menyangkut dorongan dan pemberian insentif kepada warga untuk
memilah sampah mereka dan membawa barang daur ulang mereka Bank Sampah / MRF, dan
mendapatkan imbalan hingga 50% dari harga pasar bagi barang daur ulang mereka (perkiraan
Tim CDIA).
PAKET INVESTASI 3 – Fasilitas Pengolahan Antara (ITF – Anaerobic digestion untuk

pembangkit listrik):
Terhadap anaerobic digester untuk energi (ITF), Tim CDIA mengembangkan dua skenario:
1- Skenario Konservatif: Perkiraan CAPEX dan OPEXlebih tinggi, dengan pendapatan lebih
rendah(potensi bangkitan biogas lebih rendah per ton sampah, yang tercermin pada metana
dan pembangkitan listrik yang lebih rendah, dan persentase bangkitan kompos yang lebih
rendah).
2- Skenario Realistis : Perkiraan CAPEX dan OPEX Realistis, dengan perkiraan pendapatan
realistis (potensi bangkitan biogas realistis per ton sampah, yang tercermin pada metana dan
pembangkitan listrik realistis, dan persentase bangkitan kompos realistis).
Instalasi pengolahan akan dibangun secara bertahap dalam rangka meminimalkan risiko yang
terkait dengan operasi dan tingkat keberhasilan pemilahan di hulu (sistim pengelolaan sampah
terpadu yang direkomendasikan), dll. Tahap 1 sebesar akan 400 ton per hari, dan setelah operasi
lvi
yang sukses akan meningkat 100 ton / hari setiap 2 tahun untuk mencapai kapasitas penuh pada
tahun 2020.
Empat opsi keuangan untuk masing-masing skenario sebagai berikut:

Opsi 1:pendapatan hanya dari listrik;
Opsi 2:pendapatan dari listrik & kompos;
Opsi 3: pendapatan dari listrik saja dengan hibah untuk CAPEX instalasi pengolahan, dan
Opsi 4:pendapatan dari listrik dan kompos dengan hibah untuk CAPEX instalasi pengolahan.
Analisis keuangan untuk CAPEX selama 5 tahun pertama proyek :

CDIA merekomendasikan instalasi pengolahan dimulai dengan 400 ton/hari pada tahun 2016, dan
setelah keberhasilan pelaksanaan sistim pengolahan sampah terpadu yang direkomendasikan dan
pengoperasian Anaerobic Digester menuju pembangkitan listrik dilakukan pengembangan
kapasitas tambahan 100 ton/hari pada tahun 2018 dan 100 ton/hari berikutnya pada tahun 2020.
Pada tahun 2022 instalasi pengolahan akan beroperasi dengan kapasitas penuh untuk mengolah
semua sampah organik yang dihasilkan dari Kota Tangerang dan akan diperluas kapasitasnya
secara bertahap hingga mencapai 2000 ton/hari pada tahun 2037. Tabel di bawah ini menunjukkan
rencana keuangan untuk CAPEX selama 5 tahun pertama proyek.
Total 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

(Rp. Juta) 2 3 4 5 6
a Instalasi Anaerobic Digester 612.031 397.782 - 104.480 - 109.769
b Alat Berat 9.907 9.907 - - - -
c Jalur Pengepakan Kompos 248 248 - - - -
d Sistim Pembangkit Tenaga
1- Turbin Gas 15.112 9.907 - 5.204 - -
2- Kabel, Koneksi, dll 6.811 6.811 - - - -
3- Transformer untuk mesin 1 MW 1.889 1.238 - 651 - -
645.998 425.894 - 110.335 - 109.769
Analisis Keuangan untuk Skenario Konservatif:

Opsi 1 Opsi 2 Opsi 3 Opsi 4
CAPEX Awal (tahun 2015 –
482.242 482.242 482.242 482.242
harga saat ini)
CAPEX tahunan 13.973 13.973 13.973 13.973
OPEX tahunan 22.413 22.413 22.413 22.413
CAPEX & OPEX tahunan 36.386 36.386 36.386 36.386
Pendapatan tahunan 19.253 64.828 19.253 64.828
Surplus (Defisit) tahunan (51.155) (35.660) (38.999) (23.504)
Rasio Pengoperasian 2,63 0,79 2,63 0,79
NPV (Rp. Juta) (1.534.640) (1.069.792) (1.169.964) (705.116)
FIRR Proyek 0,00% -6,44% 0,00% -6,10%
Periode Pembayaran Kembali
- - - -
(Tahun)
Kesimpulan dari analisis keuangan empat opsi yang berbeda di bawah skenario konservatif
untuk paket investasi 3 - anaerobic digestion untuk pembangkit listrik adalah bahwa opsi 4,
yaitu CAPEX awal yang diberikan kepada pemerintah daerah, dengan pendapatan yang dicatat
dari listrik dan kompos . Opsi ini memiliki defisit tahunan terendah sebesar Rp. 23.504 juta
(setara dengan sekitar US $ 2,04 juta deficit per tahun), karena pemberian CAPEX awal. Opsi 2
dan 4 memiliki rasio operasi 0,79 yang menunjukkan operasi ini efisien.
lvii
Analisis Keuangan untuk Skenario Realistis:
Opsi 1 Opsi 2 Opsi 3 Opsi 4
CAPEX Awal (pada tahun
Rp. Juta 468.483 468.483 468.483 468.483
2015 – harga saat ini)
CAPEX tahunan Rp. Juta 13.792 13.792 13.792 13.792
OPEX tahunan Rp. Juta 17.121 17.121 17.121 17.121
CAPEX & OPEX tahunan Rp. Juta 30.912 30.912 30.912 30.912
Pendapatan tahunan Rp. Juta 58.038 148.784 58.038 148.784
Gap - Surplus (Defisit) tahunan Rp. Juta (33.958) (6.234) (22.331) 5.393
Rasio Operasi <1 0,63 0,25 0,63 0,25
NPV (Rp. Juta) >0 (1.018.736) (187.027) (669.916) 161.793
FIRR Proyek >WACC -4,12% 9,75% -3,61% 15,87%
Periode Pembayaran Kembali
- 17 - 16
(tahun)
Kesimpulan dari analisis keuangan empat opsi yang berbeda di bawah skenario realistis
untuk paket investasi 3 - anaerobic digestion untuk pembangkit listrik adalah bahwa satu-
satunya pilihan 4, yaitu CAPEX awal AD dengan listrik & kompos dibiayai oleh hibah yang
memiliki 'gap tahunan' positif, FIRR di atas 12%, NPV positif dan rasio operasi di bawah 1.
Namun semua pilihan ini memiliki rasio operasi yang efisien (di bawah 1).
Model pembiayaan yang direkomendasikan untuk paket investasi 3 adalah pemberian

CAPEX awal kepada Kota Tangerang, karena dari analisis keuangan jelas bahwa proyek
ini tidak akan terjadi tanpa pemberian CAPEX tersebut. Alasan utama adalah tarif listrik
yang relatif rendah dan pasar kompos sederhana yang tercermin pada harga kompos rendah.
Tim CDIA ingin menyoroti bahwa mengingat RDF adalah pilihan peringkat kedua, tim
melakukan analisis keuangan rinci berdasarkan informasi lokal yang disediakan oleh satu-satunya
pembeli yang tertarik, yaitu Holcim. Kesimpulan dari analisis keuangan adalah RDF akan impas
biaya operasional untuk kapasitas 1200 ton / hari dan 400 ton / hari masing-masing pada harga $
40,5 dan $ 50 dan itu termasuk CAPEX diberikan.
PAKET INVESTASI 4 – Rehabilitasi TPA dan Pengembangan rekayasa ulang:

Pentahapan CAPEX untuk Paket Investasi 4: Rehabilitasi dan re-engineering TPA RawaKucing
selama 3 tahun pertama (harga saat ini - Rp.million)
Total 2015 2016 2017

(Rp.million) 2 3 4
Pengembangan TPA
a Konstruksi Sel Saniter & Infrastruktur Lindi 270.944 115.223 57.611 98.110
lviii
ANALISIS EKONOMI
Manfaat ekonomi yang dimasukkan dalam perhitungan adalah a) - kemauan membayar rumah
tangga dan pelanggan non-perumahan, b) - Penjualan barang daur ulang, kompos dan listrik yang
dihasilkan dan dijual ke jaringan berdasarkan pada skenario realistis, c) - Nilai ekonomi dari emisi
GRK yang dihindari dari praktek peningkatan TPA di lokasi yang ada saat ini selama tahun ke-2
hingga tahun ke-20 umur proyek, d) - nilai ekonomi dari emisi GRK yang dihindari dari listrik
yang dihasilkan dari sumber terbarukan pada tahun ke-1 hingga tahun ke-20 umur proyek.
Biaya ekonomi yang dimasukkan dalam perhitungan adalah a) - Biaya modal pengumpulan
&pengangkutan, MRF, ITF, TPA, dan lain-lain tidak termasuk pajak yang berlaku, dan b ) - Biaya
operasi pengumpulan &pengangkutan, MRF, ITF, TPA, dan lain-lain termasuk pajak yang
berlaku.
Hasil analisa ekonomi menunjukkan bahwa EIRR untuk seluruh perbaikan sistem pengelolaan
sampah terpadu adalah 30,53% melebihi ambang batas 12%. NPV positif sebesar Rp 1.165.269
pada tingkat diskonto 12 %. Manfaat untuk rasio biaya adalah 1,46 yang berada di atas ambang 1.
Singkatnya, proyek ini ekonomis dan menghasilkan kesejahteraan positif bersih kepada
masyarakat. Perlu dicatat bahwa beberapa manfaat lingkungan, terutama manfaat lingkungan
lokal (biaya pencemaran sumber daya air dari lindi bocor, polusi tanah, biaya tanah yang berharga
yang digunakan untuk penimbunan, dll) belum dihitung. Alasan utama adalah waktu yang terbatas
dari studi untuk mengumpulkan data yang dapat diandalkan untuk melaksanakan estimasi akurat.
EIRR untuk paket investasi ITF adalah 14,95%. NPV positif dengan surplus sebesar Rp 190,181.
Rasio B/C ratio adalah 1,15 yang berada di atas 1. Singkatnya, proyek ini ekonomis dan
menghasilkan kesejahteraan positif bersih kepada masyarakat .
Uji analisis sensitivitas dilakukan untuk menguji dampak peningkatan biaya dan penurunan
keuntungan pada EIRR, NPV dan B / C. Dalam skenario dimana manfaat berkurang sebesar 10%
dan kenaikan biaya sebesar 10%, EIRR yang diusulkan untuk pengelolaan sampah terpadu dan
ITF berkurang menjadi masing-masing 20,53%% dan 10,77% yang masih di bawah ambang batas
12%. Tapi EIRR untuk pengelolaan sampah terpadu masih lebih tinggi dari ambang batas EIRR
12%. Ini berarti bahwa dengan 10% perubahan manfaat dan biaya, proyek tersebut masih
ekonomis.
PENGATURAN PELAKSANAAN & OPERASIONAL

Disarankan bahwa Kota Tangerang menerapkan sistem pengelolaan sampah terpadu dengan
pendekatan bertahap dengan memilih daerah-daerah tertentu yang mewakili semua kategori di
atas sebagai daerah PILOT/contoh. Setelah keberhasilan operasi dari sistem ini untuk jangka
waktu 6 bulan di daerah percontohan, Kota Tangerang harus memulai menyebarkan sistem
pengelolaan sampah terpadu yang disarankan ke seluruh kota. Kampanye partisipasi dan
kesadaran masyarakat harus mulai minimal 3 bulan sebelum pelaksanaan sistim dan berlanjut
sepanjang 2 tahun pertama pelaksanaan program untuk menjamin bahwa publik sangat menyadari
peran dan tanggung jawab Kota dan warga kota untuk keberhasilan pelaksanaan sistem
pengelolaan sampah terpadu yang baru.
Tim CDIA mengusulkan dilakukannya pendekatan bertahap pemilahan sampah. Alasannya adalah
sulit untuk meminta warga di bagian manapun di dunia untuk berpindah dari satu jenis arus ke
lebih dari tiga jenis arus sampah. Karenanya dianjurkan dua pendekatan bertahap :
lix
Tahap 1: Setidaknya 1 tahun sukses mengoperasikan tiga arus sampah sebagai berikut:
a) Arus 1: sampah mampu urai (merujuk pada sampah organik).
b) Arus 2: sampah yang dapat digunakan kembali dan didaur ulang ( disebut sebagai
sampah anorganik).
d) Arus 3: sampah lainnya (merujuk pada kaca dan sampah gelondongan).
Tahap 2 : Setelah sukses melaksanakan dan mengoperasikan sistem pemilahan tiga arus sampah
selama paling kurang 1 tahun, Kota Tangerang dapat memperkenalkan kepada warganya sistem
pemilahan empat arus dengan menambahkan sampah B3 (bahan berbahaya dan beracun) ke dalam
sistem pengumpulan sampah.
Beberapa pengaturan pelaksanaan & operasional dapat digunakan untuk berbagai paket sistem
pengelolaan sampah yang mencakup a) - bisnis seperti biasa di mana kota mengimplementasikan
dan mengoperasikan sistem; b) - konsesi yang memberikan operator hak jangka panjng
menggunakan semua aset utilitas, termasuk tanggung jawab untuk semua operasi dan investasi,
namu kepemilikan aset tetap di tangan pihak berwenang/kota.Aset kembali ke otoritas pada akhir
masa konsesi, termasuk aset yang dibeli oleh operator. Dalam konsesi operator biasanya
memperoleh pendapatan langsung dari konsumen sehingga memiliki hubungan langsung dengan
konsumen; c) proyek bangun, operasi dan serah (BOT) yang biasanya digunakan untuk
mengembangkan aset diskrit daripada seluruh jaringan dan umumnya sama sekali baru atau
alami.Dalam proyek BOT perusahaan proyek atau operator umumnya memperoleh pendapatan
melalui biaya yang dikenakan ke utilitas / pemerintah daripada tarif yang dikenakan kepada
konsumen, dan d) – proyek rancang - bangun - operasi (DBO) adalah di mana sektor publik
memiliki dan membiayai pembangunan proyek baru. Swasta mendesain, membangun dan
mengoperasikan proyek untuk memenuhi output tertentu yang telah disepakati. Dokumentasi
untuk DBO biasanya lebih sederhana daripada BOT atau Konsesi karena tidak ada dokumen
pembiayaan dan biasanya akan terdiri dari kontrak karya sipil ditambah kontrak operasi. Operator
tidak mengambil risiko pembiayaan dan biasanya akan dibayar sejumlah tertentu untuk rancang-
bangun instalasi pengolahan dan kemudian biaya operasi untuk periode operasi.
PAKET INVESTASI 1: Mengingat bahwa Kota Tangerang sudah mengoperasikan sistem

pengumpulan dan pengangkutan serta armada pengumpulan yang berjumlah besar beserta staf/kru
sudah dimiliki oleh DKP, dianjurkan untuk Kota Tangerang menerapkan dan mengoperasikan
paket investasi 1, yaitu pembelian armada pengumpulan dan pengangkutan yang diperlukan serta
peralatan tambahan yang disajikan pada Tabel x di atas dan bertanggung jawab untuk
pengoperasian sistem tersebut. Kota Tangerang harus memiliki perjanjian perawatan dengan
pemasok truk compactor untuk melaksanakan pemeliharaan pencegahan dan setiap perbaikan
mekanis atau listrik yang dibutuhkan dalam jangka waktu 5 tahun termasuk penyediaan alat,
pemasangan dan minimal 1 tahun garansi suku cadang. Setelah didapatkan kinerja yang
memuaskan kontrak pemeliharaan harus diperpanjang dan harus dipastikan kontrak pemeliharaan
ada setiap saat selama masa beroperasinya truk.
PAKET INVESTASI 2: Mengingat bahwa konsep bank sampah utamanya adalah program yang
berbasis masyarakat yang banyak berinteraksi dengan publik, dan Kota Tangerang melalui Badan
Lingkungan Hidup sejauh ini telah menerapkan 130 bank sampah dengan pengalaman program
yang sukses, maka dianjurkan bagi Kota Tangerang untuk melaksanakan paket investasi 2,
khususnya pengembangan bank sampah, pembangunan 4 MRF per wilayah layanan (total 12
lx
MRF) dan pembelian dan pemasangan peralatan yang direkomendasikan, serta bertanggung
jawab untuk operasi dan pemeliharaan MRF.
Sangat disarankan untuk Kota Tangerang memiliki perjanjian pemeliharaan dengan 2 sampai 3
fasilitas pemeliharaan yang akan bertanggung jawab untuk pemeliharaan preventif dari MRF serta
setiap perbaikan mekanis atau listrik yang dibutuhkan dalam jangka waktu 5 tahun termasuk
penyediaan alat, pemasangan dan minimal 1 tahun garansi suku cadang. Setelah didapatkan
kinerja yang memuaskan kontrak pemeliharaan harus diperpanjang dan harus dipastikan kontrak
pemeliharaan ada setiap saat selama masa beroperasinya MRF.
Partisipasi sektor swasta merupakan contoh yang bisa dilihat, namun membutuhkan dokumen
tender yang sangat komprehensif untuk memastikan kesepakatan yang saling menguntungkan
bagi warga masyarakat, kota dan operator swasta.
PAKET INVESTASI 3: Mengingat bahwa anaerobic digester untuk pembangkit listrik

dirancang khusus untuk setiap tempat/lokasi dan kenyataan yang ada bahwa ini adalah sebuah
teknologi baru dalam konteks Indonesia tanpa pengalaman lokal untuk berbagai aspek
pembangunan dan optimalisasi operasi memiliki dampak yang signifikan pada tingkat bangkitan
gas dan akibatnya terhadap potensi pembangkitan listrik maka, Tim CDIA merekomendasikan
pengaturan pengembangan ITF sebagai berikut:
1- Partisipasi sektor swasta berdasarkan pengaturan/kontrak rancang, bangun dan operasi (DBO)
selama 10 tahun antara Kota Tangerang dan sektor swasta. Kontrak operasi akan diperpanjang
setelah diperoleh kinerja yang memuaskan dari operator.
2- Dokumen tender harus disiapkan sedemikian rupa untuk memberikan kebebasan kepada
produsen untuk menyajikan teknologi mereka sendiri dan kriteria evaluasi harus didasarkan
antara lain pada bangkitan biogas/metan tertinggi per ton sampah / tingkat bangkitan listrik
maksimum..
3- Tahap desain dan membangun dibayar secara terpisah.
4- Tahap operasi dibayar berdasarkan biaya dasar untuk biaya operasi aktual per bulan ditambah
persentase dari listrik yang dijual ke jaringan (untuk memberikan insentif bagi operator untuk
mengoptimalkan operasi instalasi pabrik dan gas serta tingkat pembangkitan listrik ).
Rekomendasi di atas adalah untuk panduan. Analisis hukum dan keuangan menyeluruh
diperlukan untuk memastikan bahwa dokumen penawaran dan proses tender yang komprehensif
tersedia sebagaimana kontrak yang seimbang saling menguntungkan untuk kedua pihak
Pemerintah Daerah dan operator swasta dilakukan dengan insentif bagi operator swasta untuk
merancang, membangun dan mengoperasikan pabrik pengolahan untuk mencapai efisiensi dan
pendapatan tertinggi.
PAKET INVESTASI 4: CAPEX harus ditanggung oleh Kota Tangerang. Pengoperasian TPA
harus dilanjutkan apakah oleh pihak Kota Tangerang, tapi setelah on the job training yang
diberikan kepada Tim operasi untuk operasi TPA saniter. Pilihan lain adalah kontrak kerjasama
dengan operator swasta, atau operator dari fasilitas ITF, mengingat bahwa itu adalah fasilitas yang
sama, dan instalasi ITF akan perlu membuang inert dari fasilitas tersebut, serta kemungkinan
kompos digunakan sebagai bahan penutup di TPA. Biaya operasi harus dimasukkan serta tipping
fee untuk setiap pembuangan sampah yang berasal dari sumber lain selain DKP.
lxi
PENILAIAN RISIKO & LANGKAH-LANGKAH MITIGASI
PAKET INVESTASI 1:
Tiga risiko utama yang diidentifikasi dalam paket pengumpulan dan pengangkutan yang
diusulkan disajikan dalam tabel di bawah ini dengan langkah-langkah mitigasi yang
direkomendasikan.
Risiko yang diidentifikasi Rekomendasi langkah-langkah mitigasi

Truk compactor memerlukan Pihak Kota Tangerang harus memiliki kontrak perawatan
pemeliharaan rutin purna jual dengan produsen / pemasok (bagian dari
ketentuan pengadaan truk) selama masa operasional
peralatan.
Truk compactor membutuhkan Bagian dari kontrak juga harus mencakup program
operator yang terlatih pelatihan kepada pengemudi dan armada pengumpul
sampah (terutama pengemudi armada pengumpul).
Truk impor sangat mahal, dan Item biaya utama truk compactor adalah rangka truk yang
truk compactor tidak diproduksi tersedia secara lokal (Isuzu, Mitsubishi, dll). Pihak kota
secara local memiliki dua pilihan, membiarkan pihak pembuat rangka
membeli dan memasang dari luar negeri ATAU
menginstruksikan dalam dokumen tender unit compactor
akan diproduksi secara lokal di bawah lisensi pembuatnya.
Hal yang terakhir memiliki keuntungan dimana produsen
lokal akan menjadi pihak yang dapat memberikan
pelatihan dan perawatan.
PAKET INVESTASI 2 – MRF:

Risiko utama yang diidentifikasi melalui paket MRF yang diusulkan disajikan dalam tabel di
bawah ini dengan langkah-langkah mitigasi yang direkomendasikan.

Harga pasar dipengaruhi oleh Kota Tangerang harus menjual bahan daur ulang secara
pedagang pihak ketiga bulanan atau kuartalan di tingkat lokal dan nasional. Penjualan
regional juga harus dilakukan tetapi jumlahnya harus lebih
besar sehingga penjualan secara triwulanan secara keuangan
akan masuk akal untuk menarik pembeli di luar negeri. Hal
tersebut bahkan akan menyebabkan harga barang menjadi
lebih tinggi.
PAKET INVESTASI 3 – anaerobic digestion untuk pembangkit listrik (ITF):

Risiko utama yang diidentifikasi dalam paket investasi 3 yang diusulkan yaitu anaerobik digestion
untuk paket pembangkitan listrik disajikan dalam tabel di bawah ini dengan langkah-langkah
mitigasi yang direkomendasikan.

Sampah tidak dipisahkan pada sumbernya Terlepas dari kenyataan bahwa ITF dilengkapi
dengan benar yang berarti MRF di tingkat dengan MRF untuk menjaga anaerobic digester
ITF akan menerima organik dengan tingkat Kota Tangerang bertanggung jawab untuk
anorganik lebih tinggi dari yang memastikan bahwa pemilahan di sumber dilakukan
direncanakan / dirancang. secara efektif.
Jumlah sampah lebih rendah dari kontrak Pemerintah daerah bertanggung jawab untuk
diterima oleh instalasi pengolahan memastikan bahwa jumlah minimum yang
dikontrak akan diterima oleh ITF setiap hari. Hal
tersebut sudah terjadi dimana tingkat pengumpulan
lxii
dan pembuangan sampah Kota Tangerang
mencapai 74%.
Pengoperasian instalasi pengolahan untuk Pemerintah daerah harus memiliki kontrak operasi
mencapai tingkat gas dan pembangkitan dengan perancang dan pembangun pabrik untuk
listrik tertinggi. mengoperasikan dan memelihara instalasi
pengolahan tersebut selama masa pakainya (kontrak
O&M 10 tahun) dan diperbaharui setiap 10 tahun
setelah melihat kinerja yang memuaskan dari
operator.
Insentif keuangan harus ada dalam kontrak antara

Pemerintah Daerah dan operator untuk memastikan
operasi dan performa instalasi pengolahan yang
optimal dipertahankan dengan tingkat pencapaian
gas dan pembangkitan listrik tertinggi.
Pentahapan kapasitas instalasi dimulai dengan 400

ton / hari yang akan ditingkatkan setiap 2 tahun
sebesar 100 ton / hari hingga mencapai kapasitas
penuh pada tahun 2022.
Pasar kompos sangat kecil di Tangerang Pemerintah daerah harus melakukan kampanye
dan di Indonesia pada umumnya. Jika pasar yang kuat untuk mempromosikan kompos. Perlu
kompos dapat diciptakan proyek ini akan digarisbawahi bahwa kompos yang dihasilkan dari
menguntungkan secara finansial dan akan anaerobic digester berkualitas tinggi dan tidak
mensubsidi bagian lain dari rantai dapat dibandingkan dengan kompos yang
pengelolaan sampah. dihasilkan dari proses windrow yang ada saat ini
atau instalasi pengomposan pasif yang dioperasikan
di Indonesia.
Tim CDIA mempertimbangkan dalam model

keuangan bahwa hanya 50% dari volume kompos
akan dijual dengan harga yang sangat rendah, dan
sisanya 50% akan digunakan oleh pemerintah
daerah untuk tujuan promosi (diberikan secara
gratis) untuk taman dan area hijau kota dan
digunakan sebagai penutup akhir di TPA
menggantikan biaya pembelian tanah penutup
harian / antara.
Penting untuk dicatat bahwa Tim CDIA tidak mempertimbangkan pemerintah daerah memiliki
perjanjian jual beli listrik (PPA) dengan PLN karena berisiko dengan mengingat bahwa ada
peraturan yang jelas dengan berbagai elemen yang diperlukan untuk mengadakan PPA secara
tepat waktu antara pemerintah daerah dan PLN.
PAKET INVESTASI 4 – Rehabilitasi dan Pengembangan rekayasa ulang TPA Rawa

Kucing:
Major risk identified under the proposed rehabilitation and re-engineering of RawaKucing
package is presented in the table below with the recommended mitigation measures. Risiko utama
yang diidentifikasi untuk paket rehabilitasi dan re-engineering TPA RawaKucing disajikan dalam
tabel di bawah dengan langkah-langkah mitigasi yang direkomendasikan.
lxiii
Bahaya terkait keselamatan selama Kontrak dengan kontaktor harus mencakup klausul
pekerjaan rehabilitasi (penggalian Lingkungan, Kesehatan dan Keselamatan dengan
sampah lama dan emisi gas metana, mengikuti standar Indonesia dan / atau standar
bahaya ledakan, tanah longsor, dll). internasional yang mempunyai tindakan pencegahan
keselamatan yang tepat diambil selama tahap konstruksi.
ASPEK LINGKUNGAN
Prosedur operasi standar akan dikembangkan melalui sistim pengelolaan sampah terpadu yang
disarankan ini. Pelatihan magang kerja diberikan kepada operator serta pemantauan dan
pengawasan terus menerus untuk semua aspek skema pengelolaan persampahan dilakukan untuk
memastikan operasi yang tepat. Dokumen penawaran dan tender untuk seluruh fasilitas yang akan
dibangun melalui sistim Pengelolaan Sampah Terpadu akan mencakup kesesuaian dengan standar
lingkungan di Indonesia dan / atau standar internasional, untuk memastikan bahwa semua
pembuangan limbah, emisi udara indoor dan outdoor, dll tidak berpengaruh negatif terhadap
lingkungan. Kesehatan dan keselamatan selama konstruksi dan tahap operasi juga akan disertakan
dan dibahas dalam dokumen penawaran dan tender. Rencana pemantauan terhadap seluruh
fasilitas mengikuti rencana pemantauan lingkungan (RPL) dan menjadi tanggungjawab operator
di bawah pengawasan otoritas terkait pekerjaan ini. Alasan memastikan standar Lingkungan,
Kesehatan dan Keselamatan maksimum adalah untuk menjaga dan melestarikan lingkungan
sebagaimana juga karena mahalnya sistem teknologi yang dipasang yang tentu saja harus dijaga
agar terhindar dari kerusakan dan memastikan kinerja yang maksimal dan lama dengan mengikuti
spesifikasi produsen.
ASPEK SOSIAL
Secara total diperkirakan akan tercipta 1016 kesempatan kerja melalui penerapan sistem
pengelolaan sampah terpadu yang diusulkan dengan tambahan 2747 lowongan pekerjaan selama
masa 30 tahun yang direncanakan. Penciptaan lapangan kerja bagi penduduk berpendapatan
rendah di kota ini akan secara langsung berkontribusi pada pengurangan kemiskinan dan
kesejahteraan meningkat dengan menyediakan lingkungan kerja yang aman, kondisi kerja yang
lebih baik dan peningkatan pendapatan. Pemulung dan sektor informal harus disertakan di dalam
sistim pengelolaan sampah terpadu ini, setelah menjalani program rehabilitasi yang memadai,
serta pelatihan kerja dan pemeriksaan kesehatan dan medis.
lxiv
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Background

The Government of Indonesia requested funding from the World Bank in the amount of US$100
million to finance the “Solid Waste Management Improvement Project for Regional and
Metropolitan Cities”. The project development objective is to support improvements to solid
waste management in participating cities through selective interventions including waste
minimization, collection, transfer/transportation, treatment and/or final disposal in an integrated
manner.
The Government of Indonesia and World Bank readiness criteria for inclusion of projects
presented by the selected cities for funding under the World Bank project are:
- Feasibility Study;
- Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) Study;
- Land Acquisition;
- Sanitation Strategy for the City (SSK)/Sector Master Plan.
The World Bank has been working with the Government of Indonesia and the selective cities to
review the available documents, studies and master plans, visiting the sites and meeting with the
Kotas and relevant stakeholders. Based on the findings by the World Bank and presented to the
Government of Indonesia, the City of Tangerang is required to prepare a feasibility study for the
most appropriate solid waste management (SWM) treatment technology, for the Government of
Indonesia and World Bank review and consideration to be included under the World Bank
project.
Accordingly, on 30 January 2013 the City of Tangerang applied to the Cities Development
Initiative for Asia (CDIA8) for technical assistance in the solid waste management sector, with the
following two major objectives/deliverables:
- Pre – feasibility study for the most appropriate solid waste management treatment
technology for the City;
- To validate existing SWM studies and appraisal of existing SWM systems in Tangerang
from collection to final disposal, in order to provide recommendations and next steps to
the City to upgrade and substantially improve the solid waste management sector, and
operate a sustainable and integrated solid waste management system for the city.
On 5 February 2013 CDIA approved the City Government of Tangerang request, and during the
period of May to June 2013 contracted a team of International and National solid waste specialists
covering the various aspects of the SWM sector to undertake the TA activities and tasks detailed
in the Terms of Reference (Annex E) developed for the project.
8
CDIA is a regional initiative established in 2007 by the Asian Development Bank and the Government of Germany,
with additional core funding support of the governments of Sweden, Austria, Spain and the Shanghai Municipal
Government. CDIA provides technical assistance to medium-sized Asian cities to bridge the gap between their
development plans and the implementation of their infrastructure investments with domestic, international, public
and/or private financing.
Pre-Feasibility Study for Solid Waste Management

at City of Tangerang 1
1.2 Objectives of Study
The CDIA (Cities Development Initiative for Asia) project was designed to complement the
efforts taken by the City of Tangerang, and bring the Master Plan findings/recommendations to
implementable concepts and pre–feasibility stage. The inception report presented to the City in
June 2013 elaborated on the objectives, methodology and action plan to successfully complete the
project. The following specific objectives have been agreed upon with the City to be developed
under this project:
1- Objective 1: Detailed review and appraisal of existing SWM system in Tangerang from
collection to final disposal, in order to provide recommendations and next steps for the City to
upgrade and substantially improve the SWM chain, and operate a sustainable and integrated
solid waste management system for the city, in line with the Master Plan findings/directions
and Government of Indonesia (GOI) directions/regulations.
2- Objective 2: Select the most appropriate treatment technology for the City of Tangerang.
3- Objective 3: Review the DED and FS for rehabilitation and upgrading of the City‟s existing
Rawa Kucing dumpsite.
4- Objective 4: Prepare a pre–feasibility study for the most appropriate solid waste treatment
technology for the City of Tangerang
5- Objective 5: Additional objective has been added in order to present a comprehensive study
for the whole sector which is preparing a pre-feasibility study for the whole solid waste
management chain from collection to final disposal for the recommended ISWM system to
serve the City of Tangerang for the next 30 years (up to 2043); and
6- Objective 6: Dividing the ISWM system into standalone investment packages, namely
collection and transportation, Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs) at the local level and
Intermediate Treatment Facility (anaerobic digestion to electricity generation and compost
production) in order to assess separately the viability of each and the best implementation and
operational arrangement.
1.3 Approach of Study

Overall, waste management must be seen as a system that requires continuous improvement and
where the whole SWM chain work together to achieve the highest efficiency and greatest
environmental benefits in a cost efficient manner. There is no one single component within the
SWM chain that can solve all waste problems for a city, but systems must be viewed as one
integrated system. The overall objective of this report is to present the optimum integrated SWM
system for the City of Tangerang, taking into consideration the local conditions, best practices in
SWM and based on comprehensive evaluation criteria which include the identified KPIs. Given
that the population for City of Tangerang in 2012 is 1,918,556 inhabitants 9 and is reaching 50%
and 100% increase in 2026 (in 13 years) and 2041 (in 28 years), respectively, the CDIA Team
decided to plan for 30 years, in order to take that significant increase into consideration.
As a general rule, best practices in solid waste management follow thewaste hierarchy, also
referred to as the 4R approach (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle and Recovery). Waste should first be
reduced at source, reused in its original form if possible, and then if that is not possible, recycled.
Best practice would then see these followed by energy recovery and finally sanitary landfill
disposal. The aim of the waste hierarchy is to generate the minimum amount of waste and then to
extract the maximum practical benefits from the waste that is still produced before disposal.
9
Statistical Central Board (Badan Pusat Statistik or BPS) – Statistics of Tangerang, August 2013.

2
at City of Tangerang
Disposal in a landfill must be seen as a last resort. The waste management hierarchy is shown in
Figure 1.1. The 4R approach is in line with the Central and Local Governments Regulations
related to SWM sector (please refer to Section 3.1 and 3.2).
Figure 1.1: Waste hierarchy – 4R approach
1.4 Key Performance Indicators

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) need to be identified which when applied will reflect how the
recommended ISWM concept by the CDIA Team will meet the objectives from City of
Tangerang. These KPIs would be included under the evaluation criteria for evaluating the
alternate options and help to select the preferred option. Based on the Master Plan, Government of
Indonesia directions and best SWM practices, KPIs identified by CDIA Team are:
1- Sanitary landfill disposal capacity for at least 20 years;
2- Affordable costs for the City of Tangerang and residents/businesses;
3- Technology options successfully implemented under Public Private Partnership (PPP);
4- Minimize environmental impacts and Green House Gases (GHG) emissions; and
5- Minimize social impacts.
1.5 Structures of the Final Report

The structures of the final report are divided into 13 chapters, as follows:
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: Project Area
Chapter 3: Regulatory Framework
Chapter 4: Institutional Analysis
Chapter 5: Technical and Operational Analysis for Existing Solid Waste Management
Chapter 6: Solid Waste Generation
Chapter 7: Recommended Integrated Solid Waste Generation
Chapter 8: Recommended Treatment and Recycling for Solid Waste Management
Chapter 9: Recommendation for Final Disposal in Rawa Kucing Landfill
Chapter 10: Financial Analysis
Chapter 11: Investment Packages for Integrated Solid Waste Management

Chapter 12: Implementation Plan for Recommended Integrated Solid Waste
Management
Chapter 13: Concusions, Recommendations. And Next Step
In order to support the content of the main report CDIA Team also develop some annex which
contain some important data and explanation. The annexes of this report are develop as follow:
Annex A: Site Visit Report

Annex B: Review of Technical Options for Improvement of Solid Waste Management
Annex C: Detail Review of Anaerobic Digestion Technology
Annex D: Comments from Mid Term Phase
Annex E: Term of Refferences (TORs) of the Project
Annex F: Institutional Development and Cost Recovery on Indonesia Solid Waste
Management

4
CHAPTER 2
PROJECT AREA
2.1 City of Tangerang Area

City of Tangerang was divided into 13 districts consisting of 104 villages with low, middle and
high income citizens. Figure 2.1 shows the map of City of Tangerang.
Figure 2.1: Division of districts in City of Tangerang10
The area of City of Tangerang divided as presented on Table 2.1.
Table 2.1: Area of City of Tangerang

East Service Area West Service Area Middle Service Area
District Area (km2) District Area (km2) District Area (km2)
Ciledug 8.76 Karawaci 13.47 Cipondoh 17.91
Larangan 9.39 Cibodas 9.61 Tangerang 15.78
Karang Tengah 10.47 Jatiuwung 14.4 Neglasari 16.07
Pinang 21.59 Periuk 9.54 Batuceper 11.58
Benda 25.61
Total 50.21 Total 47.02 Total 86.95
City of Tangerang Area = 184.18 km2
10
www.tangerangkota.go.id, 2013.

2.2 Population for City of Tangerang
Based on the official Statistical Central Board (Badan Pusat Statistik or BPS) – Statistics of
Tangerang issued in August 2013, the population in 2012 reached 1,918,556 inhabitants. The total
population from 2003 to 2012 is presented in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2: Population in City of Tangerang from 2003 to 201211

Year Population Annual Growth
2003 1462726 -
2004 1488666 1.77%
2005 1537244 3.26%
2006 1481591 -3.62%
2007 1508414 1.81%
2008 1531666 1.54%
2009 1652590 7.89%
2010 1798601 8.84%
2011 1847341 2.71%
2012 1918556 3.86%
Average 2.49%
CDIA Team carried out population projections for the next 30 years (upto 2043), using several
methods for calculations, namely arithmetic, geometric, linear regression, exponential and
logarithmic. Table 2.3 presents the results using the different methods for population projections.
Table 2.3: Comparison of population projection calculations using different methods12

Population Projection
Year
Arithmetic Geomethric Linear Regresion Exponential Logarithmic
2013 1969204 1966371 1904614 1913034 1904265
2014 2019852 2015377 1955864 1972855 1955350
2015 2070499 2065605 2007114 2034547 2006409
2016 2121147 2117085 2058363 2098168 2057443
2017 2171795 2169847 2109613 2163778 2108451
2018 2222443 2223925 2160863 2231440 2159435
2019 2273090 2279350 2212113 2301218 2210393
2020 2323738 2336157 2263363 2373178 2261326
2021 2374386 2394379 2314613 2447388 2312234
2022 2425034 2454053 2365863 2523918 2363116
2023 2475682 2515213 2417113 2602842 2413973
2024 2526329 2577898 2468362 2684234 2464806
2025 2576977 2642146 2519612 2768171 2515613
2026 2627625 2707994 2570862 2854732 2566395
2027 2678273 2775483 2622112 2944001 2617152
2028 2728920 2844655 2673362 3036061 2667884
2029 2779568 2915550 2724612 3130999 2718591
2030 2830216 2988212 2775862 3228907 2769272
2031 2880864 3062685 2827112 3329876 2819929
11
Statistical Central Board (Badan Pusat Statistik or BPS) – Tangerang Municipality in Figures 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012,
2013; Banten in Figures 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008.
12
CDIA Team Calculations, 2013.

6
Population Projection
Year
Arithmetic Geomethric Linear Regresion Exponential Logarithmic
2032 2931512 3139015 2878361 3434002 2870561
2033 2982159 3217246 2929611 3541384 2921169
2034 3032807 3297427 2980861 3652125 2971751
2035 3083455 3379607 3032111 3766328 3022308
2036 3134103 3463834 3083361 3884102 3072841
2037 3184750 3550161 3134611 4005559 3123348
2038 3235398 3638639 3185861 4130814 3173831
2039 3286046 3729322 3237110 4259986 3224290
2040 3336694 3822266 3288360 4393197 3274723
2041 3387342 3917525 3339610 4530574 3325132
2042 3437989 4015159 3390860 4672247 3375516
2043 3488637 4115226 3442110 4818349 3425875
2
R 0.651 0.795 0.827 0.849 0.827
STD 90694.508 69457.012 63822.016 59576.623 63896.224
Comparison of the results of the population projection calculations using several methods in
Table 2.3 above shows that the exponential method is theoretically the most accurate method to
use because it has the highest R2 and lowest standard deviation. However, according to Annex 1
in the Regulation of the Minister of Public Works of Republic of Indonesia Number
03/PRT/M/2013 regarding the Implementation of Waste Infrastructure in Household and Similar
Household Waste Management, the method used by Statitstical Central Board is geometric
method. Accordingly, CDIA Team will use the geometric method population data for quantifying
the infrastructure needs from collection to final disposal.
Figure 2.2 belowpresents the population projection for City of Tangerang for the next 30 years
(upto 2043). According to the population projections calculations, City of Tangerang will reach
50% and 100% increase in population by year 2026 (in 13 years) and 2041 (in 28 years),
respectively.
5000000
4000000
3000000
Population
2000000
1000000
0
2038
2013
2018
2023
2028
2033
2043
Year
Ciledug Larangan Karang Tengah
Pinang Karawaci Cibodas
Jatiuwung Periuk Cipondoh
Figure 2.2: Population projection for City of Tangerang

CHAPTER 3
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Solid waste management at the City of Tangerang is governed by regulations issued by the central
government and the local government for the City of Tangerang.
3.1 Regulations by the Government of Indonesia

Regulations on solid waste management from Government of Indonesia are comprise of
regulation from the central government, president, ministry, and also National Standard. The sub-
sections below presented the regulation on solid waste management and other regulation related
to solid waste management.
3.1.1 Regulatory Framework on Solid Waste Management

Table 3.1: Regulations Framework on Solid Waste Management by the Government of Indonesia
No Regulations Key Points
Act of Republic of Indonesia Waste management aims to improve public health and
Number 18 Year 2008 about environmental quality and treat waste as a valuable
Waste Management resource.
1
(Undang-Undang Republik Waste managed under this Act includes household
Indonesia Nomor 18 Tahun 2008 waste, similar householdtype waste and specific waste.
tentang Pengelolaan Sampah) Management of household waste consists of waste
reduction and waste handling.
Government Regulation Number Government Regulation includes:
81 Year 2012 about Waste a. Policy and strategy of waste management;
Management of Household Waste b. Implementation of waste management;
and Similar Household Type c. Compensation;
Waste d. Development and application of treatment
technology;
(Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 81 e. Information system;
2 Tahun 2012 tentang Pengelolaan f. Role of communities; and
Sampah Rumah Tangga dan g. Training.
Sampah Sejenis Sampah Rumah
Tangga) Implementation of waste management includes waste
reduction and waste handling.Waste reduction includes
reduce, reuse and recycling.Waste handling includes
segregation, collection, transportation, treatment and
final disposal.
Regulation of the Minister of Based upon the Minister of Public Works regulation
Public Works of Republic of (21/PRT/M/2006) the Government of Indonesia issued
Indonesia Number a new guideline Act in 2008 which outlines the Solid
21/PRT/M/2006 about National Waste Management responsibilities for the local
Policy and Strategy of Waste governments.
3 Management System The tasks of the Government of Indonesia and the local
Development governments are to ensure that waste management is
implemented in a proper manner, based upon
(Peraturan Menteri Pekerjaan environmentally sound management practices and in
Umum Republik Indonesia line with the objective of the Act.
Nomor 21/PRT/M/2006 tentang

8
Kebijakan dan Strategi Nasional Key guideline components in the Act are the
Pengembangan Sistem implementation of activities/programs that concentrate
Pengelolaan Persampahan on the 3R approach.
(KSNP-SSP))
Focusing on generation, collection and disposal, the Act
proposes a number of activities/programs to be
implemented, including:
a. Public awareness;
b. Institutional strengthening;
c. MSW collection improvement; and
d. Improved disposal, recovery and reuse.
Regulation of the Minister of Waste Bank is a place to collect and segregate the waste
Environment of Republic of that can be reused/recycled that have economic value.
Indonesia Number 13 Year 2012
about Guidelines for Extended Producer Responsibility, hereinafter
Implementation of Reduce, Reuse abbreviated as EPR is a strategy that was designed in
and Recycle through Waste Bank order to integrate the environmental cost into the whole
process of production of the goods until the product can
(Peraturan Menteri Negara no longer be used so that the environment becomes part
Lingkungan Hidup Republik of the cost component of the market price of the
Indonesia Nomor 13 Tahun 2012 product.
tentang Pedoman Pelaksanaan
Reduce, Reuse, dan Recycle The scope of this regulation include:
melalui Bank Sampah) a. Waste Bank requirements;
b. Mechanism of action of the Waste Bank;
c. Implementation of the Waste Bank; and
4 d. Who implementing the Waste Bank.
Waste Bank requirements may include:

a. Construction of buildings; and
b. Management system of Waste Bank.
Mechanism of action of Waste Bank referred to in

include:
a. Waste segregation;
b. Delivery of waste to the Waste Bank;
c. Weighing waste;
d. Recording/archiving;
e. Proceeds from sales of delivered waste put into
savings books; and
f. Revenue sharing between savers and Waste Bank
management.
Regulation of the Minister of This regulation aims to:
Public Works of Republic of a. Realize the implementation of waste infrastructure
Indonesia Number which is effective, efficient, and environmentally
03/PRT/M/2013 about sound;
Implementation of Waste b. Increase the coverage of waste management
Infrastructure in Household and services;
5 Similar Household Type Waste c. Improve public health and environmental quality;
Management d. Protect water resources, land, and air pollution as
well as climate change mitigation; and
(Peraturan Menteri Pekerjaan e. Making waste as a resource.
Umum Republik Indonesia
Nomor 03/PRT/M/2013 tentang General plan implementation of waste infrastructure
Penyelenggaraan Prasarana dan include:

Sarana Persampahan dalam a. Master plan;
Penanganan Sampah Rumah b. Feasibility studies; and
Tangga dan Sampah Sejenis c. Technical planning and waste management.
Sampah Rumah Tangga)
General planning for the implementation of wate
infrastructure for big and metropolitan cities consists of:
a. Master plan; and
b. Feasibility study.
Waste management activities include:

a. Sorting, at least for 5 types of waste;
- Waste containing hazardous and toxic materials;
- Degredable waste;
- Waste that can be reused;
- Waste that can be recycled; and
- Others.
Performers sorting:
- Every person at the source;
- Management of residential areas, commercial
areas, industrial areas, special areas, public
facilities, social facilities, and other facilities; and
- The regency/city.
Waste container:
- Given a label or mark;
- Differentiated materials, shape and/or color of the
container; and
- Using a container that covered with lid.
b. Waste collection, consists of:
- Direct individual system;
- Indirect individual system;
- Direct communal system;
- Indirect communal system; and
- Street sweeping.
Means of waste collection:
- Motorcycle cart waste;
- Hand cart waste; and/or
- Bicycle cart waste.
c. Waste transportation, with:
- Dump truck/tipper truck;
- Arm-roll truck;
- Compactor truck;
- Street sweeper vehicle; and
- Trailer.
d. Waste treatment, include;
- Compaction;
- Composting;
- Recycling of waste materials; and
- Turning waste into energy sources.
e. Final waste processing is done using:
- Control landfill methods;
- Sanitary landfill methods; and/or
- Environmentally friendly technology.
Household waste, similar household type waste and

waste residues can be disposed of to landfill until 2025.

10
After 2025 only residue that can be disposed of to
landfill.
National Standard of Indonesia Location that meets the requirements for siting of the
03-3241-1997 related to landfill landfill is as follows:
site selection procedures a. The minimum distance from the nearest residential
area is 500 meters
(SNI 03-3241-1997 tentang Tata b. The minimum distance from water bodies is 100
Cara Pemilihan Lokasi TPA) meters
6 c. The minimum distance from airport is 1500 meters
for propeller aircrafts and 3000 m for jet aircrafts
d. Groundwater surfaces > 3 m
e. Type of soil is clay with hydraulic conductivity < 10-
6
cm/sec
f. Relatively unproductive land
g. Free from flood, minimum for period of 25 years
National Standard of Indonesia Technical and operational procedures on urban waste
19-2454-2002 related to technical management planning includes the following:
and operational procedures on a. Service area;
Urban Waste Management b. Level of service; and
c. Technical and operational aspects include:
(SNI 19-2454-2002 tentang Tata - Waste containers;
Cara Teknik Operasional - Waste collection;
7
Pengelolaan Sampah Perkotaan) - Waste transfer;
- Waste transportation;
- Waste treatment and waste segregation; and
- Final disposal.
Sorting and recycling activities as much as possible at

the source of waste.
National Standard of Physical, chemicaland biological characteristics of
Indonesia19-7030-2004 about compost produced from domestic organic waste.
Compost Specification from
Domestic Organic Waste Compost maturity indicated by the following
parameters among others:
8
(SNI 19-7030-2004 tentang a. C/N ratio: 10 – 20;
Spesifikasi Kompos dari Sampah b. The temperature in accordance with the temperature
Organik Domestik) of the ground water;
c. Color-black and texture as soil; and
d. Smell-like soil.
National Standards of Indonesia Applying 3R approach (reuse, reduce and recycle) at
3242 Year 2008 about Waste source by involving the community to participate in
Management in Settlements managing waste starts from waste segregation of
(SNI 3242:2008 tentang organic and inorganic waste, and process the organic
Pengelolaan Sampah di waste using household composter. Aside from that, in
Permukiman) transfer station by involving managers from the local
community to recycle inorganic waste and do the
9 composting at community level.
With the implementation of waste management in the

settlements, it appears that the number of equipment
needed can be reduced. Therefore, waste that will be
managed by the government will be reduced so that the
waste problem in the big cities of the need for landfill
area will be reduced also.

3.1.2 Regulatory Framework on Hazardous Waste
Table 3.2: Regulations Framework on Hazardous Waste by the Government of Indonesia
Government Regulation Article 3:
Number 18 juncto 85 Year Any person engaged in the business and/or activities that
1999 about Hazardous Waste generate hazardous and toxic waste should not dispose
Management ofhazardous and toxic waste that generated directly into
environmental media without prior processing.
(Peraturan Pemerintah
Republik Indonesia Nomor Article 9:
18 juncto 85 Tahun 1999 a. Any person engaged in the business and/or activities that
tentang Pengelolaan Limbah use hazardous and toxic materials and/or generating
Bahan Berbahaya dan hazardous and toxic waste must do hazardous and toxic
Beracun) waste reduction, processing hazardous and toxic waste
and/or hoard hazardous and toxic waste; and
b. Any person who produces hazardous and toxic waste
shall treat hazardous and toxic waste that it generates in
accordance with existing technology, and if it is not able
to be processed in the country can be exported to other
countries that have a hazardous and toxic waste
treatment technology.
Article 34:
a. Hazardous and toxic waste treatment with thermal
manner by operating the incinerator shall meet the
following requirements:
- Have incinerators with specifications in accordance
1 with the characteristics and quantity of the processed
hazardous and toxic waste;
- Have incinerators that meet a minimum combustion
efficiency of 99.99% and a destruction and removal
efficiency as follows:
 99.99% destruction and removal efficiency for
Principle Organic Hazard Constituent (POHCs);
Polyclorinated Biphenyl (PCBs);
Polyclorinated Dibenzofurans; and
Polyclorinated Dibenso-P-dioxins.
- Meet air emission standards; and
- Residue from combustion activities in the form of ash
and liquids must be managed by following the
provisions of the hazardous and toxic waste
management.
Article 60:
The producer, collector, utilizer, transporter, processor and
landfiller of hazardous waste must immediately tackle
pollution or environmental damage caused by their
activities.
Decree of the Minister of Waste Management
2 Health of Republic of Requirements:
Indonesia Number a. Solid Medical Waste

12
1204/MENKES/SK/X/2004 Waste minimization
about Hospital - Every hospital should undertake waste reduction starts
Environmental Requirements from the source;
- Each hospital shall manage and supervise the use of
harmful chemicals and toxic;
- Each hospital must perform stock management of
chemicals and pharmaceuticals; and
- Any equipment used in the management of medical
waste from the collection, transportation, and disposal
must be by certification from the authorities.
b. Management and Destruction
- Solid medical wastes are not allowed to dispose of
directly to a domestic waste landfill before it is safe for
health; and
- The way how and the technology of solid medical
waste processing or disposal is tailored to the ability of
hospitals and types of solid waste by heating using an
autoclave or by burning using an incinerator.
c. Liquid Waste
The quality of wastewater (effluent) that hospitals will
discharge into water bodies or the environment must
meet the requirements of effluent quality standards
according to the Decree of the Minister of Environment
No. Kep-58/MENLH/12/1995 or local regulations.
d. Gas Waste
The gas waste (emissions) standard of the processing of
solid medical waste destruction by using incinerator is to
refer to Minister of Environment Decree No. Kep-
13/MENLH/3/1995 about Stationary Source Emissions
Standard.
3.1.3 Regulatory Framework on Energy Management and Utilization

Table 3.3: Regulations Framework on Energy Management and Utilization by the Government of
Indonesia
Act of Republic of Indonesia Energy management objectives are:
Number 30 Year 2007 about a. The achievement of independence in the management of
Energy energy;
b. Ensuring the management of energy resources in an
(Undang-Undang Republik optimal, integrated, and sustainable manner;
Indonesia Nomor 30 Tahun c. The achievement of improved access to people who are
1 2007 tentang Energi) not able and/or who live in remote areas, for the welfare
and prosperity of the people in a fair and equitable
manner by:
- Provide assistance to increase the availability of
energy to the community that cannot afford it; and
- Building energy infrastructure for developed regions in
order to reduce disparities between regions.
Act of Republic of Indonesia Article 42 : Environment
Number 30 Year 2009 about Every business electricity shall meet the environmental
2 Electricity requirements under the legislation.
(Undang-Undang Republik

Indonesia Nomor 30 Tahun
2009 tentang
Ketenagalistrikan)
Number 70 Year 2009 about a. Energy conservation is the responsibility of the national
Energy Conservation government, provincial government, local government
district/municipality, employers and society.
(Peraturan Pemerintah b. The responsibility referred to in paragraph (a) shall be
Republik Indonesia Nomor based on the national energy conservation master plan.
70 Tahun 2009 tentang
Konservasi Energi) Article 6:
3 Local government district/municipality as referred to in
Article 2 are responsible in accordance with the authority in
the related district/city to:
a. Formulate and establish policies, strategies and
programs of energy conservation;
b. Develop qualified human resources in the field of
energy conservation; and
c. Conduct a thorough and comprehensive socialization for
the use of technology to implement energy conservation.
Number 14 Year 2012 about a. The business of providing electricity for public use
Electricity Supply Business include types of business:
- Power generation;
(Peraturan Pemerintah - Transmission of electricity;
Republik Indonesia Nomor - Power distribution; and/or
14 Tahun 2012 tentang - Electricity sales.
Kegiatan Usaha Penyediaan b. The provision of electricity referred to in paragraph (a)
Tenaga Listrik) can be done in an integrated manner.
Article 4:
a. The business of electricity transmission referred to in
Article 3 paragraph (a) point 2 shall open up
opportunities for the utilization of the transmission
network with the public interest; and
4 b. Liabilities utilization opportunities along the
transmission network through leased line between the
licensee electricity supply business that does business
with the transmission that will take advantage of the
transmission network.
Article 7:
Electricity distribution business, the business of electricity
sales and electricity supply business is done in an integrated
manner within 1 (one) business area by a business entity.
Article 9:
The undertakings referred to in Article 7 includes a state-
owned, locally-owned enterprises, private enterprises
incorporated in Indonesia, cooperatives, and NGOs engaged
in the field of electricity supply.
Regulation of the Minister of In this regulation:
5 Energy and Mineral Municipal Solid Waste Based Power Plant is a power plant
Resources of the Republic of that uses municipal solid waste based on renewable energy

14
Indonesia Number 19 Year that is converted into electrical energy through sanitary
2013 concerning the landfill technology or zero waste.
Purchase of Electricity by PT
PLN (Persero) from
Article 2:
Municipal Solid Waste Based In order to meet the needs of the national electric power,
Power Plant renewable energy, and the use of environmentally friendly
energy, the Government commissioned PT PLN (Persero) to
(Peraturan Menteri Energi purchase electricity from Municipal Solid Waste Based
dan Sumber Daya Mineral Power Plant.
Republik Indonesia Nomor
19 Tahun 2013 tentang PT PLN (Persero) is required to purchase electricity from
Pembelian Tenaga Listrik Municipal Solid Waste Based Power Plant of business
oleh PT Perusahaan Listrik entities.
Negara (Persero) dari
Pembangkit Listrik Berbasis Business entity, can be either state-owned, locally-owned
Sampah Kota) enterprises, private enterprises are legal entities, and
cooperative endeavor in the field of electricity supply.
Article 3:
a. The purchase price of electricity referred to is using a
zero waste technology with a capacity up to 10 MW (ten
megawatts), defined as follows:
- Rp1.450,00/kWh (one thousand four hundred and fifty
rupiah per kilowatt hour), if interconnected with a
medium voltage; and
- Rp1.798,00/kWh (one thousand seven hundred and
ninety eight rupiah per kilowatt hour), if
interconnected with low voltage.
b. Zero waste as referred to in the point above is a waste
management technology resulting in a significant
decrease in the volume of waste through a process
integrated with gasification or incineration.
Article 4:
a. The purchase price of electricity referred to in Article 2
which uses sanitary landfill with a capacity up to 10 MW
(ten megawatts), defined as follows:
- Rp1.250,00/kWh (one thousand two hundred fifty
rupiah per kilowatt hour), if interconnected with the
medium voltage; and
- Rp1.598,00/kWh (one thousand five hundred and
ninety eight dollars per kilowatt hour), if
interconnected with low voltage.
b. Sanitary landfill technology referred to in the point
above is a waste processing technology in a specific area
that is isolated until it is safe for the environment.
Article 5:
In terms of purchasing power from Municipal Solid Waste
Based Power Plant with a capacity above 10 MW (ten
megawatts), the purchase price of electricity is based on an
agreement between PT PLN (Persero) with business
entities.
Article 7:

a. The purchase price of electricity referred to in Article 3
and Article 4 are used in the power purchase agreement
from Municipal Solid Waste Based Power Plant without
negotiations and shall be final.
b. Power purchase agreement referred to in the point above
shall be valid for 20 (twenty) years.
3.1.4 Regulatory Framework on Institutional Aspects

Table 3.4: Regulations Framework on Institutional Aspects by the Government of Indonesia
Act of Republic of Indonesia Article 2:
Number 32 Year 2004 about a. The Republic of Indonesia is divided into provinces and
Local Government regions of the province was divided into districts and
cities, each of which has a local government;
(Undang-Undang Republik b. The local government referred to in paragraph (a) of the
Indonesia Nomor 32 Tahun Act organize and manage their own affairs in
2004 tentang Pemerintahan accordance with the principle of autonomy and
Daerah) assistance; and
c. The local government referred to in paragraph (b) run a
wide-ranging autonomy, except in matters of
government into the affairs of the Government, with the
aim of improving public welfare, public services, and
regional competitiveness.
Article 14:
Mandatory responsibilities under the authority of local
governments to the district/city includes:
1
a. Planning and development control;
b. Planning, utilization and control layout;
c. Implementation of public order and public tranquility;
d. Provision of public facilities and infrastructure;
e. Handling of the health sector;
f. Education;
g. Alleviation of social problems;
h. Manpower services;
i. Facilitating the development of cooperatives, small and
medium enterprises;
j. Environmental control;
k. Land services;
l. Service population, and civil;
m. The general administration of government;
n. Investment administration services;
o. Other basic service delivery; and
p. Other obligatory functions mandated by the legislation.
Number 10 Year 2011 about Foreign loans and grants revenue must meet the following
Procedures for Procurement principles:
of Foreign Loans and Grants a. Transparent;
b. Accountable;
2
(Peraturan Pemerintah c. Efficient and effective;
Republik Indonesia Nomor d. Prudence;
10 Tahun 2011 tentang Tata e. Not accompanied by political ties; and
Cara Pengadaan Pinjaman f. Does not have a charge that could destabilize the
Luar Negeri dan Penerimaan country's security.

16
Hibah)
Article 3:
a. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has the right to make
loans and/or grants received from abroad and
domestically;
b. Foreign Loans as referred to in paragraph (a) may be
forwarded as loans and/or grants; and
c. Grants referred to in paragraph (a) may be forwarded as
grants and/or loans to local governments and Local
Owned Enterprises.
Presidential Decree Number a. About the type of infrastructure that can be cooperated
67 Year 2005 about with enterprises which includes Transportation, Roads,
Government‟s Cooperation Irrigation, Drinking Water, Waste Water,
with Corporations in Telecommunications, Electricity, Oil and Gas;
Infrastructure Supply b. Cooperation forimplementation can be in the form of
Agreement or Concession Permit;
(Peraturan Presiden c. Minister/Head of Institution/Regional Head identifying
Republik Indonesia Nomor the Provision of Infrastructure projects that will be
67 Tahun 2005 tentang cooperated with enterprises, taking into account at least:
Kerjasama Pemerintah (a) conformity with the national medium-term
dalam Penyediaan development plan/regional infrastructure and strategic
Infrastruktur) plans; (b) the suitability of the project site with the
Spatial Planning; (c) intersectoral linkages and inter-
regional infrastructure; and (d) analysis of social costs
and benefits.
d. In the event of handing over of the assets owned or
controlled by the minister/head of institution/head area
to the Business Entity for the implementation of
cooperation projects, the Agreement must be set to
include:
- Intended use of the asset and the prohibition to use the
assets for purposes other than what has been agreed
3 upon;
- Operation and maintenance responsibilities, including
payment of taxes and other obligations arising from
use of the asset;
- The rights and obligations of those who controlled
assets to monitor and maintain asset performance
during use;
- Ban for Enterprises to pledge assets as collateral to a
third party; and
- The procedure for submission and/or return of assets.
e. In terms of cooperation agreements regulate the delivery
of assets held by the mastery of business entities during
the term of the agreement, the agreement must be set:
- Condition of the assets to be transferred;
- Procedures for the transfer of assets;
- Status of the asset that is free from any guarantee or
encumbrance of any kind upon assets handed over to
the minister/head of institution/head area;
- Status of the asset that is free from claims of third
parties;
- Deliverance minister/head of institution/head area
from any claims arising after delivery of assets; and
- Compensation to Business Entity asset release.

Regulation of the Minister of Article 1:
Energy and Mineral Guidelines for the purchase of electricity by PT PLN
Resources Number 5 Year (Persero) is valid for the purchase of electricity from power
2009 about Guidelines for plants producing energy from new, renewable energy and
Power Purchase by PT PLN non-renewable energy.
(Persero) from Cooperative
or Other Business Entities Article 2:
Electricity purchased by PT PLN (Persero) from
4 (Peraturan Menteri Energi cooperatives or other business entities through public
dan Sumber Daya Mineral tender, direct appointment or direct election in accordance
Nomor 5 Tahun 2009 tentang with the provisions of the legislation.
Pedoman Harga Pembelian
Tenaga Listrik oleh PT PLN Article 3:
(Persero) dari Koperasi atau Plan for the purchase of electricity as referred to in Article 2
Badan Usaha Lain) shall be based Power Supply Business Plan (RUPTL) PT
PLN (Persero) which has been approved by the Ministry of
Energy and Mineral Resources.
3.1.5 Regulatory Framework on Environmental Aspects and Green House Gases

Table 3.5: Regulations Framework on Environmental Aspects and Green House Gases by the
Government of Indonesia
Act of Republic of Indonesia Article 12:
Number 32 Year 2009 about a. The utilization of natural resources carried out based on
Protection and Management Environmental Management and Protection Plan
of the Environment (Rencana Perlindungan dan Pengelolaan Lingkungan
Hidup or PPLH);
(Undang-Undang Republik b. In the case Environmental Management and Protection
Indonesia Nomor 32 Tahun Plan referred to in paragraph (a) has not been arranged,
2009 tentang Perlindungan the utilization of natural resources carried out based on
dan Pengelolaan Lingkungan the carrying capacity and the capacity by paying
Hidup) attention to:
- Sustainability of the processes and functions of the
environment;
- Sustainability of environmental productivity; and
- Safety, quality of life, and well-being of society.
1 Article 13:
a. Control of pollution and/or environmental damage done
in the framework of environment conservation;
b. Control of pollution and/or damage to the environment
as referred to in paragraph (a) shall include prevention,
countermeasures and recovery; and
c. Control of pollution and/or damage to the environment
as referred to in paragraph (a) shall be implemented by
the Government, local government, and the person in
charge of the business and/or activity in accordance with
the authority, roles, and responsibilities of each.
Article 20:
a. Determination of environmental pollution measured
through environmental quality standards;
b. Environmental quality standards include:

18
-
Water quality standards;
-
Waste water quality standards;
-
Sea water quality standard;
-
Ambient air quality standard;
-
Emission standards;
-
Interference standards, and
-
Another quality standard in accordance with the
development of science and technology.
c. Every person is allowed to dispose of waste into the
environment with the following requirements:
- Meet environmental quality standards; and
- Permission of the Minister, governor or mayor in
accordance with the authority.
Government Regulation Businesses and/or activities that are likely to lead to large
Number 27 Year 1999 about and significant impact on the environment include:
Environmental Impact a. Changing the form of land and landscape; and
Assessment b. Exploitation of natural resources both renewable and
non-renewable.
2
(Peraturan Pemerintah
Republik Indonesia Nomor
27 Tahun 1999 tentang
Analisis Mengenai Dampak
Lingkungan Hidup)
Presidential Decree Number Article 2:
61 Year 2011 about National a. Rencana Aksi Nasional Penurunan Emisi Gas Rumah
Action Plan on Green House Kaca (RAN-GRK) consists of core activities and
Gas Emissions Reduction support activities;
b. The RAN-GRK covers the areas of:
(Peraturan Presiden - Agriculture;
Republik Indonesia Nomor - Forestry and peat;
3 61 Tahun 2011 tentang - Energy and transport;
Rencana Aksi Nasional - Industry;
Penurunan Emisi Gas Rumah - Waste management; and
Kaca) - Other supporting activities.
Article 4:
RAN-GRK be a reference for people and businesses in the
planning and implementation of GHG emissions reduction.
3.2 Regulations by the City of Tangerang

The regulation by the City of Tangerang regarding solid waste management sector comprise the
regulation about solid waste management in general, cost recovery (retribution) and also
institutional of solid waste management in City of Tangerang. Table 3.6 presented the regulation
of solid waste management by the City of Tangerang.
Table 3.6:Regulations for Solid Waste Management at City of Tangerang

No Regulation Key Point
Regional Regulation of the City of Regional regulation for the establishment of the
Tangerang Number 5 Year 2008 Regional Office, one of which is Sanitation
1 about Establishment and Department. This regulation includes the position,
Organizational Structure of the duties, function and organizational structure of the
Regional Office, Sanitation Regional Office formed.

Department
(Peraturan Daerah Kota

Tangerang Nomor 5 Tahun 2008
tentang Pembentukan dan
Susunan Organisasi Dinas
Daerah, Dinas Kebersihan dan
Pertamanan)
Regional Regulation of the City of Waste that is managed by this regulation shall consist
Tangerang Number 3 Year 2009 of household waste and household type waste.
about Waste Management Implementation of waste management includes
reduction of waste and handling of waste.
(Peraturan Daerah Kota Waste reduction includes reduce, reuse and recycle.
2 Tangerang Nomor 3 Tahun 2009 Waste handling includes these activities:
tentang Pengelolaan Sampah) a. Segregation
b. Collection
c. Transportation
d. Treatment
e. Final disposal
Regional Regulation of the City of This regional regulation governing the cost recovery
Tangerang Number1 Year 2011 calculation as well as the principles and objectives of
about cost recovery of Solid Waste solid waste service fee tariffs.
Management
The structure and amount of cost recovery shall be as
(Peraturan Daerah Kota follows:
Tangerang Nomor 1 Tahun 2011 a. Household waste
tentang Retribusi Pelayanan b. Waste from the industry/fabric/ workshop/ garage/
Persampahan/Kebersihan) wood work, excluded infectious waste (hazardous
3
waste)
c. Waste generated from hotel, restaurant, stores,
bank, and commercial areas
d. Market waste
e. Waste disposed into landfill excluding hazardous
waste
f. Waste disposed to collection point excluding
hazardous waste, 75% of the fare
Waste from merchant plants
Master Plan of Waste Master Plan of Waste Management for the City of
Management of the City of Tangerang includes the regulation for all the waste
Tangerang 2012 management system aspects namely, waste container,
4 waste collection, transportation, treatment and final
(Master Plan Pengelolaan disposal.
Persampahan Kota Tangerang
2012)

20
CHAPTER 4
INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS
4.1 Existing Institutional Structure of Solid Waste Management in City of

Tangerang
4.1.1 The Organization, Structure, Task, and Function of DKP
The organization structure and work arrangements of DKP are set out in Perda No 33/2008
(please see Figure 66 below). The Dinas is organized in accordance with the prescriptions of PP
No 41/2007, with a head of department (kepala dinas), a secretariat supervising three
administrative sections for personnel, finance and planning, and three line divisions responsible
for programme management, waste management and parks management respectively. There are
no standard operating procedures (SOP) which clearly separate the Tupoksi of the Cleansing and
Parks Divisions.
The head of DKP has the usual core functions of: (i) managing the strategic plan of the Dinas and
fulfilling the vision, mission and programme of the mayor for SWM and parks management, (ii)
preparing and managing the annual work plan and budget, (iii) managing operations, (iv)
overseeing the functional tasks of the dinas, and (v) preparing the annual Accountability Report
(LAKIP) of the Dinas.
The principal tasks of the Programme Management Division of DKP are those of the technical
planning and implementation of activities to improve community participation in resolving solid
waste issues and improving the capacity of DKP to transport, dispose of and re-use waste. The
Waste Management Division has three sub-divisions respectively responsible for transportation,
receiving and disposing of waste at the TPA, and managing and re-using waste discharged there.
The tasks and functions of the Transportation and Waste Disposal Sub-Divisions are self-
explanatory, but the Transportation Sub-Division has the added responsibility of coordinating
activities for collecting waste and taking it to the TPS. Three UPTDS have been created out of
this sub-division, one for each of the workshops in the three designated solid waste collection and
transportation areas within the city.
The Sub-Division for Management and Re-Using Waste is responsible for coordinating the re-use
and recycling of waste at the TPA (i.e. supervising scavenger activities), promoting products from
re-used waste, involving the community and business world in the advantages of re-using and
recycling waste, and procuring the construction of TPST.
There is nothing in the Perda which relates to the invoicing and collection of the solid waste
service fees, only the management of the SWM budget.
According to its 2012 Master Plan, the SWM service has a complement of 790 personnel as
follows:
 112 local government civil servants
 16 candidate civil servants
 112 contract worker, and 560 daily workers

Figure 4.1: Organization Structure of Cleansing and Parks Management Department (DKP), Kota
Tangerang
(Based on Local Regulation of City of Tangerang No.33/2008)
4.1.2 Gaps on Institutional Aspect of Solid Waste Management in City of Tangerang

Based on the World Bank Report on Institutional Aspects, CDIA Team identify the gaps on
institutional aspect of solid waste management in City of Tangerang as follows:
1- There is a lack of authority of cleanliness which its position is just as division under the head
of agency (dinas) in DKP organizational structure. Therefore cleanliness regulator function
cannot be implemented with properly authority.
2- As an agency DKP which carry out the function as regulator and at the same time also
conduct as cleanliness operator. This overlapped function could decrease efficiency of DKP
in implementing cleanliness operation.
3- There is no regulation pertaining DKP upon collecting SW service fees which is the authority
of the city financial agency (Dinas Pendapatan). On the other side DKP has to conduct cost
recovery activity using the assignment letter from Head of DKP. This implies that no clear
plan and strategy within DKP to conduct the SW service fee collection following an official
system.
4- There is lack of DKP staff capabilities in conducting the function of cleanliness due to as civil
servants; they would be periodically rotated to other agency or division within an agency.

22
4.2 Recommendation for Improvement of Institutional Aspect of Solid Waste
Management in City of Tangerang
According to the SW sector Master Plan, essential considerations in developing an efficient
institution to handle SWM are:
1- Ensuring sustainability of solid waste management in accordance with its demands and
capacity in the future; and
2- Separation of the function of regulator and operator resulting in check and balance between
its function in planning and implementing SWM effectively and efficiently.
4.2.1 The Options

According to the Institutional and Cost Recovery report prepared by the World Bank in 2013, four
potential candidates in the public service sector for managing SWM (i.e. those organizations
already defined and established by law and regulation within the local government institutional
and organizational structure) are available: (1) the Cleansing Service (Dinas Kebersihan) in its
existing position in the local government structure; (2) the Regional Government Technical
Implementation Unit (Unit Pelaksana Teknis Daerah or UPTD); (3) the Regional Government
Public Service Agency (Badan Layanan UmumDaerah or BLUD); and (4) the Regional
Government Enterprise (Badan Usaha Milik Daerah or BUMD).
1- Cleansing Service
SWM services are usually provided by a service department (Dinas) which may also be
responsible for parks (Dinas Kebersihan dan Pertamanan or DKP) and/or cemeteries (Dinas
Kebersihan, Pertamanan, dan Pemakaman or DKPP).In such cases, the cleansing service is
usually, but not always, provided by a division (Bidang Kebersihan) of the Dinas, with
transportation and landfill activities being delegated to sub-divisions (Sub-bagian).
2- Regional Government Technical Implementation Unit (UPTD)

A UPTD is defined in Government Regulation No. 41 Year 2007 as a technical implementation
unit established by local government in a service department (Dinas) or an agency (Badan) in
order to undertake specific technical activities in a nominated functional or geographical area. In
those local governments where the Dinas has other functions in addition to SWM, as described in
the point Number 1-, SWM services, or a specific activity of the service can be provided by a
UPTD, embedded in the Dinas. Furthermore, a specific set of a functional task within SWM
services, such as landfill management, can also be assigned to a UPTD, with the head of the
UPTD reporting directly to the head of the Dinas. However, structurally, landfill management
remains as a sub-division (Sub-bagian)within the cleansing service division. These principles
apply equally if the SWM service is embedded as a division within a Dinas (e.g. Public Works) or
in an agency (Badan), such as the Environmental Agency (Badan Lingkungan HiduporBLH).
As an element within the local government structure, the SWM service has its own recurrent and
capital expenditure budget, but has no recourse to the revenues generated by services provided.
These are collected by the Dinas, the cleansing service itself, or by the Local Government
Revenue Department (Dinas Pendapatan Daerah or Dispenda) and paid into the local
government treasury (kas daerah) on the day of collection.

3- Local Public Service Agency (BLUD)
Public Service Agencies (BLU) are regulated by Government Regulation No. 23 Year 200513,
produced by Ministry of Finance (MOF), which defines a BLU as a government agency
established to provide a public service in the form of goods and/or services to be sold, without
prioritizing profit, and to conduct its activities based on the principles of efficiency and
productivity. A BLU is not a separate legal entity but forms an integral part of the government
agency responsible for its establishment.
The lower level regulation for a Regional Government Public Service Agency(BLUD) is Ministry
of Home Affairs (MOHA) Decree (Peraturan Menteri Dalam Negeri or Permendagri) No. 61
Year 200714. This generic central government decree is transposed into a local government decree
(Peraturan Daerah or Perda) signed by its head (mayor or regent). The establishment of each
BLUD also requires its own individual mayoral/regency decree (Peraturan Walikota or
Peraturan Bupati). The experience of local governments with BLUD has been limited to date,
with most established for the management of hospitals or higher education establishments,
institutions which already have experience of financial management. Others provide piped water
supplies, mainly on remote islands. A BLUD also manages the reticulated sewerage system in
Denpasar, Bali, and, until recently, the busway in DKI Jakarta.
A BLUD has far more managerial and financial autonomy than either a Dinas or an UPTD. It
maintains its own accounts (including the balance sheet) and bank account. It is allowed to use its
own revenues and to keep residual cash balances at year-end, to recruit staff outside the
government service and to pay employees from the private sector outside the government salary
scales, as well as bonuses. It may receive as income in the form of grants and subsidies, and may
(but not necessarily) make a profit. It may also take out loans, but with the agreement of its parent
local government, which is also its guarantor.
Local government experience with BLUD seems to have been quite conservative until now. It is
understood that no BLUD have yet been the recipients of loans (the capital works in Denpasar
were on-granted by central government) and there is no evidence that significant hires of staff
from the private sector have taken place or that they have resulted in salaries substantially in
excess of government pay scales.
The establishment of a fully-fledged BLUD requires several stages and can take as long as six
years, excluding time required for bureaucratic consideration of whether all criteria for each stage
have been met and at what point the SWM service can be upgraded to the next stage in the
institutional process.
The first step will depend on the current institutional status of the SWM service in each local
government, but will generically take the form of establishing of an UPTD. The type of upgrade
for each variant requires preparation of a separate set of standard operating procedures (SOPs).
Revisions to existing local government legislation (Peraturan Walikota) may be required, but
13
Government Regulation No. 23 Year 2005 on the Financial Management of Public Service Agencies, an
implementing regulation of Act of Republic of Indonesi No. 17 Year 2003 on State Finances and Act of Republic of
Indonesia No. 01 Year 2004 on the Stare Treasury.
14
MOHA Decree No. 61 Year 2007 on Technical Guidelines for the Financial Management of Regional Government
Public Service Agencies based on Government Regulation No. 23 Year 2005 and Government Regulation No. 58 Year
2005 on Regional Government Financial Management.

24
essentially the functions of the existing service would remain unchanged, except as may be
required to meet the new SOPs which would be designed to improve the efficiency of the service
as a technical unit. The new improved UPTD – Pelayanan Kebersihan (PK – Cleansing Service),
or UPTD Plus (+), would report directly to the head of the service department (Dinas) or technical
agency (Badan), as the case may be.
The UPTD – PK may require as long as 3 (three) years of capacity-building and development to
reach the stage where a submission can be prepared for authorization by the head of local
government for an upgrade to BLUD status. A committee is appointed to review the submission
and condition of the UPTD and make a recommendation to the head of local government, who
will make one of the following decisions:
 The UPTD has not met the substantive and administrative criteria, as required by MOHA
Decree No. 61 Year 2007, and should return to its current UPTD status.
 The UPTD has met the substantive and administrative requirements, but not the technical
criteria, and may therefore be upgraded into a BLUD embryo (BLUD bertahap), but still
reporting to the head of the Dinas orBadan. Section 34 of MOHA Decree No. 61 Year 2007
requires that it should have a manager and two divisions, one technical and the other
financial. Each division may set up as many sub-divisions or sections as are necessary to
enable it to undertake its role with the required effectiveness and efficiency. It would be
formally tasked, through a Perda, with the provision of improved SWM services under a
timetable to be determined. It is during this stage that the institution would be expected to
develop the financial and commercial skills (i.e. the technical criteria of MOHA DecreeNo.
61 Year 2007) which are required of a full BLUD.
After a further capacity-building period of up to three years, the performance of the embryo
BLUD is evaluated and a recommendation put to the head of local government as to whether it
may be upgraded to a full BLUD. If the recommendation is affirmative, it will be established as a
full BLUD by the issue of a mayoral/regency decree. It will now be independent of its Dinas or
Badan, and will formally report to the head of the local government as the manager and operator
of SWM services, with substantive, technical and administrative responsibilities as per Section 4
of Government Regulation No. 23 Year 2005.

Figure 4.2: Procedure for Upgrading Local Government Technical Implementation Unit (UPTD) within SKPD to BLUD
(Based on Regulation of MOHA No. 61 Year 2007)

26
4- Regional Government Enterprise (BUMD)
Unlike the dinas, UPTD or BLUD, a BUMD is a separate regional government-owned legal entity
(perusahaan daerah – PD), with no share capital, with its own resources. At the end of 2008,
there were more than 800 provincial, city and regency government-owned enterprises, most of
which operated in the water supply sector (PDAM), but also in regional banking, markets and
micro-finance.
BUMD are not statutorily required to make a profit. Their local government owners may make
equity investments but, unlike the case of BLUD, may not subsidize recurrent costs. The attitude
of local governments and DPRD towards BUMD, particularly PDAM, with regard to profit-
making is, to put it mildly, ambiguous. Some regard PDAMs as providing a public good and
therefore having a social mandate; others believe they should pay dividends to local government,
whether or not making a profit; still others consider they have a social mandate and should also
pay dividends.
The legal basis for BUMD is UU No 05/1962. This law has long been regarded as unsatisfactory
and outdated, and is believed to have been repealed in 1969, although the repeal appears to have
been never enacted. In 2004, a new draft law was produced by MOHA, after considerable effort
and internal debate, with the intention of dividing BUMD into two categories:
 A regional government public company (PERUMDA) which would still be fully owned by its
regional government and without share capital, but with more transparency and accountability,
and
 A regional government limited liability company (PERSERODA) with its capital divided into
shares, at least 51% of which to be owned by the regional government, i.e. a corporatization.
A PERSERODA would be allowed to own subsidiaries and/or shares in other companies.
This draft has appeared several times on the annual DPR agenda but has never been formally
presented for discussion and passage. Although the reasons for this have never emerged, it is
assumed that vested interests have been one of the factors.
BUMDs providing infrastructure services, mainly piped water supply through local government-
owned PDAMs, have a generally poor reputation, with problems of governance, inadequate
tariffs, non-performing loans, bad management, and political interference.
Three city governments – Bandung, Makassar and Medan – have established BUMD for SWM
(PDK), Bandung and Medan with on-lending for capital assets by MOF from proceeds of an ADB
loan in the mid-1980s. It appears that PDK Medan suffered from non-performing loans and
reverted to Dinas Kebersihan status in 2002, whilst PDK Makassar was declared bankrupt in
2010 and its assets transferred back to a dinas. PDK Bandung, however, is reported to be still
operational, profitable, and to have repaid its loans to MOF, although these may have been paid
by its owner, Kota Bandung.
Establishment of a BUMD requires specific approval by the DPRD, followed by the issue of a
perda. It also requires the additional endorsement of central government, including MOHA which
carries out a detailed scrutiny in addition to its standard review. A review by a technical ministry
may also be required depending on the purpose of the proposed BUMD.

4.2.2 Comparison of Institutional Options
The BLUD is considered to be the best of the available options. It is a relatively new institution
whose true potential has yet to be properly exploited. The preference for the BLUD in this case is
also due to a probability that local governments and their DPRD are unlikely to accept SWM as a
full cost-recovery service any time soon15. However, a BLUD, although still possessing a social
mission, will be required to keep its own accounts, including a balance sheet, so that the service
can be properly costed and the amount of Public Service Obligation (PSO) correctly determined,
even if not fully provided by local governments, to compensate for a SW service fee below full
cost recovery. This would at least enable the SWM service to be operated more efficiently, with
greater accountability, and in fuller compliance with the requirements of Act of Republic of
Indonesia No. 18 Year 2008.
A potentially adverse factor in establishing a full BLUD is the time required – as much as six
years – before it can become a fully-fledged unit. This requires careful consideration and
calibration against the implementation time required to bring new capital assets on stream, as well
as the effectiveness of a UPTD and embryo BLUD as manager and operator. The requirement for
supporting local government regulations and governance needs to be taken into account, such as
the establishment of an office for a regulator, a stakeholders‟ committee and an official
complaints mechanism, as well as environmental safeguards and sanctions.
The disconnect between costs and revenues when the service is provided by a department or
agency, or a UPTD embedded in a department or agency, together with the lack of incentive for
performance, as well as the track record of existing institutions being for the most part unable to
deliver a satisfactory service, albeit for reasons not always within their control, are good grounds
for not continuing with this option. The BUMD is not considered a suitable vehicle because it is
not allowed to receive subsidies of its recurrent costs and, in the case of service-providing
BUMD, such as a PDAM, there are longstanding issues of its social mission and profit-making
status. There seems to be little argument, especially within local government, that SWM should
be regarded as a social service.
Whichever institution is selected by the local government to manage the SWM service,
arrangements will need to be made to ensure that collection of solid waste and its conveyance to
collection points/transfer stations, currently the responsibility of neighborhood (Rukun
Tetangga/Rukun Warga) community institutions16, are comprehensive, efficient, effective and
transparent and are consonant with the investments required to transport waste from collection
points/transfer stations to the landfill.
Table 4.1 below summarizes the status of each of the institutional option discussed above and
illustrates their institutional and financial differences.
15
Act of Repbulic of Indonesia No. 28 Year 2009 on Regional Government Taxes and Cost Recovery.
16
Regulation of MOHA No. 33 Year 2010.

28
Table 4.1: Comparison of Institutional Options for Local Government Provision of Solid Waste
Management Services17
Dinas UPTD BLUD BUMD
Legal basis Government Government Government Act of Republic
Regulation Regulation Regulation of Indonesia
41/2007 41/2007 23/2005 05/1962
Separate legal entity No No No Yes
Separate accounts No No Yes Yes
May keep end-of-year cash No No Yes Yes
balance for own use
May pay private sector salaries No No Yes Yes
May pay bonuses No No Yes Yes
Has own business plan No No Yes Yes
May borrow for own account No No No Yes
For profit No No No, but No, but expected
allowed
May borrow from MOF Local government may borrow from MOF, and Only through
use the proceeds to finance activities to be local
undertaken by Dinas, UPTD or BLUD government18
May borrow from Kota or Not relevant, because all these are part of local Yes
Kabupaten Government government
May own assets Formally, local government owns the assets, but Yes
may set up a Dinas, UPTD or BLUD to manage
them
May receive subsidies from central Formally, local government may receive assets Yes, but only as
government for capital investment from central government and assign these to assets
Dinas, UPTD, BLUD or BUMD (not funds)
May receive subsidies from Yes, because Dinas, UPTD and BLUD are part Yes, as equity
regional government for capital of local government investment or
investment grant
May receive subsidies from local Yes, because Dinas, UPTD and BLUD are part No
government for O&M of local government
17
Source: Institutional Development and Cost Recovery on Indonesia Solid Waste Management Improvement Project
for Regional and Metropolitan Cities, World Bank, June 2013.
18
BUMDs used to be able to borrow directly from MOF. However, a large number of PDAMs defaulted on their loans
in the 1990s, and MOF found itself without legal recourse on local government owners of PDAMs. Hence, the
current practice whereby loans from MOF to be invested in BUMD activities must be made by the local government
which then makes its own arrangements with its BUMD.

CHAPTER 5
TECHNICAL AND OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS FOR
EXISTING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
5.1 Solid Waste in City of Tangerang

5.1.1 Sources of Waste
Based on the 2012 Master Plan for Solid Waste Management for the City of Tangerang, the
source of waste at the City of Tangerang and its percentage are presented in Figure 5.1.
Households (75.4%)
Markets (10.3%)
Commercials (10.0%)
Offices (0.2%)
Industry (1.2%)
Roads & Parks (2.1%)
Non Hazardous Hospital (0.8%)
Figure 5.1:Fraction of waste generation from different sources of waste
5.1.2 Waste Composition

Based on the 2012 Master Plan, the highest composition from waste generated at the City of
Tangerang are organic, plastic and paper. Table 5.1 shows the waste composition generated at the
City of Tangerang.
Table 5.1: Percentage of waste composition in City of Tangerang19

Percentage (%)
Type of Waste
Residential Commercial Market Hospital Average
Organic 59,20% 46,52% 93,20% 37,50% 61,34%
Paper 1,90% 1,65% 0,40% 2,80% 1,72%
Cardboard 3,20% 3,29% 0,70% 0,70% 2,92%
Plastic 20,80% 20,09% 4,10% 35,60% 19,07%
Glass 1,60% 2,47% 0,10% 1,90% 1,53%
Metal 0,30% 0,04% 0,00% 0,60% 0,24%
Textile 1,70% 0,16% 0,10% 0,20% 1,36%
Rubber, leather, immitation materials 0,70% 0,25% 0,02% 0,20% 0,58%
Bone 0,10% 0% 0,40% 0% 0,12%
Hazardous waste 0,20% 0% 0% 4,60% 0,19%
Inert 0,70% 0% 0% 0% 0,55%
Residue 9,60% 25,52% 0,90% 15,90% 10,37%
TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
19
Master Plan for City of Tangerang, 2012.

30
5.1.3 Waste Density
Density is one of the important factors in quantifying the number and capacities of infrastructure
requirements, from collection to final disposal. According to the 2012 Master Plan for Solid
Waste Management at the City of Tangerang, the average waste density at source (household
waste container) is 195 kg/m3.
According to a very recent study20 carried out in 2010 in Bandung (Indonesia), the waste densities
were as follows:
- Solid waste density in household waste container: 100-200 kg/m3
- Solid waste density in handcarts collection system: 200-250 kg/m3
- Solid waste density in open dump truck: 300-400 kg/m3
- Solid waste density in the landfill with conventional compaction: 500-600 kg/m3
Accordingly, for this study, CDIA Team will use 200 kg/m3 waste density at source (household
waste container) to come up with the conservative scenario, 350 kg/m3 waste density at the
collection and transportation fleet and 600 kg/m3 for the waste density at the landfill.
5.2 Solid Waste Service Coverage in City of Tangerang

Based on the data from Master Plan of Solid Waste Management in City of Tangerang, Figure
5.2 shows the solid waste service coverage in City of Tangerang from 2009 until 2012 based on
the amount of waste that was transported to Rawa Kucing Landfill. The service level of solid
waste management at the City of Tangerang has increased from 2009 to 2012.
5000
4500
4000
Total Waste (tons)
3500
3000
4319 m3/day
4173 m3/hari
4027 m3/day
2500
3458 m3/day
2000
72.78%
1500
74.1%
126.9%
27.22%
1000
73.1%
25.9%
70%
30%
500
0
2009 2010 2011 2012
Year
Total Waste Generation Transported to Landfill Not Managed
Figure 5.2: Solid waste management service coverage in City of Tangerang (2009 – 2012)
20
Damanhuri, E., I Made Wahyu, and T. Padmi.2010. Evaluation of waste recycling potential in Bandung Municipal
Solid Waste, World Review of Science, Technology and Sust. Development, Vol. 7, No. 3, Copyright © 2010
Inderscience Enterprises Ltd., pp 282-295.

31
5.3 Solid Waste Collection and Transportation in City of Tangerang
Based on the detailed site visits carried out as well as the detailed review of the Master Plan for
Solid Waste Management for the City of Tangerang issued in 2012, the existing condition of
SWM at the City of Tangerang is presented schematically in Figure 5.3.
Figure 5.3:Flow Diagram for existing solid waste management system in City of Tangerang
The following sections describes the solid waste management system at the City of Tangerang.
Detailed site visits reports for the complete SWM chain for City of Tangerangis presented in
Annex A.
5.3.1 Waste Container

Based on the detailed site visitsthat has been carried out by CDIA Team in City of Tangerang the
waste containers are divided into individual and communal waste containers or collection points.
The individual waste containers or household waste containers has different designs. Figure
5.4presents some of the individual waste containersfound in the City of Tangerang.
.

32
(a). Fixed waste container (b). Concrete waste container)
(c). Plastic drum container (d). Steel drum container

Figure 5.4: Some example of individual waste container in City of Tangerang
The communal waste containers or collection points are provided by the City of Tangerang.
Figure 5.5 below present some of the communal waste container (collection points) design at the
City of Tangerang.
(a). Concrete collection point in poor condition (b). Concrete collection point in good condition
Figure 5.5: Some example of individual waste container in City of Tangerang
As shown in Figure 5.6 below, in general waste disposal in the City does not follow good
practices due to many reasons, but mostly due to low public awareness, poor design of the
containers that are not user friendly and not conveniently located. Accordingly in some areas
Citizens dispose of their waste by burning it, throwing by the curbs / roadside, as well as hanging
their waste on the tree or fence.
.

33
(a). Waste dispose of not properly (b). Waste burning by the citizens
(c). Waste dispose off on the roadside (d). Waste hanged on the house fence
Figure 5.6: Some example of non proper of waste disposal
5.3.2 Waste Collection

1- Residential: Daily collection following direct individual, direct communal, as well as indirect
individual systems.
(a). Waste collection by using handcart (b). Door to door waste collection by dump
truck
Figure 5.7: Waste collection in City of Tangerang
2- Non-residential: Daily collection of mixed MSW following communal collection system

using 6 m3dump trucks and waste is collected from different types of containers (fixed
brick/concrete, plasticcontainers, etc. and different sizing/capacity/design).

34
3- Markets: Daily collection of market wastes following communal collection system using 6
m3arm roll containers and trucks (Figure 5.8).
(a). Waste collection in Tanah Tinggi Market (b). Waste collection by arm roll in mearket
Figure 5.8: Transfer station in some market
5.3.3 Waste Transportation

Dump trucks (6 m3 and 8 m3) and arm roll trucks (6 m3) are used for transportation to the final
disposal site at Rawa Kucing landfill.
5.4 Solid Waste Treatment and Recycling in City of Tangerang

5.4.1 Treatment Initiative by Composting Activity
City of Tangerang provided composter units in some area, such as residential, schools, offices,
and community composting program (PKM) as well as the small (pilot) composting plant at
markets and Rawa Kucing Landfill. Table 5.2 present the number of composting activity and the
total waste managed by the composting activity.
Table 5.2: Composting activity in City of Tangerang

Number of Composting Activity (units) Organic Waste
Location
R-Composter (200 L) Windrow System Managed (m3/day)
Residentials 646 2 5.731
Schools 83 1 1.221
Community Programs 93 0 0.021
Offices 41 0 0.109
Markets 33 0 0.088
Rawa Kucing Landfill 0 1 36.00
TOTAL 896 4 43.17
5.4.2 Recycling Initiative Waste Bank at Waste Bank

As an implementation of their program, which called “1000 Waste Bank Program” (Program
Bank Sampah), City of Tangerang has been develop some Waste Bank activity which is located at
residential areas (communities) and also schools. The number of Waste Bank at City of
Tangerang in 2013 is 120 units, with total recyclable waste managed approximately 12,985.2
kg/month and the revenue of IDR 47,596,000.00. The highest amount of recyclable waste is
managed at SMPN 6 Waste Bank which is 2887.5 kg/month with revenue of IDR 831,000.00.
Figure 5.9 below shows the statistics of amount of waste that is managed by the Waste Bank in
City of Tangerang. The “0 kg/month” waste managed shows that the Waste Bank is not operating
yet. The detail site visits for Waste Bank activity at City of Tangerang are presented on Annex A.

35
5%
14%
0 kg/month
0-10 kg/month
37%
11-50 kg/month
51-100 kg/month
16%
101-500 kg/month
> 500 kg/month
8%
20%
Figure 5.9: Ststistics of waste managed at the Waste Bank
5.4.3 Treatment and Recycling Initiative at TPST

City of Tangerang developed a treatment and recycling initiative at the local level referred to as
TPST (TPST-Integrated Solid Waste Treatment Facility). In 2013 City of Tangerang has built 4
units of TPSTs which are Benua Hijau, Poris, Cimone and Cemara TPSTs. The general waste
treatment and recycling activity in a TPST is presented in Figure 5.10 below.
Waste from
Hand carts
Manual
Sorting
Recyclables
Organic Residue
inorganic
Sorting by
Composting Goes to TPA
type
Distributed
Sold to 3rd
freely to
party
community
Figure 5.10: Flow diagram of treatment and recycling activity in TPST
The detail site visits for treatment and recycling initiatives in TPSTs at the City of Tangerang in
City of Tangerang are presented in Annex A.

36
5.4.4 Market Survey
A market survey was carried out during the midterm phase of the project, with the following main
objectives:
1- Assessing the existing market for recyclables and compost in terms of the main players, prices
of the various products and quantities / volumes processed.
2- Providing expert advice on how prices can be increased.
3- Providing realistic prices for the various major recyclables and compost after implementing an
improved SWM scheme.
The methodology for the market survey carried out during the period July 9th to 12th is as follows:
1- Interviews with waste pickers in low, middle and high income areas were conducted.
2- Interviews with collectors/agentsat their operating sites / areas within the City of Tangerang
were conducted.
4- Visited scavenging areas both within the three different areas and at the final disposal site.
5- Visited existing private processing facility owned by collectors / agents.
6- Visited composting facilities within the three different areas and at the final disposal site.
The main findings of the market survey are as follows:

1- Recyclables Market:
Main players:
- Scavengers/Waste pickers, approx. 2000 people within the City of Tangerang.
- Collectors, approx. 100 – 150, mostly in the Middle Area of City of Tangerang.
- Agents/Processors, approx. 50 within the City of Tangerang,excluding the ones in Jakarta
area.
- Plants/Factories, approx. 20 - 30, from small to medium plants including Bekasi and
Jakarta Area.
- Big factories are located in Surabaya, with huge input capacity/high demand.
Process:
- Waste pickers collect recyclables and sell to collectors.
- Collectors sell to Agents or processors.
- Collectors may also act as Agents.
- Agents/Processors processing recyclables to meet plant/factory requirement, with poor/
inefficient equipment, thus very low quantities being processed and stored (limited
storage capacities).
- Plants / Factories buy and produce new product or the same recycled products.
Existing prices (per kilogram):

- Duplex / Cardboard IDR 2000 – 3000
- Cleaned Aqua Cups IDR 7000 – 8500
- Clear Plastic Sheets IDR 1000 – 1500
- Cleaned Aqua Bottle IDR 4300 - 5500
Waste pickers income (per month):

- Downtown waste pickers IDR 840,000 – 1,200,000
- Landfill waste pickers IDR 1,200,000 – 1,800,000

37
Recommendations:
- Quantities today that are segregated / sorted and recycled are estimated at 2 %, which is
very low. This amount can be increased significantly by providing an integrated system
from source of generation upto well equipped processing facilities. Chapter 7
recommends integrated SWM concepts that can achieve higher recycling rates in a
sustainable environment.
- Social dimension is very important aspect when it comes to recyclables, since many
livelihoods do rely on this informal market. The recommended concepts in Chapter 7 are
labor intensive concepts that are suitable under the Indonesian context and culture, and
can include the entire informal sector but in an organized and safe manner.
- Prices of recyclables are relatively low even at the factory level, with no financial benefits
going into supporting the sustainability of the SWM sector for the City of Tangerang. The
prices are considered low compared to the infrastructure investments (CAPEX and
OPEX) that are required to appropriately recycle and recover the recyclables portion
within the waste. The prices can be doubled and revenues can go directly to the City of
Tangerang / DKP, if a- proper processing facilities are implemented at the village /
district level and at the central level, and b- proper tendering and competitive process is in
place to attract buyers not only from Indonesia but from the region, on monthly basis
(depending on the quantities), to a- justify a tendering process; and b- large enough to
attract big factories / financially capable buyers.
(a). Collector‟s worker cleans recyclables (b). Transportation of bagged recyclables to

factory
(c). A warehouse of collector (d). Collector is weighing recyclable cartons

sold by waste picker
Figure 5.11: Waste recycling activity by third party

38
2- Compost market
Standards for compost:
Standards for compost quality are issued by the SNI (Indonesian National Standard) 21, but
the standards are not comprehensive and does not include guidance on the usages,
applications, types of crops and application rates, etc. by the relevant Ministry/Directorate
(Ministry of Agriculture/Food Crops) 22.
Main players:
- Households use communal composters at the village level; approx. 600 units within City
of Tangerang, for local application only.
- Integrated Waste Treatment Plant (TPST); less than 5 units.
- Composting units within waste banks; less than 5 units that are actively producing and
sell compost in City of Tangerang.
Process:
- Segregation is done at the household level
- Organics are put into the composter, or
- Organics are chopped and milled in a mill
- Milled organics are bagged for fermentation
- After 2 weeks the fermented organic are taken out for drying
- Dry matters are screened for coarse and fine compost
- Bagged and sold.
Existing prices:
Compost
- From waste bank in Tangerang IDR 1500 – 3000 per kg (bagged).
- From Jakarta area IDR 1700 – 2000 per kg (bagged).
- From Makassar IDR 600 – 800 per kg (loose).
- Manure IDR 1800 – 2000 per kg
Chemical fertilizers
- Urea ( Jakarta price) IDR 10500 – 15000 per kg.
- NPK (Jakarta price) IDR 17000 – 22500 per kg.
Potential demand:
Organic fertilizers/compost are usedin the range of 1 to 10 tons per hectare, depending on the
soil fertility/condition, and farmers‟ willingness to try the best practice themselves as per their
farming experience with the farm land23.
Table 5.3 shows the number of harvested areas of food crops in 2012 based on BPS 2013 for
the City of Tangerang. Based on Table 5.3, the demand in the City of Tangerang for high
quality compost is estimated at 7651 Ha. Based on the average application rate of 5 tons per
21
Standar Nasional Indonesia, SNI 19-7030-2004, Spesifikasi kompos dari sampah organik domestik;
http://inswa.or.id/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Spesifikasi-kompos-SNI.pdf
22
Field survey result and information gathered from Directorate Fertilizer and Pesticide, Directorate General Food
Crops, Department of Agriculture, October 01st 2013.
23
Manfaat Pupuk Organik Pada Tanaman Padi, Departemen Pertanian, Balai Pengkajian Teknologi Pertanian Sulawesi
Selatan, 2001

39
hectare, the demand on compost can reach up to38255 tons of compost per growing season,
so assuming conservatively two plantation seasons, at least 76510 tons of compost is required
per year. Aside from cropland in the City of Tangerang which has the potential for compost
application, the neighboring municipality such as Kabupaten Tangerang with its wider food
crops land area that reached 78430 hectares (Table 5.4) has the potential to absorb compost
production up to 784300 tons per year. The above amount will be even higher by looking at
the potential for compost application as cover soil at Rawa Kucing landfill up to 24000 tons
per year with assumptions that the landfill requires at least 2000 Tons of cover soil per month.
Table 5.3: Harvested area of food crops in 201224

Wet land Dry land Sweet
Maize Cassava
Year Paddy Paddy Potatoes
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
2012 7,613 0 0 18.0 20
Table 5.4: Harvested area of paddy and second crops in Kabupaten Tangerang, 2011 25
Wet land Dry land Sweet
Maize Cassava Peanuts
Year Paddy Paddy Potatoes
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
2011 77,072 399 283 422 54 200
Recommendations:
- Quantities today that are segregated / sorted and composted are estimated at 4-5 %, which
is very low. This amount can be increased significantly by providing an integrated system
from source of generation up to well equipped processing facilities.
- Compost quality produced is inconsistent with major odor problems as the process turn
anaerobic due to lack of proper equipment, trained staff, and the fermentation process (2
weeks) is very short (usually windrow composting requires 8 weeks of fermentation
process).
- High quality organic compost can replace the use of chemical fertilizers up to 50% of the
standard dose while maintaining the rice productivity level26.
- Compost market is very limited despite the high need of fertilizers. This high demand of
fertilizers can be met by more efforts from the City of Tangerang in promoting use of
high quality compost and marketing it widely. The City can start by the digestate that will
be generated from its central treatment plant, namely anaerobic digester to energy plant.
- Compost can be used as a soil conditioner and organic fertilizer in various sectors such as
agriculture, parks and gardens, land rehabilitation at the mining land as well as an
alternative soil cover at waste disposal / landfill to meet the sanitary landfill standards.
- The estimated compost demand in Tangerang is 100510 tons per year and estimated
compost demand in the surrounding area / city in Banten province is 784300 tons / year.
24
Source: Dinas Pertanian Kota Tangerang, BPS 2013, Kota Tangerang Dalam Angka 2013, Table 5.1.3
25
Source: Dinas Pertanian dan Peternakan Kabupaten Tangerang, BPS 2013, Kabupaten Tangerang Dalam Angka
2013, Table 5.2.1; http://banten.bps.go.id/arc/dda2013_3603_html/dda3603.html
26
Efektifitas Kompos Sampah Perkotaan Sebagai Pupuk Organik Dalam Meningkatkan Produktifitas dan Menurunkan
Biaya Produksi Budi Daya Padi, Endah Sulistyawati dan Ridwan Nugraha, Sekolah Ilmu dan Teknologi Hayati -
Institut Teknologi Bandung.

40
3- Refuse Derived Fuel market
Main players:
- Holcim.
- Indocement
RDF Demand:
There is no clear data recently regarding the needs of RDF use in Indonesia. The Ministry
ofIndustry of the Republic of Indonesia is currently conducting a study on the needs of RDF as
an alternative to low grade coal fuel for use in the cement industry. Expected results of the
study may be published in early 2014.
Utilization of RDF from MSW27

The following options for the utilization and conversion of RDF from MSW to energy have
been used or could be used in the future:
a. On-site in an integrated thermal conversion device, which could include grate or fluidized
bed combustion, gasification or pyrolysis;
b. Off-site at a remote facility employing grate or fluidized bed combustion, gasification or
pyrolysis;
c. Co-combustion in coal fired boilers;
d. Co-incineration in cement kilns; and
e. Co-gasification with coal or biomass.
The total quantities of RDF from processed MSW used in Europe in dedicated waste to energy
installations, in power generating plants, district heating plants and industrial processes such as
paper mills and cement kilns has been estimated to amount to more than 2 million tpa. It was
reported that it is not always possible to secure an outlet for RDF and in Germany for example,
quantities have to be stored.
The quantities of RDF burnt are expected to increase in the future with planned increased
capacity for RDF utilization mainly in Belgium, Italy and in the UK. There are also plans for
using RDF from MSW in other processes such as gasification and pyrolysis.
Existing prices:
Price at user plant USD 25 to 35 per ton of RDF
Recommendations:
a. Price is an approximation, it requires further confirmation and negotiation with the potential
buyer.
b. Price will be set up according to the RDF quality.
c. According to the data provided locally, an RDF plant will break even its operational
costs at $40 and $50 per ton for more than 1200 tons / day and less than 1200 tons /
day capacity (economies of scale), respectively.
d. Under the current circumstances and pricing, RDF technology is not financially viable for
City of Tangerang.
27
European CommissionDirectorate General Environment, Refuse Derived Fuel, Current Practice and Perspective (B4-
3040/2000/306517/MAR/E3), Final Report

41
4- Energy
Main players: PLN (Persero)
Energy Demand:
Electricity demand will increase every year to follow population growth, prosperity
improvement, and economic growth as a whole. One important factor to support development
is that electricity demand must be fulfilled by supply. Electricity demand projection in
Indonesia is electricity demand accumulation of 22 sales regions PLN for 17 years period
(2003 to 2020). Total electricity demand is 91.72 TWh in 2003, and becomes 272.34 TWh in
2020. The average growth of electricity demand is 6.5% per year.
Table 5.5: Projection of Electricity Demand in Indonesia From 2003 to 202028

Year Average growth of electricity
Item demand
2003 (TWh) 2020 (TWh)
(%/year)
Electricity demand 91.72 272.34 6.5
Supporting Regulation:
Law No. 30 Year 2007 on Energy mandates that the development and utilization of renewable
energy must be increased. Law No. 30 Year 2009 on Electricity also mandates that the use of
primary energy sources should be implemented with emphasis on new energy sources and
renewable energy. Thus the development and utilization of renewable energy, including
biomass becomes a necessity for all parties. Until 2012, the total capacity of the existing power
plants based on biomass, biogas and municipal waste that has been connected to the grid is
approximately 75.5 MW. One type of biomass power plants that being developed is municipal
solid waste power plant (PLTSa).
Recent regulations concerning purchase price of electricity from renewable energy power
plants in particular municipal waste is Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources Regulation
No.19 Year 2013 About Power Purchase by PT PLN (Persero) from Municipal Solid Waste
Based Power Plant (refer to the following Table 5.6 for existing purchase prices).
Table 5.6: Purchase price of electricity from Municipal Solid Waste Based Power Plant 29
No. Definition Price Remarks
Zero Waste with a capacity up to 10 per kWh Zero waste referred to is a waste
MW (Rupiah) management technology resulting
1
- If interconnected to the Medium in a significant decrease in the
Voltage 1,450 volume of waste through a process
integrated with gasification or
- If interconnected to the Low Voltage 1,798 incineration.
Sanitary Landfill with a capacity up per kWh Sanitary landfill technology
2 to 10 MW (Rupiah) referred to is a waste treatment
- If interconnected to the Medium technology in a given area that is
Voltage 1,250 isolated until it is safe for the
- If interconnected to the Low Voltage 1,598 environment.
28
Pengembangan Sistem Kelistrikan Dalam Menunjang Pembangunan Nasional Jangka Panjang; Proyeksi Kebutuhan
Listrik PLN Tahun 2003 sampai dengan 2020, Moch. Muchlis dan Adhi Darma Permana.
http://www.oocities.org/markal_bppt/publish/slistrk/slmuch.pdf
29
Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources Regulation No. 19 / 2013.
http://prokum.esdm.go.id/permen/2013/Permen%20ESDM%2019%202013.pdf

42
5.5 Final Disposal in Rawa Kucing Landfill
Rawa Kucing landfill is designed and operated as an open dumpsite. The site is located in a high
groundwater table area, with drinking wells within and outside the site boundaries and a river
downstream. The site started operation in 1993, and has a total surface area of 34.8 hectares (this
includes undergoing arrangements for acquiring 7 hectares). Today approximately 20 hectares are
already filled up with waste (zones 1a, 1b, 1c, 2a - composting, 3a) and 5 hectares are active zones
(zones 2b and 3b). The waste depths at the different zones range between 10 to 20 meters. The site
is receiving mixed wastes from residential, commercial, market, industrial, and non-hazardous
medical wastes. The site does not have a liner, drainage system for rainfall management, leachate
management and treatment system and gas management system. The site is not operated properly to
preserve valuable landfill space area, minimize negative environmental and social impacts. The
operation does not take into consideration proper layering of waste, leveling, compaction, applying
temporary daily cover at the end of working day with clay layer to avoid rainfall percolation into the
waste layers and generation of leachate (leading to ground water contamination), and removal of the
temporary layer at the start of the following working day to preserve valuable landfill space.
During rainy season, the working cell is usually not accessible as trucks have difficulty to enter the
site. This is the usual case with open dumpsites as there is no proper paved road for entry and exit to
the working area. Existing layout of Rawa Kucing landfill is shown below in Figure 5.12.
Figure 5.12: Existing layout of Rawa Kucing Landfill

43
Table 5.7 below summarizes the main aspects related to the site and description of the existing
condition.
Table 5.7: Summary of existing condition at Rawa Kucing landfill
ISSUE EXISTING CONDITION
Site security It is a fenced and secured site with main entrance at Gate 1.
Access road - The main access road to Rawa Kucing Landfill is through Iskandar Muda
St.The landfill has two gates:
a. Gate 1: eentrance of transportation fleet and other vehicles from Iskandar
Muda St.
b. Gate 2: exit of transportation fleet to Iskandar Muda St.
- The main road (Gate 1 and Gate 2) at the Rawa Kucing Landfill is paved and
in good condition.
Accessibility to Access Road todisposal
working cell From the main road (from Gate 1 and to Gate 2), the access road in the working
cell is made from concrete blocks and is in a very poor condition.
Working cell - Currently the active zone is Zone 2B and 3B, covering approximately 5 Ha.
- From the weighbrige data, the average amount of waste that goes to the
working cell (dumping site) is 740 tons/day (June 2013)
Rainfall Given the high rainfall rates and floods, there should be a good drainage system
drainage in place to minimize rainfall / floods infiltrating the cells and waste piles, and
consequently generating more leachate. There is no proper rainfall drainage
system in the landfill area. There is a channel of excavated soil around the buffer
zone. The channel is not properly constructed from clay or concrete.
Leachate Leachate Drainage: No leachate drainage system exists on site. According to
management the landfill officer, leachate drains through a culvert, but it has been observed
system during the site visit that no leachate or fluids are draining from the culvert.
Leachate Storage: there are two leachate ponds in Rawa Kucing Landfill. One
leachate pond accommodates leachate from landfilling activity and the other
accomodates leachate from composting activity.
The first leachate pond that is supposed to store leachate does not seem to have
leachate in significant volumes, given that the wastewater analysis as shown in
Table below shows very low BOD and COD, 242 and 673 mg/l, respectively,
which is a clear indication that the pond cannot be referred to as leachate pond.
Leachate is draining somewhere but the flow pattern and direction is not clear
from the FS study.
Wastewater quality analysis from first (leachate) pond

Parameter Unit Value
Total Dissolved Solid mg/L 2,440
Total Suspended Solid mg/L 154
pH - 8.14
Sulphide (H2S) mg/L <0.002
Free Ammonia (NH3-N) mg/L 12.61
Nitrate (NO3-N) mg/L 1.3
Nitrite (NO2-N) mg/L 0.048
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) mg/L 242
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) mg/L 673
Source : Feasibility Study of Rehabilitation for Rawa Kucing Landfill (2010)
Landfill gas There is no LFG management system on site. However, there is a pilot project of
management gas utilization system from the composting activity. The power plant capacity is

44
ISSUE EXISTING CONDITION
system & 5000 watt and used for electricity at composting facility and offices.
greenhouse Using the UNFCCC model and waste composition for City of Tangerang (based
gases (GHGs) on master plan), the estimated greenhouse gases emissions generated during the
emissions period 2010 to 2020 is1,245,829 tons of CO2e.
Operations The operation process at Rawa Kucing Landfill is divided into two systems. The
process first system is for organic waste transported from market and the second system
is for waste transported from households and other sources.
- Organic waste from market will be transported to the composting facility for
processing, using passive composting method.
- Waste from households and other sources will be disposed at the working cell
following the process below:
Environment, Environment:
Health and - Groundwater PollutionandSoil Contamination: Given the site is located at
Safety impacts high ground water table area, it is absolutely essential to have a very good
barrier / liner to avoid pollution of valuable water resources. From the surveys
carried out in 2012 under the detailed feasibility study and detailed engineering
design, the soil on site is silty clay which is partially permeable. Accordingly,
part of the leachate generated is percolating the soil and finding its way to the
groundwater and nearby waterways.
- Air Pollution: there is no landfill gas management system, and accordingly
GHGs generated during the decomposition of waste is released to the
atmosphere.
Health:
Major health concern to the workers from DKP as well as the waste pickers on
site from obnoxious odors, GHGs, insects and rodents and related diseases.
Neither DKP staff nor the waste pickers are wearing proper protective gear to
minimize such impacts.
Safety:
There is a concern on safety of DKP staff and waste pickers given the poor
working conditions30, no proper supervision on trucks maneuvering on site, and
potential waste slides.
Social impacts There is a concern on the waste pickers‟ livelihood that may be affected by the
planned implementation of solid waste management development programs both
in the downtown areas and the landfill area, unless job opportunities are provided
to them to secure their income and livelihoods.
30
Poor working conditions include staff and waste pickers not equipped with proper gear, no enough supervisors on
site to manage the process (unloading, time for waste pickers to pick wastes, instructing waste pickers to stand on
the side in a safe area while the heavy equipment level and compact the wastes).

45
(a). Weighing of waste at the recently installed (b). Queuing of waste transportation vehicles at
weighbridge dump site
(c). Waste pickers surrounding a transportation (d). Heavy equipment activity with waste
truck during unloading process pickers surrounding the excavator
(e). Rainfall drainage channel at Rawa Kucing (f). Leachate pond with un-operating surface
Landfill aerator at Rawa Kucing Landfill
Figure 5.13: Existing condition of final disposal in Rawa Kucing Landfill

46
5.6 Analysis of Technical and Operational Gaps
5.6.1 Gaps on Solid Waste Management Chain
1- Waste generation data: There is no reliable data on the number of citizens from the different
levels of income and their geographical locations (areas/districts/villages) is not available.This
data is essential to enable accurate planning and design for the integrated SWM system for the
City of Tangerang and its different areas, districts and villages.
2- Waste collection and transportation: fleets and types of vehicles are not appropriate and
efficient; collection and transportation points are not properly designed and not suitable neither
for the fleets / crew to load the waste in a timely and EHS friendly manner, nor for the citizens
to properly dispose of their waste; TPSTs which are acting as transfer stations are not efficient
as they are not well equipped, major source of nuisance to neighboring communities, and
major environment, health and safety hazardare major EHS concerns / hazards to both the
fleets‟ crews and the citizens.
3- Waste recycling: very good initiative in place, but the design of the facilities and lack of
essential equipment / machinery at the waste banks makes the initiative not as efficient as
expected / planned for. Recycling is estimated at 2%,and the waste recycling target as per the
master plan is 75%.
4- Waste treatment: good concept but the design of the TPSTsis very inefficient and
lacksessential equipment / machinery, enclosed facilities with ventilation (equipped with filters
to prevent emission from spreading) to control odors, emissions and toxins from getting to
neighboring communities (there are fine particulates, bioaerosols and volatilized toxic
constituents within waste / waste processing that have significant health consequences),lack of
trained staff and SOPs and proper EHS system in place makes the ITFs not as efficient as
expected/planned for. Treatment is estimated at 10 to 15 tons per day, which is approximately
4-5% of the total waste generated. The waste treatment target as per the master plan is 75% (by
using TPSTs, Household Composter and ITF Rawa Kucing).
5- Waste disposal: Major EHS hazard at the final disposal site for City of Tangerang, Rawa
Kucing dumpsite. In addition, precious landfill space is being depleted, while acquisition of
more landfill space is extremely problematic and expensive.
5.6.2 Gaps on Environmental, Health, and Safety Aspects

EHS hazards: Major EHS hazards for the Operator‟s crew and Citizens at the collection and
transportation points, ITFs, and the final disposal site. Environmental hazards from leachate and
GHGs emissions which negatively affects soil, groundwater / waterways and air; health hazards
from GHG emissions, obnoxious odors, spread of insects, rodents and disease due to lack of
cleanliness / containment of wastes; and safety hazards to the operator crew who are not properly
equipped, waste pickers at the dumpsite and citizens at / around collection / transportation points.
5.6.3 Gaps on Social Aspects

Informal sector: Given the City of Tangerang / DKP is planning to upgrade the sector from
collection to final disposal, the current method of operation of the informal sector and waste
pickers will not be suitable and compatible with modernizing the sector, and cannot be continued
in the same manner. The informal sector and specifically the waste pickers, whose livelihood
depends solely on waste, have to be incorporated in the new system.

47
CHAPTER 6
SOLID WASTE GENERATION
6.1 Solid Waste Generation Per-Capita in City of Tangerang

6.1.1 Based on Master plan for Solid Waste Management in City of Tangerang 2012
According to the Solid Waste Management Master Plan for the City of Tangerang (2012), waste
generation per capita was estimated based on a sampling program carried out at the communities
(household waste container) at the different communities representing the various levels of
income, which is presented in Table 6.1 below.
Table 6.1: Waste generation per capita for City of Tangerang based on Master Plan
Waste Generation Per Capita
Type of Community Percentage
L/c/d Kg/c/d
High Level Income 3.31 0.662 5%
Middle Level Income 2.73 0.546 45%
Low Income 1.72 0.344 50%
6.1.2 Based on Literature Review

CDIA Team reviewed other sources for coming up with realistic waste generation per capita data
relevant to the City of Tangerang.
1- National Standards of Indonesia 19-3983-1995 (SNI 19-3983-1995)
Waste generation per capita for a large city is approximately 0.4 to 0.5 kg/capita/day and the
waste generation for the communities based on the type of settlements are approximately 0.25 to
0.4 kg/capita/day as shown in Table 6.2 below.
Table 6.2: Waste generation per capita based on National Standard of Indonesia
Parameter Waste Generation (kg/c/day)
Permanent house 0.35 – 0.40
Semi-permanent house 0.30 – 0.35
Non-permanent house 0.25 – 0.30
2- South East Asia Region

CDIA Team carried out literature review on waste generation per capita in South East Asian
countries which are summarized in Table 6.3 below.
Table 6.3: Waste generation per capita in other South East Asian Countries
Country Waste Generation (kg/capita/day) Year
Malaysia31 0.45 – 1.44 2010
Vietnam32 0.3 (rural); 0.7 (urban) 2004
Philipines33 0.3 (rural); 0.5 - 0.7 (urban) 2010
Laos34 0.8 – 1.4 2013
31
Sakawi, Zaini. 2010. Municipal Solid Waste Management in Malaysia: Solution for Sustainable Waste Mangement.
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia: Malaysia.
32
Thanh, N.P. and Matsui, Y. 2010. Municipal Solid Waste Management in Vietnam: Status and the Strategic Actions.
Okayama University: Japan.
33
Cabatbat, Ana Baligod. 2010. Separation, Recovery and Recycling of Municipal Organic Waste in Philipines. Science
Research Specialist: Philipines.
34
Ministry of Public Works and Transport and Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment. 2013. Brief Country
Analysis Paper: Lao PDR.

48
Country Waste Generation (kg/capita/day) Year
Thailand35 0.23 – 1.44 2009
Brunei36 1.15 2002
Cambodia37 0.487 2013
Myanmar38 0.53 2006
Based on the Master Plan, National Standards of Indonesia and literature review, CDIA Team
decided to use 0.35 to 0.7 kg/capita/daywaste generation for the residential community of City of
Tangerang, and divided across the different levels of income as follows:
1- 0.35 kg/capita/day for low income areas.
2- 0.55 kg/capita/day for middle income areas.
3- 0.7 kg/capita/day for high income areas.
6.2 Solid Waste Generation Projection

6.2.1 Methodology of Calculation
During the 30 years planning period, waste generation per capita will increase due to many factors
most important of which are agricultural growth, industrial growth and Gross Domestic Product
(GDP) growth. In order to take these factors into consideration as well as the population increase,
the CDIA Team used the following equation to model and forecast the waste generation per capita
increase with time during the 30 years period. Waste generation projection can be calculated
using Equation 6.139:
∆𝐪 𝐧
𝐪𝐧 = 𝐪 𝐨 𝟏 + (6.1)
𝟏𝟎𝟎
Where: qn = waste generation projection in n-year

qo = waste generation projection in the first year planning
n = projection time
∆q = waste generation increase
Waste generation increase is influenced by growth in food/agriculture, industry, income and
population growth. Waste generation increase can be calculated using Equation 6.2:
𝟏 ∆𝐦 + ∆𝐢 + ∆𝐠
∆𝐪 = 𝟏 + (6.2)
𝟑 𝟏 + ∆𝐩
Where: ∆m = food production/agriculture growth

∆i = industrial growth
∆g = Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth
∆p = population growth
35
Kaosol, Thania. 2009. Sustainable Solutions for Municipal Solid Waste Management in Thailand. World Academy of
Science, Engineering and Technology Paper 36 2009.
36
State of Waste Management in Southeast Asia.
Source: www.unep.or.jp/ietc/publications/spc/state_of_waste _management/2.asp
37
Sethy, Sour. 2013. Solid Waste Management in Cambodia. Departement of Environmental Science, Royal University
of Phnom Penh: Cambodia.
38
Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture. 2006. Solid Waste Management
Badly Needed in Myanmar. ISSN 1656-8818.
39
Tchobanoglous, G., Thiesen, H., dan Vigil, S.A. (1993). Integrated Solid Waste Management: Engineering Principles
and Management Issues. Singapore: McGraw-Hill.

Tables 6.4 to 6.7 below shows the data40 used to come up with the above factors.
Table 6.4: Industrial Growth at City of Tangerang (units)
YEAR MEDIUM LARGE Total Growth (%)
2006 430 297 727
2007 417 263 680 -6.46
2008 406 281 687 1.03
2009 337 333 670 -2.47
2010 331 280 611 -8.81
2011 331 280 611 0.00
2012 288 275 563 -7.86
Average -3.62
Assumption(∆i) 2
Table 6.5:Growth of food/agriculture production in City of Tangerang (tons)

Sweet Growth
Year Paddy Maize Cassava Peanuts Vegetables Fruits Total
Potatoes (%)
2008 10611.41 13.44 310.05 35.93 4 15750.74 2091.09 28816.66
2009 9869.18 6.73 239.02 23.95 10 15149.42 2447.39 27745.69 -3.72
2010 8436 11 39.7 8.2 8 14202.4 883.09 23588.39 -14.98
2011 7567 0 139.5 16.7 4 16523.41 1237.85 25488.46 8.06
2012 7613.6 0 18 20 43 20741.7 4704.1 33140.4 30.02
Average 4.84
(∆m) 19.04
Table 6.6:Regional GDP Growth at City of Tangerang (at constant price)

Year GDP (million) Growth (%)
2006 22,932.60
2007 24,505.12 6.86
2008 26,066.99 6.37
2009 27,562.54 5.74
2010 29,402.85 6.68
2011 31,469.87 7.03
Average (∆g) 6.53
Table 6.7: Population Growth for City of Tangerang

Year Population Annual Growth
2003 1462726 -
2004 1488666 1.77%
2005 1537244 3.26%
2006 1481591 -3.62%
2007 1508414 1.81%
2008 1531666 1.54%
2009 1652590 7.89%
2010 1798601 8.84%
2011 1847341 2.71%
2012 1918556 3.86%
Average(∆p) 2.49%
Red highlights above are for the figures that CDIA Team considered outliers and not included in
the calculation (to avoid inaccuracy). Based on the data from Table 6.4 to 6.7, the calculation for
the annual waste generation increase using Equation 2 will be as follow:
40
Statistical Central Board (Badan Pusat Statistik or BPS) – Statistics of Tangerang, August 2013.

50
𝟏 𝟐 + 𝟏𝟗. 𝟎𝟒 + 𝟔. 𝟓𝟑
∆𝐪 = 𝟏 + = 𝟑. 𝟔𝟑
𝟑 𝟏 + 𝟐. 𝟒𝟗
6.2.2 Estimated Solid Waste Generation

Tables 6.8 to 6.12 presents the solid waste generation every 5 years for the City of Tangerang
based on the above calculations. It is important to note that waste generation per capita per day
will increase with time, which is the expected and the realistic scenario. Over the 30 years
planning period waste generation per capita per day will increase for the low income from
0.35 to 0.47 kg/c/d, middle income from 0.55 to 0.73 kg/c/d and high income from 0.7 to 0.93
kg/c/d.
Estimated Solid Waste Generation from Residential Areas

Table 6.8: Estimated solid waste generation from residential source (High Income)
2013 2014 2018 2023 2028 2033 2038 2043
Population 98319 100769 111196 125761 142233 160862 181932 205761
Waste Generation
Per Capita 0.669 0.676 0.707 0.747 0.790 0.834 0.882 0.932
(kg/c/day)
Waste Generation
(tons/day) 65.76 68.15 78.60 93.95 112.29 134.22 160.43 191.76
Organic Waste
(tons/day) 40.33 41.80 48.21 57.62 68.88 82.32 98.40 117.61
Recyclable Waste
(tons/day) 16.76 17.37 20.03 23.94 28.62 34.21 40.89 48.87
Residue (tons/day) 8.67 8.98 10.36 12.38 14.80 17.69 21.14 25.27
Table 6.9: Estimated solid waste generation from residential source (Middle Income)
2013 2014 2018 2023 2028 2033 2038 2043
Population 884867 906920 1000766 1131846 1280095 1447761 1637388 1851852
Waste Generation
Per Capita 0.526 0.531 0.555 0.587 0.620 0.656 0.693 0.732
(kg/c/day)
Waste Generation
(tons/day) 465.01 481.90 555.81 664.35 794.07 949.13 1134.47 1356.00
Organic Waste
(tons/day) 285.21 295.57 340.91 407.48 487.05 582.15 695.83 831.70
Recyclable Waste
(tons/day) 118.51 122.82 141.65 169.32 202.38 241.90 289.13 345.59
Residue (tons/day) 61.28 63.51 73.25 87.55 104.65 125.08 149.51 178.70
Table 6.10: Estimated solid waste generation from residential source (Low Income)
2013 2014 2018 2023 2028 2033 2038 2043
Population 983185 1007689 1111963 1257607 1422327 1608623 1819320 2057613
Waste Generation
Per Capita 0.334 0.338 0.353 0.374 0.395 0.417 0.441 0.466
(kg/c/day)
Waste Generation
(tons/day) 328.79 340.74 393.00 469.74 561.47 671.10 802.15 958.79
Organic Waste
(tons/day) 194.65 201.72 232.65 278.09 332.39 397.29 474.87 567.60
Recyclable Waste
(tons/day) 91.40 94.72 109.25 130.59 156.09 186.57 223.00 266.54
Residue (tons/day) 42.74 44.30 51.09 61.07 72.99 87.24 104.28 124.64

Estimated Solid Waste Generation from Non-Residential Areas
Table 6.11: Estimated solid waste generation from non-residential areas
Waste Generation (tons/day)
Source
2014 2018 2023 2028 2033 2038 2043
Commercials 118.14 136.26 162.87 194.67 232.69 278.12 332.43
Offices 2.36 2.73 3.26 3.89 4.65 5.56 6.65
Industry 14.18 16.35 19.54 23.36 27.92 33.37 39.89
Roads & Parks 24.81 28.61 34.20 40.88 48.86 58.41 69.81
Non Hazardous Hospital 9.45 10.90 13.03 15.57 18.61 22.25 26.59
Total 168.94 194.85 232.90 278.38 332.74 397.72 475.38
Estimated Solid Waste Generation from Markets

Table 6.12: Estimated solid waste generation from markets
Year 2013 2014 2018 2023 2028 2033 2038 2043
Total (tons/day) 117.42 121.68 140.35 167.76 200.51 239.67 286.47 342.41
Organic Waste (tons/day) 109.44 113.41 130.81 156.35 186.88 223.37 266.99 319.12
Inorganic Waste (tons/day) 7.98 8.27 9.54 11.41 13.63 16.30 19.48 23.28

52
CHAPTER 7
RECOMMENDED INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT
7.1 Approach
In the following sections, CDIA Team will present the recommended ISWM concepts from
collection to final disposal, suitable and appropriate for the City of Tangerang, categorized as
follows:
4- Residential;
5- Non-residential which comprises non-hazardous solid wastes generated from commercial,
offices,institutions, industries, medicals; and
6- Markets.
It is important to highlight that City of Tangerang should provide targeted population for each
concept with a simplified brochure and extensive media campaign during the first 2 to 3 years of
implementation of the new ISWM system to inform them on the system for City of Tangerang,
what is expected from them (segregated collection at household level, times of collection, when to
put the containers out (for door to door services), containers at all times except during specified
times for collection will be within the houses premises, etc.) and what is expected from the City.
The campaign will also inform the Population about the City of Tangerang‟s plans in
transforming the SWM sector, green city concept and sustainable development. That will also
support in the gradual increase of SW service fees, for contributing in substantial improvement in
the service quality and its sustainability.
According to Regulations of the Minister of Public Works of Republic of Indonesia Number

03/PRT/M/2013, the waste should be segregated at least into 5 types of waste, which are:
1- Waste containing hazardous and toxic materials;
2- Degradable waste;
3- Waste that can be reused;
4- Waste that can be recycled; and
5- Others.
In the following recommended integrated solid waste management system, CDIA Team proposed
to have phased approach of waste segregation. The reason being difficulty to ask citizens in any
part of the world to move from one stream to more than three streams. Accordingly, CDIA Team
recommends the following implementation approach.
Phase 1: At least 1 successful year of operating three waste streams as follows:

a) Stream 1: degradable waste (referred to as organic waste).
b) Stream 2: waste that can be reused and recycled (referred to as inorganic waste).
c) Stream 3: others (referred to glass and bulk waste).
For glass and bulk waste, CDIA Team proposed to have separate waste collection systems.

Phase 2:After the successfullimplementation and operation of three streams segregation system
for at least a period of 1 year, City of Tangerang can introduce to the citizens four streams
segregation system by adding hazardous and toxic materials waste into the solid waste collection
system.
It is important to highlight the importance of City of Tangerang taking the responsibility of

managing hazardous wastes generated from the residential and non-residential sectors, excluding
industrial and medical. The main reason being, industrial and medical are responsible for
managing and treating their own hazardous wastes generated in-house or at licensed facilities;
according to Government Regulation Number 18 Year 1999 regarding Hazardous Waste
Management (Chapter 3, 7 and 34), based on Act of Republic of Indonesia Number 32 Year 2009
on Protection and Management of the Evironment.
7.2 Recommended Integrated Solid Waste Management for Residential Areas

Recommended integrated solid waste management concept for residential areas will be divided
into three concepts to serve the following communities:
1- Low income level areas
2- Middle income level areas
3- High income level areas
7.2.1 Recommended Concept 1: Low Income Area

Targeted population: Concept 1 is recommended for the low income level areas.
Figure 7.1 shows the flow diagram of the Integrated SWM Concept 1.From a SWM perspective,
the served populations for that concept are characterized by the following criteria:
1- No or difficult accessibility to collection points by Citizens.
2- No or difficult accessibility by collection fleet/trucks to the service areas.
3- Low or no affordability of Citizens to pay medium SW service fees (20,000 to 30,000
Rp/month) for SWM services.
4- Creation of job opportunities in the waste sector at the community level is socially
acceptable/of interest.
1. Waste containers and collection

Table 7.1 presents the proposed collection process for Concept 1.
Table 7.1: Waste collection process for Concept 1 (low income areas)
Type of Type of Collection
Collection process
waste container frequency
50 liters drum Once/day Recommended waste collection mechanism is
container, made the indirect individual system and indirect
of plastic with communal system:
Organic
covered lid - For the communities that have no access for
(wet) 3
1.2 m collection big collection fleets, waste collection fleet
waste
points used is handcarts (equipped with bells to
inform the residents that the crew is available
to pick up their waste) and transported to the

54
nearest MRF for processing at in vessel
composting.
- For the communities that have access for big
collection fleet (near main or big road), they
will dispose their waste into the 1.2 m3
collection points and the compactor trucks will
collect and transport to ITF.
Inorganic 20 liters cotton/ 2 times/week - Citizens will bring their waste to the nearest
(dry) canvas bag that Waste Bank in the separate cotton bags for
waste can be tied. each type of recyclable and get benefit from
the Waste Bank.
Figure 7.1: Recommended concept for Concept 1 (low income areas)

2. Waste recycling
Solid waste recycling for Concept 1 will be conducted at the Waste Bank and MRF, which will be
located at the local level.
3. Waste transportation
Waste transportation system recommended is the arm roll truck and compactor truck with
capacity of 6 m3. An arm-roll container will be located at each MRF were the residue/rejects from
the MRF will be disposed of, and transported every 4 days (calculated) to the final disposal. The
compactor truck will collect the organic waste from collection points and transported to the ITF
on daily basis.
4. Waste Treatment
Solid waste treatment for Concept 1, which is mostly for organic waste will be conducted at the
ITF for organics collected using communal containers. However, small amount of the organic
waste will be treated by the in vessel composting activity at the MRF for communities that have
no access to communal containers by the main roads.
5. Final disposal
Only rejects/residue from the ITF and MRF will be disposed at Rawa Kucing Landfill.
7.2.2 Recommended Concept for Middle Income Area

Targeted population: This concept is recommended for population in middle level income areas.
Figure 7.2 shows the flow diagram of the Integrated SWM Concept 2.From a SWM perspective,
the served population for that concept is characterized by the following criteria:
1- Accessibility to collection points by Citizens.
2- No or difficult accessibility by collection fleet/trucks to the service areas/households.
3- Low or no affordability of Citizens to pay high service fees (40,000 to 50,000 Rp/month) for
SWM services.
1. Waste containers and collection

Table 7.2 presents the proposed collection process for Concept 2.
Table 7.2:Waste collection process for Concept 2 (middle income areas)

Type of Collection
Type of container Collection process
waste frequency
3
Organic 1.2 m capacity Once/day Recommended waste collection mechanism is
(wet) street containers, the indirect communal system:
waste plastic or steel - Citizens will dispose of their waste at
containers covered specified collection points.
with lids and - Waste collection fleet type is compactor
equipped with trucks.
wheels – suitable for - Waste will be transported to the ITF located
compactor trucks. at Rawa Kucing landfill site.
Inorganic/ 20 liters cotton/ 1 to 2 Recommended waste collection mechanism is
recyclable canvas bag that can times/ the indirect individual system, there is two
(dry) be tied Week (for option for the collection of
waste collection inorganic/recyclables waste in this concept:
by - For citizens who have interest in the Waste
handcarts) Bank activity, they will bring their waste to

56
the nearest Waste Bank in the separate cotton
bags for each type of recyclable and get
financial benefit from the Waste Bank.
- For citizens who have no interest in Waste
Bank activity, they will be served by the
collection handcarts.
Figure 7.2: Recommended concept for middle income level areas
2. Waste recycling
Solid waste recycling activities for Concept 2 will be conducted at the Waste Banks and MRF
Table 7.3 presents the proposed transportation scheme for Concept 2.

Table 7.3: Waste transportation scheme for Concept 2
Transportation
Type of waste Type of transportation fleet
frequency
Organic (wet) waste 6 m3 compactor truck Once/day
Rejects/residue 6 m3 capacity arm roll located at the MRF 1 time/week
4. Waste treatment
Waste treatment activity for this concept will be carried out at the Intermediate Treatment Facility
at Rawa Kucing Landfill site for organic waste.
5. Final disposal
Only rejects/residue from the MRF and ITF will be disposed at Rawa Kucing Landfill. Bulk waste
will be directed to the final disposal site, to be sorted and stored in storage facilities, where it can
be auctioned on monthly basis.
7.2.3 Recommended Concept for High Income Area

Targeted population: Concept 3 is recommended for the high income level community
Figure 7.3 below shows the flow diagram of the Integrated SWM Concept 3.
From a SWM perspective, the served population for that concept is characterized by the following
criteria:
1- Accessibility to waste generation points / households by collection fleet.
2- Affordability of Citizens to pay high service fees (40,000 to 50,000 Rp/month) for SWM
services.
1. Waste containers
Basically the concept is segregated collection at the household level for organics verses
inorganics, with scheduled collection.Table 7.4 shows the containers that will be used for this
concept.
Table 7.4:Waste containers proposed for recommended concept for middle and high income level
areas
Type of waste Type of container
Organic (wet) waste 120 liters plastic container with wheels and covered with lid (preferred
to use dark color, for example green container).
Inorganic (dry) waste 120 liters plastic container with wheels and covered with lid (preferred
to use light color, for example yellow container).
2. Waste collection and transportation

Waste collection from the residential areas and transportation to the Intermediate Treatment
Facility for this concept are carried out by the same type of fleet (compactor trucks). Table 7.5
shows the type of fleet, frequency, and process of waste collection and transportation for this
concept.

58
Figure 7.3: Recommended concept for high income level areas
Table 7.5:Waste collection and transportation proposed for middle and high income level area
Type of collection Collection and
Type of
and transportation transportation Collection and transportation process
waste
fleet frequency
Organic 6 m3 compactor Once every 2 - Recommended waste collection
(wet) truck days (fixed time mechanism is the direct individual
waste range) system.
- Door to door service.
- Citizens will dispose of their waste in
the allocated 120 liters container per
household in front of their door steps.
- Waste collection and transportation
fleet type is compactor truck.
- Waste will be transported to the ITF.
Inorganic 6 m3 compactor Once/week (fixed - Recommended waste collection
(dry) truck time range) mechanism is the direct individual
waste system.

Type of
waste
fleet frequency
3
Organic 6 m compactor Once every 2 - Recommended waste collection
(wet) truck days (fixed time mechanism is the direct individual
waste range) system.
Residue 6 m3 arm-roll truck Once/week (fixed - The residue from ITF will be
(located at the ITF) timing) transported to the landfill using the
or loaded into dump arm-roll truck or dump truck.
truck using skid
loader (depending
what is more easier)
3. Waste treatment and recycling

Waste treatment and recycling activity for this concept will be carried out at the Intermediate
Treatment Facility.
4. Final disposal
Final disposal will be carried out at Rawa Kucing Landfill.
7.3 Recommended Integrated Solid Waste Management for Non-Residential

Areas
This recommended concept is intended to manage the waste generated from the non-residential
areas namely, commercials, offices and institutions, industry, street sweeping and others.
Hazardous waste is not included in this concept as it requires separate study andspecial waste
management and treatment system. Figure 7.4 shows the flow diagram of recommended concept
for this service area.
1. Waste containers
Waste containers that will be proposed are based on the type of waste generated atCity of
Tangerang in the targeted area, and the 3R approach. Basically, the concept is segregated
collection at the communal level for organics verses inorganics, with scheduled collection. Table
7.6 shows the containers that will be used for this concept.

60
Table 7.6: Waste containers proposed for recommended concept for non-residential areas
Organic (wet) waste 1.2 m3 plastic/steel containers with wheels and covered with lid
(preferred to use dark color, for example green containers).
Inorganic (dry) waste 1.2 m3 plastic/steel container with wheels and covered with lid
(preferred to use light color, for example yellow containers).
Figure 7.4: Recommended concept for non-residential areas

Table 7.7 shows the type of fleet, frequency, and process of waste collection and transportation
for this concept.
Table 7.7: Waste collection and transportation proposed for non-residential areas
Type of
waste
fleet frequency
Organic 6 m3 compactor Once/day (fixed - Recommended waste collection
(wet) truck timing) mechanism is the direct communal
waste system which thenon-residential entities

Type of
waste
fleet frequency
will dispose of their waste at specified
collection points, which are located at 50
meters intervals along the main roads.
- Waste collection and transportation fleet
type is compactor trucks.
- Waste will be transported from the
collection points to the Intermediate
Treatment Facility (ITF) located at Rawa
Kucing Landfill site.
Inorganic 6 m3 compactor Once/day (fixed - Recommended waste collection
(dry) truck/ 6 m3Arm roll timing) mechanism is the direct communal
waste truck (for malls) system which thenon-residential entities
will dispose of their waste at specified
collection points, which are located at 50
meters intervals along the main roads.
For malls, shops will dispose of their
recyclables within the premises of the
malls in arm rolls containers.
- Waste collection and transportation fleet
type is compactor trucks or arm roll
trucks (in case of malls).
- Waste will be transported to the
Intermediate Treatment Facility (ITF)
located at Rawa KucingLandfill site.
Residue 6 m3 arm-roll truck, Once/week - The residue from ITF will be transported
or dump truck (fixed timing) to the landfill using the arm-roll truck or
(located at the ITF) dump truck using skid loader for
loading.

Waste treatment and recycling activity for this concept will be carried out in the Intermediate
Treatment Facility located at Rawa Kucing Landfill site.
4. Final disposal
Final disposal will be carried out in Rawa Kucing Landfill site.
7.4 Recommended Integrated Solid Waste Management for Markets

This concept is intended for waste generated from the markets atCity of Tangerang. Figure 7.5
shows a flow diagram of the recommended concept for market waste from collection to final
disposal.

62
Figure 7.5: Recommended concept for non-residential areas
1. Waste container
Waste containers that will be proposed are based on the type of waste generated at City of
Tangerang in the targeted area, and the 3R approach. Basically the concept is segregated
collection at the markets for organics verses inorganics, with scheduled collection. Table 7.8
shows the containers that will be used for this concept.
Table 7.8: Waste containers proposed for recommended concept for markets
3
Organic (wet) waste 6 m arm-roll container covered with lid, located at all times at each
market.
Inorganic (dry) waste 1.2 m3 plastic/steel containers with wheels and covered with lid
(preferred to use light color, for example yellow waste container).

Table 7.9 shows the type of fleet, frequency, and process of waste collection and transportation
for this concept.

Table 7.9: Waste collection and transportation proposed of recommended concept for markets
Collection and
Type of Type of collection and Collection and transportation
transportation
waste transportation fleet process
frequency
3
Organic 6 m arm-roll truck Once/day (fixed - Recommended waste collection
(wet) timing) mechanism is the direct communal
waste system which theusers will dispose
of their waste at collection points,
namely arm rolls.
fleet type is arm-roll trucks.
- Waste will be transported from the
collection point to the ITF located at
Rawa Kucing landfill site.
Inorganic 6 m3 compactor truck Once/day (fixed - Recommended waste collection
(dry) timing) mechanism is the direct communal
waste system which theusers will dispose
of their waste at collection point.
- Waste will be transported to the ITF
located at Rawa KucingLandfill site.
3
Residue 6 m arm-roll truck or Once/week (fixed - The residue from ITF will be
dump trucks loaded timing) transported to the landfill using the
using skid loaders arm-roll truck or dump trucks.
(located at the ITF)

Waste treatment and recycling activity for this concept will be carried out in the Intermediate
Treatment Facility.
4. Final disposal
Final disposal will be carried out atRawa Kucing Landfill.
7.5 Recommended Integrated Solid Waste Management for Soekarno-Hatta

International Airport
Based on the calculation of Master plan for Solid Waste Management for City of Tangerang, the
waste generation from Soekarno-Hatta International Airport (SHIA) for the next 20 years will be
as follows:
Table 7.10: Waste generation from Soekarno-Hatta International Airport

Waste Generation Percentages
Year
(tons/day) (%)
2018 51 3.7
2023 61 3.7
2028 72 3.7
2033 86 3.7
The recommendation for solid waste management of SHIA from CDIA Team will be as follow:
1- Since the waste in SHIA is managed by private party, City of Tangerang should notify them
about the integrated solid waste management system for City of Tangerang. Especially on the

64
segregation system applied in City of Tangerang which will be divided into four stream,
organic waste, inorganic waste (recyclables waste), glass waste, and bulk waste.
2- The waste from SHIA will be transported directly to the ITF in Rawa Kucing Site and
treatment fee should be paid against the waste delivered to the ITF. The treatment fee will be
officially announced once the system is up and running and treatment costs can be calculated
accurately..
3- Based on the National Standards of Indonesia 03-3241-1997 related to landfill site selection
procedures, the minimum distance from landfill site to propeller aircraft airport is 1500 meters.
The CDIA Team believes that the distance from the site to the airport is approximately 1 to 1.5
km.
7.6 Recommended Integrated Solid Waste Management for Other Waste

Other waste is glass and bulk waste. This section will present the CDIA Team‟s recommended
interated solid waste management system for glass and bulk waste.
7.6.1 Glass Waste

It is recommended that City of Tangerang carries out a separate study on glass waste in the near
future, mainly to (a) accurately quantify and classify glass wastes generated in the City of
Tangerang; (b)Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) and how much glass waste does that
include, policies, institutional, technical and other aspects to ensure that EPR is properly
implemented; and (c) If the waste quantity remaining after EPR actions makes a
business/financial sense for Private Sector Participation(PSP), carry out market survey on the
potential demand from private sector and cost benefit analysis for a recycling plant potential in
City of Tangerang.
Otherwise, if the cost benefit analysis outcome confirms that it is not an attractive option forPSP
in glass wastes, then the recommended CDIA Team‟s ISWM system for glass should be fully
implemented. Until such study is carried out, City of Tangerang is responsible to safely manage
glass wastes to avoid safety concerns related to poor glass management practices.
1. Waste container
Citizens will be instructed to segregate their unused glass waste in a plastic bag and disposed of
once this bag is full. It is important for City of Tangerang to advise citizens on minimization of
glass waste disposal, by reusing glass bottles, and disposing of only glass bottles that has no use.

Waste collection and transportation for Residential area:
Citizens will give their glass waste to the handcarts collection services along with the inorganic
(dry) waste but in separate plastic bag. The handcarts will transport the glass waste to the nearest
MRF or Waste Bank.
Waste collection and transportation for Non-residential areas and Markets:

Waste collection and transportation schedule is once a week, the same as the schedule of
inorganic waste. Having said that non-residential and market waste generators will be notified to
only dispose of a FULL plastic bag and not partially full, in order to minimize plastic bags
disposal as it has no to minimal recycling potential. Based on that fixed schedule and time, the

waste generators will dispose of their glass waste and compactor trucks will collect and transport
the waste to Intermediate Treatment Facility located at Rawa Kucing landfill. The compactor
truck will be equipped with a big sack to store the glass waste separately from other inorganic
waste, in order to avoid mixing of glass waste with other wastes and have it properly segregated
and sold for third party processing plants outside of City of Tangerang.
3. Waste treatment
At the MRF and Waste Bank glass waste will not be treated or processed, it will stored in the
storage unit and transported on monthly basis to the Intermediate Treatment Facility along with
the processes recyclables. At the Intermediate Treatment Facility located at Rawa Kucing landfill
site, glass waste will not be treated or processed. Glass waste will beauctioned with other
recyclables on monthly basis for interested third party buyers and processing plants within
Indonesia and overseas within Asia region.
City of Tangerangis advised to cooperate with the glass bottles producers following the EPR
policy established by the Government of Indonesia through Regulation of the Minister of
Environment Number 13 Year 2012, in regards to the Implementation of Reduce, Reuse and
Recycle through Waste Bank, and the EPR towards wastes generated. EPR is a policy that was
designed in order to integrate the environmental cost into the whole process of production of the
goods until the product can no longer be used, so that the environmental protection becomes part
of the cost component of the market price of the product.
7.6.2 Bulk Waste

Bulk waste will be collected on request basis. Citizens will be provided with hotline to request for
bulk waste collection and transportation. The hotline will also be used for City of Tangerang
residents to complaint or provide comments, share ideas to improve the sector, service quality,
etc.regarding the solid waste management system services provided by the City of Tangerang.
The transportation fleet will pick up the bulk waste using dump trucks to be stored atdedicated
area for recyclables at Rawa Kucing landfill site, for its monthly auctioning. For those citizens
who lived near the MRF or Waste Bank, they can transport their bulk waste to the MRF and the
Waste Bank for temporary storage and will be transported to the ITF on monthly basis along with
the processed recyclables. Another idea would be providing the bulk waste to NGO(s) who can
refurbish bulk waste for reuse by low income citizens/areas, for example furniture, electronics,
etc. That would serve low income areas and reduce storage capacity required at the Rawa Kucing
Landfill site.
7.7 Hotline for Solid Waste Management Services

CDIA Team recommended ISWM system requires City of Tangerang operating a hotline for
SWM services, with the following main functions:
4- Receipt of any complaints, comments, suggestions, etc. from the Citizens of City of
Tangerang.
5- Requests for collection and proper disposal of bulk wastes generated from the Citizens of City
of Tangerang at no cost, on scheduled basis (once per week).
6- Requests for collection and proper processing of agricultural / green wastes generated from the
Citizens of City of Tangerang (once per week).

66
7.8 EHS Aspects Recommended ISWM System
The recommended concepts take into consideration the best practices related to EHS. SOPs for
the collection and transportation, MRFs and ITFs should be developed and provided with proper,
sufficient and continuous on the job training to ensure these facilities are operated and maintained
following the best practices and manufacturers procedures. Continuous supervision and
performance monitoring on the facilities has to be in place. The proper safety gear should at all-
time on site be worn by the staffs.
7.9 Social Aspects Recommended ISWM System

Table 7.11 below provides the number of job opportunities and the different specializations for
the recommended ISWM system for City of Tangerang. The total number of job opportunities
comes to 3,763 employees/job opportunities until 2043 for both genders and different levels of
education. Table 7.11 below shows the detail job opportunities during the 30 years planning
period. It is clear that the number of job opportunities is much higher than the number of informal
waste pickers and SW operators operating in the City of Tangerang.
Table 7.11: Staffing Requirement for the ISWM system during 30 years period
Year 2014 2018 2023 2028 2033 2038
Collection and Transportation
Hand cart 433 493 88 598 214 748
Compactor Truck 135 21 30 36 44 52
Arm Roll Truck 212 32 47 56 67 81
Dump Truck 104 16 23 28 33 40
Material Recovery Facility
Plant Manager 12 - - - - -
Sorting 48 - - - - -
IVC Reactor 24
Clean Up 12 - - - - -
Security 24 - - - - -
Administration/Accounting 12 - - - - -
Intermediate Treatment Facility 40 10 30 60 20 40
Total 1,016 562 188 718 358 921
Source: CDIA Team estimates based on manufacturers and best operational practices.

CHAPTER 8
RECOMMENDED TREATMENT AND RECYCLING
FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
8.1 Recommended Treatment and Recycling in Community Level

As per recommended concepts in Chapter 7, the recommended treatment and recycling in
community level will be carried out in Waste Bank and Material Recovery Facility.
8.1.1 Recommended Solid Waste Management in Waste Bank

CDIA Team recommended that the Waste Bank mainly to serve the low income areas and
middle income areas. Citizens bring their recyclables to the facility and get financial reward at
the end of the month (CDIA Team used 50% of market price in the financial analysis be given to
the Citizens as reward/incentive for bringing in their recyclables).
8.1.2 Recommended Solid Waste Management Material Recovery Facility

Material recovery facility will receive recyclables that has been collected by Waste Bank for
sorting and cost efficiently processing the recyclables for transportation to the Storage Unit at
Rawa Kucing Landfill Site for sale at the end of each month). Flow diagram of MRF is presented
in Figure 8.1.
Figure 8.1: Flow diagram of MRF for City of Tangerang

68
Material recovery facility will also receive the organic waste from the communities in low income
areas that have no access to the collection points for processing in in-vessel composting. So that,
the location of MRF should be near the communities that have no access to the collection points.
Each MRF is conceptually designed to manage the 20-30 tons/day inorganic waste and 2.5
tons/day of organic waste. The objectives of the MRFs are as follows:
1- Recovery of recyclable material;
2- Process the organic solid waste by using efficient and EHS friendly technology, namely
enclosed in-vessel composting technology;
3- Significant minimization of waste quantities requiring transportation and disposal at the
landfill; and
4- Extension of the lifetime of the landfill.
8.1.3 Recommended Conceptual Design of Material Recovery Facility

The layout of recommended MRF for the City of Tangerang is shown in Figure 8.2 below.
Figure 8.2: Layout of recommended MRF for City of Tangerang
Conceptual design for MRF is as follows:

1- Design capacity and lifetime
Each MRF has a design lifetime of 30 years and capacity of 20-30 tons/day for inorgfanic
waste and 2.5 tons/day for organic waste. Each service area in City of Tangerang will have 3-4
units of MRF. MRF has storage capacity for bulk waste.
2- Type of structure, land requirements and equipment
a- The type of structure of the MRF is a steel hangar (can be relocated), and offices and guard
room are steel containers (can be easily relocated) and not permanent building(s).
b- Land requirements for an MRF is approximately 900 m2 for 30 years service lifetime.
However, since the land acquisition in City of Tangerang is very difficult, CDIA Team
recommend to use 15 x 15 m of area for starting capacity.
c- Each MRF must be equipped with the following equipment/machinery:
- Sorting line (conveyor belt) with 20-30 tons/day capacity (service lifetime 30 years);
- Pressing machine (compactor) with 20-30 tons/day capacity (service lifetime 30 years);
- Bailing machine (service lifetime 30 years);

- HotRot (or similar – Figure 8.3) in-vessel composter(equipped with screen and
bagging equipment) with 2.5 tons/day capacity (service lifetime 15 years).
Figure 8.3: In-vessel composting for MRF in City of Tangerang
Waste transportation system recommended is the arm roll truck with capacity of 6 m3. An arm-
roll container will be located at each MRF were the residue/rejects from the MRF will be disposed
of, and transported every 4 days (calculated) to the final disposal.
7. Final disposal
Only rejects/residue from the MRF will be disposed of at Rawa Kucing Landfill.
8.2 Treatment and Recycling Technologies Analysis for Central Level

8.2.1 Treatment and Recycling Technologies Options
The options of treatment and recycling technology for City of Tangerang are presented as follow
(detail on Annex B):
8.2.1.1 Physical Process: Material Recovery Facility

A MRF is a processing facility where materials are sorted and prepared for marketing either to
end users (manufacturers) or to other treatment facilities for additional processing, mainly to
safeguard the downstream treatment technologies from receiving incompatible waste to the
installed treatment technology/plant.
Table 8.1: Advantages and disadvantages of material recovery facility

Advantages Disadvantages
 MRFs can be easily upgraded or expanded.  Higher capital and operating costs (although
 MRFs can be relocated, losing on the cost per ton is typically lower) compared to
minimal civil work required, since its mostly waste picking from streets / disposal sites.
steel manufactured.\  Lower per-ton revenue to the plant
 EHS friendly. developer.
 Attractive for residents and businesses since  Potential for lower commodity value if
it eliminates illegal sorting in the streets / quality control is not maintained.
containers / curbs.  Potential operational and cost impacts to end
 Inclusion of waste pickers in a modern, EHS users if market specifications are not met.
friendly facility.

70
 Greater amounts of recyclables recovered in a
consistent manner compared to waste picking
in public areas / final disposal site.
 No specialized collection vehicles needed.
8.2.1.2 Biological Process: In Vessel Composting

In-vessel composting refers to any type of composting that takes place inside a structure,
container, or vessel41. Each type of system relies upon mechanical aeration and turning to enhance
and decrease the duration of the composting process.
Table 8.2: Advantages and disadvantages of in vessel composting

 Effects of weather are diminished;  Higher capital costs than conventional
 Less manpower is required to operate the composting;
systems and staff is less exposed to  Greater expense and skill required for
composting material operation and maintenance;
 Less land requirements compare to other  Systems may need to be shut down due to
composting technologies odor problems, lack of available spare parts
 Can often be done onsite, saving collection or for routine maintenance such as emptying;
and transportation costs;  Capacity is limited by the size of the vessel,
 Process air and leachate can be more easily although many systems are now modular for
collected and treated; increased capacity.
 Public acceptance of facility much better
 Can accommodate various types and
amounts of organic waste.
8.2.1.1 Waste to Energy

Waste-to-energy technologies convert waste matter into variousforms of fuel that can be used to
supply energy. Energy can be derived from waste that has been treated and pressed into solid fuel,
waste that has been converted into biogas or syngas, or heat and steam from waste that has been
incinerated. Figure 8.4 shows the waste technologies diagram.
Figure 8.4:Waste to Energy technology diagram
41
Governo, Jason et al. 2003. The Compost White Paper: Large-Scale Composting in Georgia. College of Agricultural
and Environmental Sciences: The University of Georgia

A. Physical Process: Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF)
RDF is combustible since high calorific fraction is recovered from MSW. RDF production line
consists of several unit operations in series in order to separate unwanted components and
condition the combustible matter to obtain required RDF characteristics.
Table 8.3: Advantages and disadvantages of refuse derived fuel

 The process can handle most of municipal  High capital costs
solid waste  Still require organic waste treatment system
 Minimize landfill requirement
 Utilize the waste into useful product (pellet
as fuel)
B. Biological Process: Anaerobic Digestion

Anaerobic digestion is a natural biological decomposition process that occurs in oxygen-free
conditions. It involves the conversion of organic matter by microorganisms to generate a gaseous
product, known as “biogas”, leaving a stabilized solid product, known as “digestate” 42.
Table 8.4: Advantages and disadvantages of anaerobic digestion

 Lower emission of carbon dioxide (because  It is slow, so it needs large, costly digesters
some complex compounds are not digested) (capital costs for other biological processes
 Promotes carbon sequestration such as composting are much lower)
 Conservation of these complex organics as a  Material handling and preparation problems
potential soil conditioner can arise
 Easy treatment of the “wet” fraction of MSW  Wastewater treatment can be costly
(which is problematic in incineration)  The need for separate treatment of the non -
 Elimination of odors (AD plants are fully biodegradable materials imposes additional
enclosed) costs
 No production of such toxic products as  The digestate is often of poor quality,
dioxins unsuitable for sale as compost
 Captures nutrients for reuse and reduces use
of inorganic fertilizers
 Protects groundwater and surface water
resources
C. Thermal Process: Incineration

Incineration process is one of the technology options for municipal solid waste treatment that use
thermal process to minimize the amount (volume and weight) of waste and converts it to produce
energy.
Table 8.5: Advantages and disadvantages of incineration

 Minimum of land is needed compared to the  High capital and operation and maintenance
dimensions of waste disposal sites (landfill). costs
 The weight of the waste is reduced to 25% of  The air pollution controls required in
the initial value. incineration plants are extremely expensive.
 The waste volume is reduced to almost 10%  Energy produced by means of waste
42
Potts, Lee G.A. & Martin, Duncan J.2002. Waste Management and Minimization: Anaerobic Digestion, Gasification
and Pyrolisis.EOLSS: UK

72
of the initial value. incineration is not likely to be practical for
 By using the ashes for environmentally small communities.
appropriate construction, low costs are  The extremely high technical standards of
provided and furthermore the need for the plants require skilled workers, which
landfill capacity is reduced. leads to the facts that rather high wages have
 The produced residues, ash and slag as well to be paid.
as the developed flue gases, are odour-free.  The residues from the flue gas cleaning can
 As the raw material needed for waste contaminate the environment if they aren‟t
incineration, which is municipal waste, is handled appropriately.
said to be kind of renewable resources, it  People‟s efforts to avoid waste production
helps to reduce the use of fossil fuels or non- are minimized when they know that their
renewable resources. waste is burnt in an incineration plant.
8.2.2 Evaluation Criteria and Ranking for Treatment Technologies

Based on the proposed treatment technologies presented above (detail in the Annex B), the CDIA
Team developed evaluation criteria that meet the City of Tangerang‟s SWM Master Plan
objectives, Government of Indonesia directions and KPIs identified by the CDIA Team, in order
to rank the treatment technologies and select the optimum option for the City of Tangerang.
The evaluation criteria are as follows:

1- Technical criteria
- Scale of operation is appropriate for current and future demand
- Large scale proven technology/system
- Low land requirement
- Capable of diverting at least 70% by weight of MSW from landfill disposal
2- Financial criteria
- Least cost solution (for CAPEX and OPEX) that meets regulatory and environmental
criteria
- Already existing market for its byproducts
- Acceptance of the Central Government of Indonesia for the type of technology
3- Environmental criteria
- Complying with environmental regulations and standards
4- Social criteria
- Potential job opportunities
- Social acceptance for the SWM system
- Potential for inclusion of existing informal waste collectors and community based systems
5- Regulatory criteria
- Effectiveness in meeting output/targeted objectives for the City of Tangerang
6- Institutional criteria
- Existing (international/national) examples of successful PPPs utilizing similar technology
- Potential availability of staff and skills for O&M and management
In order to select the preferred technology, each technology will be rated against all of the above
criteria. Selected systems from collection to treatment will then be combined to form the preferred
integrated SWM concept and subjected to more detailed technical and financial analysis. A pre-
feasibility study will be prepared during the final phase of the project for the preferred/optimum

treatment technology. The existing situation (baseline scenario) will be used to compare with the
proposed ISWM concepts.
Each option is rated against each criterion on a scale of one to five, with one being the least
suitable and five reflecting the most suitable. In case the criteria are not relevant to the
technology, NA will be stated (no score).
It is important to highlight the following:
1- A landfill is always required under any scenario, not only to receive inert/reject materials
from treatment and recycling processes, but also in case of emergency.
2- A Material Recovery Facility (MRF) is required under all scenarios except the baseline/status
quo and incineration scenarios. A MRF is required to ensure that any recyclables going into
the waste stream are segregated, for safeguarding the treatment system downstream from
receiving inappropriate type of waste that it is not designed to process, as well as minimizing
waste disposal at the landfill/extending the lifetime of the landfill.
3- For waste to energy technology, air emissions have to comply with the air emission standards
for the Government of Indonesia (Decree of Ministry of Environment No. 13 for Year 1995,
amended in 2000) or European Union air emission standards (whichever is higher).
The following options have been identified for the treatment and disposal of waste at the central
site (located at Rawa Kucing site) and are subsequently described and evaluated in more detail:
Option 1: Baseline/status quo: unimproved Rawa Kucing Landfill.
Option 2: Improved operations of Rawa Kucing landfill to meeting regulatory standards for
operation of sanitary landfill.
Option 3: MRF for organics separation and in-vessel composting plant with landfilling of
residuals.
Option 4: Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) plant with landfilling of residuals.
Option 5: MRF for organics separation and anaerobic digestion plant for electricity generation
andlandfilling of residuals.
Option 6: Incineration plant with landfilling of ash.
8.2.3 Option Comparison and Selection For Treatment Technology

Table 8.6 below compares the different technological treatment options against the evaluation
criteria set by the CDIA Team. The conclusions are as follows:
1. MRF for organics separation and anaerobic digestion plant for electricity generation and
landfilling of residuals (option 5) is ranked first. This technology is ONLY suitable with the
recommended concepts (3R approach) as presented in Chapter 7. If the recommended
concepts will not be successfully implemented, the CDIA Team recommends to the City of
Tangerang to implement the second ranked option, namely RDFplant (point 2 below).
2. Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) plant with landfilling of residuals (option 4) is ranked second.
There is very limited competition in Indoneisa to allow good platform for a win – win legally
binding commitment between the City of Tangerang and the project developer.In addition the
technology is not financially viable based on the information provided by the only interested
RDF developer in the Country, namely Holcim (please refer to Section 11.3.2.4 for the
financial analysis).
3. Incineration plant with landfilling of ash (option 6) is ranked third. It is important to note
that City of Tangerang is committed to 3 R and waste minimization at the source, following
the Government of Indonesia legislations and directions as well as the City‟s green vision and
the SWM Master plan for year 2012. Given that incineration requires waste with high calorific

74
value which necessitates collection and transportation of mixed wastes to the incinerator
plant, this option can ONLY be considered if mixed waste will be collected and directed to
the incineration plant (NO waste picking activities should be allowed). Generated ashes will be
safely disposed of at the sanitary landfill. Mixed waste will be incinerated and energy will be
generated and sold to the grid through a power purchase agreement (PPA) with PLN (tariff
already in place).
.

Table 8.6: Options Comparison and Selection for Treatment Technology
Option 3 –
Option 5 – Option 6 –
In-vessel Option 4 –
Evaluation criteria Option 1 Option 2 Anaerobic Incineration
composting RDF plant
digestion plant
plant
Technical criteria
Scale of operation is appropriate for current and future demand 1 1 3 3 3 4
Large scale proven technology/system 5 5 4 3 4 5
Low land requirement 1 1 3 3 5 5
Capable of diverting at least 70% by weight of MSW from landfill
NA NA 4 5 4 5
disposal
Financial criteria:
Least cost solution (for CAPEX and OPEX) that meets regulatory and
NA 5 4 4 2 1
environmental criteria
Already existing market for its byproducts NA 5 2 5 5 5
Acceptance of the Central Government of Indonesia for the type of
NA 3 4 4 4
technology
Environmental criteria
Complying with environmental regulations and standards NA 5 5 5 5 5
Social criteria
Potential job opportunities 5 2 4 4 4 1
Social acceptance for the MSW system 1 1 2 3 5 5
Potential for inclusion of existing informal waste collectors and
NA 1 4 4 4 1
community based systems
Regulatory criteria
Effectiveness in meeting output/targeted objectives for the City of
NA 1 3 4 4 1
Tangerang
Institutional criteria
Existing (international/national) examples of successful PPPs
1 5 2 3 4 5
utilizing similar technology
Potential availability of staff and skills for O&M and management 3 3 2 2 1 1
TOTAL 17 38 44 49 54 48
RANKINGS 6 5 4 2 1 3

76
8.3 Intermediate Treatment Facility (ITF) for City of Tangerang
Based on the detailed review of the appropriate treatment technologies (please refer to Annex B
for detailed information) for the City of Tangerang and the evaluation process presented in
Section 8.2.2, the recommended treatment technology for the City of Tangerang to be built on the
existing Rawa Kucing landfill site is Anaerobic digestion to electricity generation. The
recommended Intermediate Treatment Facility (ITF) comprises three stages to be built in
series and are as follows:
Stage 1: Material recovery facility (MRF) - the main purpose of the MRF is to safeguard the
treatment plant downstream to ensure that the appropriate waste stream is fed into the
plant.
Stage 2: Anaerobic digestion plant (AD) –treat the organic portion of the waste and generate
biogas (methane) and residual also referred to as digestate (compost).
Stage 3: Electricity production – Utilization of the produced biogas to generate electricity
which is sold to the PLN grid as renewable source of energy.
Figure 8.5 below presents schematically the three sections of the IntermediateTreatment Facility
for the City of Tangerang.
Figure 8.5: Schematic diagram of the IntermediateTreatment Facility for City of Tangerang
8.3.1 Stage 1: Material Recovery Facility (MRF)

Objectives of MRF:Material recovery facility will be the first stage of treatment at the ITF,
which is a physical pre-treatment process of the incoming waste with three main objectives:
1- Safeguard the downstream anaerobic digestion plant from receiving inorganic wastes;
2- Removal of inorganic wastes / undesirable materials 43present in the presorted organic waste
stream coming from generation points (residential and non-residential);
3- Segregation and sorting of the pre-sorted inorganic wastescoming from generation points
(residential and non-residential); and
4- Ensuring homogenous feedstock of organic wastes to the anaerobic digester.
Components of the MRF:MRFcomprises the following processes / components:
43
Verma, Shefalli.2002.Anaerobic Digestion of Biodegradable Organics in Municipal Solid wastes. Columbia University:
USA

1- Reception area;
2- Conveyor belt fitted with manual, semi–automated and automated sorting processes of the
different inorganic materials;
3- Shutes for collection of recyclables;
4- Transportation of sorted recyclables to compaction and bailing processes; and
5- Storage facility of the different types of bailed recyclables, ready for sales.
6- Organic material shredding / chopping and fed into the anaerobic digestion plant.
Sources of wastes to MRF: Mainly two sources as follows:

Source 1: Presorted organic wastes at the points of generation, namely residential (low, middle
and high), non-residential and markets. This represents the feedstock for the
anaerobic digestion plant.
Source 2: Presorted inorganic wastes at points of generation, namely residential (middle and
high), non-residential and markets.The inorganic waste from low level income
residential areas is managed at the local Waste Banks and MRFs, and the wastes
transported to ITF have already been sorted, compacted, and bailed, and will go
directly to the storage warehouse, ready for sales.
The schematic diagram of the MRF at the ITF is presented in Figure 8.6 below.
Figure 8.6: Schematic diagram of the MRF at the ITF

78
8.3.2 Stage 2: Anaerobic Digestion Processes
Objectives of Anaerobic digestion processes:
1- Treat the organic component of the municipal solid waste using a very small surface area;
2- Generate biogas and compost;
3- Extend the lifetime of the landfill up to 2.5 times compared to business as usual.
Components of the Anaerobic Digestion Plant:

An anaerobic digestion processes will consist primarily of the following units / processes.
However, the design of these can vary depending on the manufacturers‟ design for the whole
system.
a. Feeding System
After storage and conditioning, the feedstock will be fed into the anaerobic digester. The
feeding technique depends on the feedstock type and its pumpability. In case of organic
fraction from municipal solid waste, which have a low pumpability, the feeding methods can
be tipped/poured by a loader into the feeding system and fed into the anaerobic digester (by a
screw pipe system).
b. Armatures and Pipelines

Armatures and pipelines used in biogas installations must be corrosion proof and suitable to
handle specific types of materials (biogas and biomass). The materials used for pipelines
depend on the transported load and pressure level, which include PPV, HDPE, steel, and
stainless steel.
c. Heating System-Digester Heating

One of the most important conditions for stable operation and high biogas yields on anaerobic
digestion is constant process temperature. The large fluctuations of temperature lead to
unbalance of the anaerobic digestion process, and in worst cases to complete process failure.
The cause of temperature fluctuations are as follows:

 Addition of new feedstock, with different temperature than the one of the process
 Formation of temperature layers or temperature zones due to insufficient insulation,
ineffective or incorrect dimensioning of heating system or insufficient stirring
 Inadequate placement of heating elements
 Extreme outdoor temperatures during summer or winter
 Failure of power trains
To achieve and maintain a constant process temperature and to compensate for eventual heat
losses, the anaerobic digesters must be insulated and heated by external heating sources.
Heating the feedstock can be done either during the feeding process (pre-heating), through heat
exchangers or it can be done inside the digester, by heating elements, hot steam etc.
d. Anaerobic Digesters
The core component of an anaerobic digestion plant is the digesters, which is an air proof
reactor tank, where the decomposition of feedstock takes place, in absence of oxygen, and
where biogas is produced. Table 8.7 below show the two types of anaerobic digesters that are
usually applied.

Table 8.7: Types of anaerobic digesters used
Completely Mixed Digesters Plug Flow Digesters
 Round, simple tank construction, vertical  Elongated, horizontal tank
 Completely mixed  Vertically mixed
 Suitable for simple and wet feedstock  Suitable for difficult feedstock (organic
(liquid manure) solid waste)
 Fractions of the undigested feedstock can  Normally, no short cut between inflow
reach the outflow and outflow, secure sanitation
 Process temperature 20o-27o C  Process temperature 35o-55o C
 Retention time 30-90 days  Retention time 15-30 days
e. Stirring Technologies
A minimum stirring of biomass inside the digester takes place by passive stirring. This occurs
by insertion of fresh feedstock and the subsequent thermal convection streams as well as by the
up-flow of gas bubbles. As passive stirring is not sufficient for optimal operation of the
digester, active stirring must be implemented, using mechanical, hydraulic or pneumatic
equipment. Up to 90% of biogas plants use mechanical stirring equipment. The type of stirring
technologies can be divided as mechanical stirring, pneumatic stirring, and hydraulic stirring.
f. Biogas Storage
In an anaerobic digestion process, biogas is formed in fluctuating quantities and with
performance peaks. To compensate this variation, the biogas needs to be stored temporarily in
an appropriate storage facility. Biogas storage established on top of digesters is the simplest
solution to store the biogas. Usually using gas tight membrane, which also has the function as
digester cover.
g. Biogas Cleaning and Conditioning

The gas cleaning and conditioning is needed to comply with the minimum requirements for the
properties of the combustible gas that is suitable with the gas engine generators, which are
presented in Table 8.8 below.
Table 8.8: Properties of the combustible gas suitable for gas engine generators 44
Parameter Symbol Value
Heat value (lower heat value) Hu ≥ 4 kWh/m3
Sulphur content (total) S ≤ 2.2 g/m3 CH4
H2S content H2S ≤ 0.15 % vol
Chlorine content Cl ≤ 100 mg/m3 CH4
Fluoride content F ≤ 50 mg/m3 CH4
Sum of Chlorine and Fluoride CL+F ≤ 100 mg/m3 CH4
Dust (3-10 µm) ≤ 10 mg/m3 CH4
Relative humidity (at lowest intake air temperature) ᵠ < 90%
Flow pressure before entry into the gas control path Pgas 20-100 mbar
Gar pressure fluctuation < ± 10% of set value
Gas temperature T 10-50oC
Hydrocarbons (>C5) <0.4 mg/m3CH4
Silicon Si <10.0 mg/m3 CH4
Methane e count (Biogas MC approx. 135) MZ >135
44
Seadi, Teodorita Al et al.2008.Biogas Handbook.University of Southern Denmark Esbjerg: Denmark

80
The gas conditioning process includes desulphurization (removal of H2S) and drying.
Desulphurization
Removal of H2S from biogas (desulphurization) can be done by several methods; both
biological and chemical, taking place inside or outside the digester. Desulphurization depends
on the content of H2S and the throughput rate throughout the desulphurization equipment.
Drying
The relative humidity of biogas inside the digester is 100%, so the gas is saturated with
watervapors. To protect the energy conversion equipment from wear and from eventual
damage, water must be removed from the produced biogas. Several methods for drying the
biogas are as follows:
 Condensed by cooling off the gas
 Cooling the gas in electrically powered gas coolers
Digestate Storage
The digested substrate is pumped out of the digester through pumping sequences and
transported through pipelines to storage facilities, in the vicinity of the digester, where
digestate can be temporarily stored (several days).
Conceptual design of the Anaerobic Digestion Processes for City of Tangerang:

Based on the City of Tangerang existing solid waste management system, waste composition,
characteristics, data gathered from manufacturers and recently implemented successfully operated
anaerobic digesters, the CDIA Team recommends the following conceptual design for the AD
plant which is presented in Table 8.9 below. However, it is important to note that this conceptual
design is on the low to average side in terms of gas generation rates and consequently electricity
generation potential. Please refer to Section 11.3.3 Implementation and operation
arrangement for additional information on how the City of Tangerang can maximize outcomes /
revenues from the plant, which would contribte to better sustainability of the project.
Table 8.9: Conceptual design criteria for anaerobic digestion plant for City of Tangerang
Type of Dry process; single stage Most cost efficient, minimal land area
Anaerobic and batch process (flexibility requirement, low OPEX costs and requirements.
digestion shuld be given however moderate gas generation rates.
process tomanufactuers to provide
their technology as long as Manufacturers should be given freedom in
gas / electricity generation is bidding documents to propose their technologies
maximized) and one of the important criteria is gas generation
rates.
Plant design 300 tons / day (organic Plant starts with 300 tpd in 2016, upon successful
capacity: municipal solid waste) – implementation of the CDIA recommended
includes 20% additional segregated collection and operation of the AD to
capacity for the bulking energy plant, expansion as follows:
agent (to achieve 25:1 C/N Year 2018: additional 100t/d
ratio) and compensate for Year 2020: additional 100t/d
any fluctuations in waste Year 2022-2016: additional 200t/d every 2 years
generation rates until reaching full capacity of 1200 tons/day in
2026
Expanded gradually until maximum capacity of

2000 tons/day in 2037
Location At Rawa Kucing site Most cost efficient location given that land is
available and its centrally located
Land 4 hectares Starts with 4 ha and requires approximately an
requirement: additional 1 ha every incremental increase of
100t/d capacity.
Electricity 2 to 10 MW MW will expand during the lifetime of the project
generation
Plant 30 years Infrastructure designed and constructed for 30
lifetime years survive lifetime
CDIA Team developed two scenarios:

3- Conservative scenario: Higher CAPEX and OPEX estimates, with lower estimates of
revenues (lower biogas generation potential per ton of MSW, which is reflected on lower
methane and electricity generation; and lower compost generation percentage).
4- Realistic scenario: Realistic CAPEX and OPEX estimates, with realistic estimates of revenues
(realistic biogas generation potential per ton of MSW, which is reflected on realistic methane
and electricity generation; and realistic compost generation percentage).
Under each scenario four options were financially analyzed, which are as follows:
Option 1: revenues from electricity only;
Option 2: revenues from electricity & compost;
Option 3: revenues from electricity only with grant for plant CAPEX; and
Option 4: revenues from electricity & compost with grant for plant CAPEX.
Table 8.10 below presents the assumptions used for the conservative and realistic scenarios.
Table 8.10: Data and Assumption for conservative and realistic scenarios for Anaerobic
Digestion plant to electricity generation
ASSUMPTION
ITEM UNIT RANGE
Realistic Conservative
Gas Generation
Biogas per ton of waste m3 85 80 80 to 165
Methane concentration in biogas % 70 55 55 to 75
CH4 produced (m3 / ton waste) m3/ton waste 59.5 44 -
Electrical Output
Energy contained in 100%biogas Kcal/m3 8300 8300 -
Energy contained in CH4 biogas Kcal/m3 5810 4565 -
Electrical Efficiency of IC gensets % 36.72% 36.72%
Assumed percentage of Parasitic Load % 15% 20% 10% to 20%
Operating Hour hours/year 8,000 8,000
Revenue from Electricity
Exchange rate IDR/USD 11,500 11,500
Feed-in Tariff IDR/kWh 1,450 1,450
% of input
Compost quantity generated 30 20 20 to 35%
waste
Compost price $/kg 0.0696 0.0696 800 to 1400 Rp/kg
Compost price $/ton 87 70
Annual compost price increase % 5 5
Total compost sale % 50 50
Financial

82
ASSUMPTION
ITEM UNIT RANGE
Unit CAPEX for Anaerobic
USD/ton 220 230 200 to 250
digester plant
Preventative maintenances cost for
% 0.5 0.5
AD
Heavy equipment
2 Bulldozers million USD 0.40 0.40
2 Loaders million USD 0.40 0.40
Compost Packaging line million USD 0.02 0.02
Power plant system
Gas engine generators (1 MW) million USD 0.40 0.40
Overhauling Period years 5 5
Overhauling cost % 60 60 50%-60%
Preventative maintenances period years 2 2
Preventative maintenances cost % 10 10
Cabling, connections, etc. million USD 0.55 0.55
Transformer for 1 MW engine million USD 0.05 0.05
Unit Cost for OPEX USD/ton 15.00 20.00 $12 to $20/ton
8.3.3 Stage 3: Electricity Generation

The biogas generated in the anaerobic digesters will be utilized to generate electricity through the
installed gas engine generators which will be sold to the local electricity grid (through PLN-
National Electricity Company). Figure 8.7 below is a schematic diagram showing the concept for
electricity production and distribution to the local electricity grid.
Figure 8.7: Schematic diagram of electricity production and distribution to the local electricity
grid

CHAPTER 9
RECOMMENDATION FOR FINAL DISPOSAL AT
RAWA KUCING LANDFILL
The City of Tangerang contracted a consulting firm in 2011 to prepare detailed Feasibility Study
(FS) and Detailed Engineering Design (DED) for the rehabilitation and closure of the existing
dumping cells at Rawa Kucing disposal site, and construction of sanitary cells on the existing Rawa
Kucing landfill site. This project would enable the City of Tangerang to meet the Regulatory
requirements set by the Government of Indonesia under Act Number 18 Year 2008 (please refer to
Annex 1 for further details).This section presents the detailed review of the FS and DED..
From the CDIA Team‟s perspective, the main objectives of implementing this project are:
1- Comply with Act of Republic of Indonesia Number 18 Year 2008.
2- Minimize/mitigate the environmental impacts associated with open dumping at the current open
dumpsite (Rawa Kucing site);
3- Minimize/mitigate social impacts; and
4- Provide long term disposal plan for the wastes generated from the City of Tangerang.
In general, rehabilitation and closure of dumpsites / landfills involves preparation of rehabilitation

and closure plan, which is part of the detailed feasibility study and should include the following:
 Close the existing disposal cells to receipt of any future solid wastes;
 Depending on the various surveys (geological, hydrological, structural, etc.) to be carried out,
works to be carried out may include but not limited to re-profiling, cut and fill, compaction,
excavation of old waste, construction of sanitary cells and refilling old waste following sanitary
landfill best practice operations, etc. with the main objectives of mitigating any further
environmental pollution / damages and optimizing the use of valuable landfill space;
 Cap the cells with necessary layers (membranes and / or soil) to address leachate minimization
and gas control requirements;
 Landscape the site as needed to render it aesthetically acceptable and to support the erosion,
slope stability and pollution control requirements, and to ensure that the capping is designed to
suit the intended after use;
 Provide mitigation measures of drainage, leachate collection and treatment, gas ventilation, and
monitoring to address pollution control requirements;
 specifications and materials to be used in the final cap;
Preservation / installation of environment performance control or monitoring features.

84
9.1 Detailed Review of Feasibility Study for Rawa Kucing Landfill
In general the tasks under the detailed feasibility study should include the following:
- Detailed assessment of the existing site including but not limited to the following surveys:
a. Topographical surveys: to provide details on waste location, volumes and depths, surface
areas, drainage courses, slope breaks, location of existing features including roads, buildings,
old leachate ponds, wells, houses, etc. Identify all underground and overhead utility systems
on the topographic survey maps, including water supply, sewerage, cables, drains, gas lines,
telephone lines, and electrical lines. Identify all structures, including waste pickers housing
and other informal facilities on the topographic survey maps.
b. Quantities: Inspect and estimate quantities of wastes of various types at the site(s). Specify
the safest method of consolidating and concentrating the various piles of wastes (including
any separate piles of bulky wastes, tires, yard wastes and construction debris) into masses
amenable to closure.
c. Geologic surveys: to assure that final slopes will be stable, erosion will be minimized,
drainage and final grades will minimize leachate generation, and final design will conform to
the desired eventual use of the closed site after consolidation/stabilization. This may include,
but not limited to drilling of boreholes to determine soil profiles, permeability, strength and
settlement properties and depths of the soil types encountered and foundations requirements
of any necessary structures to support the design requirements; installation of additional
monitoring wells if needed, to determine the water table and ground water flow regime.
Specify the most appropriate quality of cover materials to be used for final cover and top soil.
Investigations for sources of cover and top soil materials as well as identification of site(s)
with suitable materials should be carried out. Site(s) of suitable materials shall be inspected,
their quantities estimated, and their locations shown in the plans. Analysis and testing will be
carried out as required on the disturbed and undisturbed soil samples and on the construction
materials, in accordance with Government of Indonesia and ASTM standards for testing and
materials or other comparable international standards. All investigations shall comply with
Government of Indonesia guidelines for soils surveys and testing. If there is risk of erosion or
landslide, the Consultant will evaluate the effects of seismic events on the site and subsurface
soils and recommend mitigation measures.
d. Structural evaluation of design and building of drainage structures: Review and verify
the condition, structural adequacy, suitability, anticipated future serviceability, the extent of
the needed repairs and strengthening, manner of existing landfill structures. For example, the
necessity for reinforcement during the excavation works of existing wastes, to avoid soil /
waste collapse in adjacent areas / cells, respectively and additional excavation works to reach
the maximum depth permitted (to maximize use of valuable land space).
e. Drainage / hydrology surveys: hydrological studies required to determine extent of

pollution of underground water and / or water bodies with leachate, and complete the
drainage design and rehabilitation/closure design for the site. Detailed analysis for all
drainage structures either existing or proposed with careful analysis of all available data,
including underground water table depths, movement, pollution if any, rainfall and flood
records, supplemented with detailed on-site drainage, surface water, and flood inspection. All
springs and possible water infiltration shall be investigated. Drainage channels, culverts and

protection works shall be designed adequately to prevent flooding and erosion, as well as to
minimize infiltration which could augment leachate generation.
- Rehabilitation/closure options: Based on the detailed assessment, surveys and findings,

propose technically and environmentally acceptable and cost efficient options for closure of the
site with associated financial, technical, environmental, social implications / details. Selection of
the best option based on evaluation / selection criteria.
- Unit Price Analysis: Prepare preliminary design cost estimates, Prepare detailed analysis of all
unit prices for each part of the proposed rehabilitation / closure using current cost indices, and
divided into local and foreign exchange components.
The detailed reviews of Feasibility Study of rehabilitation of Rawa Kucing Landfill are as follow:
9.1.1 Field Survey and Investigation
1. Topographic survey report
No need to review the general layout. However, the topographic survey must be detailed to
provide accurate information on the following aspects: details on waste location, volumes,
depths, types, surface areas; drainage courses; slope breaks; location of existing features
including roads, buildings, old leachate ponds, wells, houses, etc.; identifying all underground
and overhead utility systems on the topographic survey maps, including water supply,
sewerage, cables, drains, gas lines, telephone lines, and electrical lines. Identify all structures,
including waste pickers housing and other informal facilities on the topographic survey maps.
2. Geotechnical/Geoelectrical/Soil Mechanic investigation and testing report

The soil mechanics & geotechnical / geo-electrical survey need to be reviewed since the results
did not reflect existing condition (what we know from the Operator) on the existing landfill
(height of waste averages 10 m). Geologic surveys must address the following: assures that
final slopes will be stable, erosion will be minimized, drainage and final grades will minimize
leachate generation, and final design will conform to the desired eventual use of the closed site
after consolidation/stabilization. This may include, but not limited to drilling of:
- Boreholes to determine soil profiles, permeability, strength and settlement properties and
depths of the soil types encountered and foundations requirements of any necessary
structures to support the design requirements;
- Installation of additional monitoring wells if needed, to determine the water table and ground
water flow regime.
- Specify the most appropriate quality of cover materials to be used for final cover and top
soil.
- Investigations for sources of cover and top soil materials as well as identification of site(s)
with suitable materials should be carried out.
- Site(s) of suitable materials shall be inspected, their quantities estimated, and their locations
shown in the plans.
- Analysis and testing will be carried out as required on the disturbed and undisturbed soil
samples and on the construction materials, in accordance with Government of Indonesia and
ASTM standards for testing and materials or other comparable international standards.
- All investigations shall comply with Government of Indonesia guidelines for soils surveys
and testing.
- If there is risk of erosion or landslide, the Consultant will evaluate the effects of seismic
events on the site and subsurface soils and recommend mitigation measures.

86
3. Drainage/Hydrology Survey
The hydrological survey is based on data reading at Soekarno Hatta Rain Station. Hydrological
studies required to determine groundwater flow pattern, extent of pollution of underground
water and / or water bodies with leachate or otherwise, and complete the drainage design and
rehabilitation/closure design for the site.
- Detailed analysis for all drainage structures either existing or proposed with careful analysis
of all available data, including underground water table depths, movement, pollution if any,
rainfall and flood records, supplemented with detailed on-site drainage, surface water, and
flood inspection.
- All springs and possible water infiltration shall be investigated.
- Drainage channels, culverts and protection works shall be designed adequately to prevent
flooding and erosion, as well as to minimize infiltration which could augment leachate
generation.
4. Waste density and composition survey

Waste density data is not realistic with the region and international data. 200 kg/m3 is very
low, especially with high organic and moisture content in the context of Indonesia. This data
needs to be revalidated as it is crucial in calculating waste generation quantities.
5. Waste generation survey on the existing landfill

This needs to be revised following the density revision.
9.1.2 Population Growth

Forecast of solid waste generation based on per-capita generation (generation per-capita is based
on Consultant analysis in 2004-2005) validated by waste generation survey at landfill (2010), lead
to conclusion that operating services is at 68% from total possible waste generation. Population
growth needs revision since the basis for annual population growth percentage rate is not clear.
9.1.3 Land Requirement Analysis for Landfill Rehabilitation

Minimum land requirement for rehabilitation according to the study is 40 Ha, based on waste
generation and landfill operation basis. The FS should be detailed on land use analysis, especially
for total area required for projected future landfill operation after rehabilitation works are carried
out.
9.1.4 Landfill Rehabilitation Concept Analysis

a. Operating lifespan is set for minimum 20 years
Operating lifespan should be subjected to economical, social and environmental analysis and
subject to City of Tangerang approval
b. The landfill area feasibility analysis is based on SNI 03-3241-1994 (National Standard)
The feasibility analysis or the future rehabilitation projection did not incorporate the survey
results, the proposed option must be based on the survey and investigation results, and need to
be detailed before jumping into conclusions.
c. Future rehabilitation projection is based on two scenarios; 1- using weighted ranking technique
and 2- disposal of residual waste at the landfill cell (estimated at 20%), while the 80% will be
processed using 3 R approach and treatment (using accelerated composting, anaerobic
digestion, and / or inorganic recycle and refuse derive fuel).

- Need to be detailed on rehabilitation concept based on investigation result, such as remedial
works, optimizing land use, old cell closure and new cell opening, improvement on the
waste cell by adding liner and collection system, etc.
- Rehabilitation / closure options: Based on the detailed assessment, surveys and findings,
propose technically and environmentally acceptable and cost efficient options for closure of
the site with associated financial, technical, environmental, social implications / details.
Selection of the best option based on evaluation / selection criteria.
d. Structural analysis for conceptual design

No analysis had been performed based on survey results.Need review and verify the condition,
structural adequacy, suitability, anticipated future serviceability, the extent of the needed
repairs and strengthening, manner of existing landfill structures. For example, the necessity for
reinforcement during the excavation works of existing wastes, to avoid soil / waste collapse in
adjacent areas / cells, respectively and additional excavation works to reach the maximum
depth permitted (to maximize use of valuable land space).
9.2 Detailed Review of DED for Rawa Kucing Landfill

A detailed engineering design is intended to bring the feasibility level design to the final design
stage and producing as-built drawings. The same design philosophy and cost ranges established in
the feasibility design should be maintained. The design shall be carried out in accordance with the
Government of Indonesia and international design guidelines, criteria and standards, as well as other
design criteria specified by relevant ministries (Ministry of Public Works and Ministry of
Environment). To the extent appropriate the detailed engineering shall propose how best to
incorporate design and construction measures to accelerate waste decomposition, achieve even
consolidation, maximize land and space use, enhance gas ventilation, and achieve geotechnical
stability conditions.
DED stage should also include specifications, bill of quantities and cost estimates, manual of
operations for the safe conduct of the closure / rehabilitation activities, including the monitoring of
gas, leachate, and water quality during and after completion of closure works. Provide a health and
safety manual to address incidents of possible gas releases or accumulations, fires, injuries, slope
instabilities, etc. during the works.
Environment, health and safety (EHS) manual / procedures to address incidents of possible gas
releases or accumulations, fires, injuries, slope instabilities, etc. during the works / construction
phase of the project and after closure. Operational manual should be prepared during the works /
construction phase of the project for the safe conduct of the rehabilitation / closure activities and
construction of the new sanitary cells, including the monitoring of gas, leachate, and water quality
after completion of closure civil works.
The detailed reviews of DED of rehabilitation of Rawa Kucing Landfill are as follow:

88
9.2.1 Survey and Investigation
Based on FS Survey & Investigation document, the CDIA Team has the following comments on
the DED:
a. Topographic survey report need to be redone to accurately reflect the existing situation in
terms of details on waste location, volumes and depths, surface areas, drainage courses, slope
breaks, location of existing features including roads, buildings, old leachate ponds, wells,
houses, etc.
b. Identify all underground and overhead utility systems on the topographic survey maps,
including water supply, sewerage, cables, drains, gas lines, telephone lines, and electrical lines.
c. Identify all structures, including waste pickers housing and other informal facilities on the
topographic survey maps
d. The soil mechanic & geo-electrical survey need to be reviewed / redone since the results do not
reflect the existing condition of the landfill.
9.2.2 Landfill Cell

a. Design criteria
Design criteria using standards and guidance manual for Controlled and Sanitary Landfill by
Directorate General of Human Settlement MoPW (Enri Damanhuri et. al.)
No analysis about the existing cells areas and volumes of wastes / depths / surface areas, as
well as structural / stability analysis, etc.
b. New cell and closure of old cell

6 new cells (12,585 Ha) and 1 rehabilitated cell (rehabilitation / closure - 2.041 Ha, staged
construction.
c. Leachate treatment system

Leachate collection system using gravel drainage layer (400mm) and fish bone configuration
(PVC pipe with 2% slope) for secondary and primary collection toward LTP (leachate
treatment plant).
The use of PVC pipe need evaluation since HDPE is better in terms of chemical resistance and
strength (compressive and tensile strength)
d. Liner system
Liner system using 1,5mm HDPE geomembrane and geotextile for geomembrane upper
protection and no compacted clay layer
The liner system did not meet criteria by US EPA CFR 248.40 (min. 1,5mm HDPE
geomembrane and min. 600mm of compacted clay).
9.2.3 Leachate Treatment Plant

The LTP system consist of 3 unit of treatment which are anaerobic ponds (stabilization), aerated
lagoon (facultative) and maturation pond, the final processing is the existing wetland (Reff.
Design Criteria by Qasim & Chiang, 1994)
Calculation of leachate depth need revision since an incorrect infiltration coefficient has been
used. This will have a dramatic impact on the size of ponds (retention time).

9.2.4 Gas Collection System
The gas collection system consists of two stages, the operating stage using horizontal collection
(gravel layer) and vertical collection (progressive wells), and the closure stage using horizontal
(gravel layer and horizontal pipe) and vertical collection. The gas will be utilized for energy
(biogas) or go to the flaring system if not needed. Needs further details on gas utilization and
review on intermediate horizontal collection during operation stage since the waste will be piled
up to 20 to 25m height.
Given the landfill will be receiving inert / reject waste, there should be no investments in gas
utilization system, and only passive venting for safe release of low volumes of gases that will be
generated.
9.2.5 Monitoring System

Only operational road for disposal operation. Need further planning for observation well inside
and outside the cell, as well as monitoring the roads alongside the cells perimeter (can be placed
at the top of cell embankment/dyke).
9.2.6 Analysis and DED for Closure of Existing Cells

The detailed plan for closure of the existing cells has not been addressed. A comprehensive FS
and DED on the closure of the existing dump site are absolutely essential.
9.2.7 EHS Analysis

EHS analysis during the construction has not been addressed. Potential EHS hazards during
construction phase and mitigation measures should be prepared.
9.2.8 Project and Financial Elements

1. Tender document
Tender document already prepared, including BoQ and drawings. The tender document,
including BOQ and drawings will need revisions in accordance with the revisions to the FS
and DED.
2. Engineering Estimate for Construction Budget
The total EE Construction Budget is Rp 125.5 billion.
a. Need review on excavation, gravel and pipe unit price, overall need clarification for unit
price coefficient/index and which standard has been used to determine the unit price
b. excavation unit price need clarification for the coefficient of manpower & use of heavy
equipment (e.g. excavator)
c. gravel unit price need clarification for materials, manpower & possible use of heavy
equipment (e.g. excavator)
d. pipe unit price need clarification for materials, materials waste, accessories and
manpower
9.3 Recommended Rehabilitation and Re-engineering Phases

CDIA Team recommends the rehabilitation and re-engineering works to be carried out on three
phases as follows:
1. Phase 1: Excavation of all existing waste and put temporarily adjacent to the new sanitary
celllocation that will be build following sanitary cell construction guidleines. A new sanitary
cell of 8 hectares is required to receive all old waste from the existing site. A leachate

90
treatment plantwill also be build in parallel to the construction of the new cell. After
construction of the new 8 hectares sanitary cell, old excavated waste will be put back into the
new sanitary cell (with proper compaction and adding a cover layer every 1 m of compacted
waste layer). The new cell can remain open since it will be capable to receive more waste until
reaching full capacity.
2. Phase 2: After completion of phase 1, start up for the construction of second cell for a total
area of 6 hectares, following sanitary landfill construction requirements.
3. Phase 3:Construction of the landfill facilities, which will include drainage works for the whole
site, operator and management / administrative office, laboratory building, workshop, heavy
equipment and vehicles hangar, washing hangar and landscaping for the whole site, This Phase
can start in parallel with Phase 1 as long as the construction will not delay Phase 1 completion
time.
Purchase of heavy equipment is necessary and should be done as soon as possible, that includes
one landfill compactor and one excavator.
9.4 Landfill Lifetime Analysis

The methodology used for analysis of landfill lifetime presented in the Figure 9.145.
Figure 9.1: Methodology used for landfill lifetime calculation

45
urbanindia.nic.in/publicinfo/swm/annex17.pdf‎

a. Waste Generation Projection
Waste generation projection is necessary in the calculation of landfill lifetime since the waste
generation projection will be estimate the amount of waste in the future. The waste generation
projection for City of Tangerang is already presented in the Chapter 6.
b. Total Waste to Landfill Calculation

Total waste to landfill calculation will be influence by several factors, which is:
- Total waste generation
- Total waste recycling activities
- Total waste treatment activities
In this calculation of total waste to landfill, CDIA Team use 3 condition as follow:
- Bussiness As Usual (BAU)
The condition of Bussiness As Usual (BAU) is based on the solid waste management
condition in City of Tangerang in 2012 (Master Plan for Solid Waste Management 2012),
which has the flow mass of solid waste as follow :
Waste Recycling
(6.42%)
Waste Treatment
(1.37%)
Waste Generation
(100%)
Landfilling
(67.36%)
Not Managed
(25.83%)
Figure 9.2: Solid waste management in City of Tangerang for BAU condition
In this condition, CDIA Team assume that the level of solid waste management service in
City of Tangerang is 74.17% as the existing condition presented in the Figure 9.2 above.
- Bussiness As Usual 2 (BAU 2)

The condition of Bussiness As Usual (BAU 2) is based on the solid waste management
condition in City of Tangerang in 2012 and the increasing in level of solid waste
management service, which has the flow mass of solid waste as follow :
Waste Recycling
(6.74%)
Waste Generation Waste Treatment

(100%) (1.37%)
Landfilling
(91.89%)
Figure 9.3: Solid waste management in City of Tangerang for BAU 2 condition

92
In this condition, CDIA Team assume that the lever of solid waste management service in
City of Tangerang is 100% as the existing condition presented in the Figure 9.3 above,
which means there is no unmanaged waste in City of Tangerang.
- Application of Recommended Concepts

The condition of Application of Recommended Concepts is based on the solid waste
management condition if City of Tangerang applied the recommended concepts from
CDIA Team, which has the flow mass of solid waste as follow :
Waste Recycling at
Waste Bank and MRF
(6.03%)
Waste
Generation Waste Treatment and
(100%) Recycling at ITF
(67.69%)
Landfilling
(26.28%)
Figure 9.4: Solid waste management in City of Tangerang for recommended concepts condition
The calculation of total waste goes to landfill for 3 condition are presented in the Table 9.1.
Table 9.1: Total waste goes to landfill for 3 condition

Waste Goes to Landfill (m3/year)
Year
BAU BAU 2 Recommended Concepts
2014 414,950.11 567,907.52 161,881.56
2015 430,020.50 588,533.10 167,760.86
2016 445,638.22 609,907.78 173,853.70
2017 461,823.16 632,058.75 180,167.81
2018 478,595.92 655,014.21 186,711.25
2019 495,977.83 678,803.39 193,492.33
2020 513,991.03 703,456.55 200,519.69
2021 532,658.45 729,005.08 207,802.28
2022 552,003.84 755,481.50 215,349.36
2023 572,051.82 782,919.50 223,170.54
2024 592,827.92 811,354.01 231,275.77
2025 614,358.58 840,821.22 239,675.38
2026 636,671.20 871,358.63 248,380.04
2027 659,794.18 903,005.12 257,400.85
2028 683,756.95 935,800.97 266,749.28
2029 708,590.02 969,787.92 276,437.23
2030 734,324.99 1,005,009.22 286,477.03
2031 760,994.62 1,041,509.71 296,881.46
2032 788,632.85 1,079,335.84 307,663.77
2033 817,274.86 1,118,535.76 318,837.67
2034 846,957.10 1,159,159.37 330,417.40
2035 877,717.37 1,201,258.37 342,417.68
2036 909,594.80 1,244,886.35 354,853.80
2037 942,629.97 1,290,098.83 367,741.58
2038 976,864.94 1,336,953.36 381,097.43
2039 1,012,343.27 1,385,509.59 394,938.34
2040 1,049,110.12 1,435,829.30 409,281.93
2041 1,087,212.29 1,487,976.56 424,146.46
2042 1,126,698.27 1,542,017.72 439,550.85
2043 1,167,618.33 1,598,021.59 455,514.70

c. Landfill Cell Requirement
1) Waste Accumulation in Landfill Cell
Waste accumulation in landfill cell will be based on the projection of total waste that goes
to landfill. In this calculation, we also should consider the decay or degradation rate of
solid waste in landfill. EPA (1998) has develop some constanta for decay rate (k) as
follow:
- k = 0.02/year (“Dry”), corresponding to landfills receiving fewer than 25 inches of
annual precipitation: a default value from EPA (1998)
- k = 0.04/year (“Average”), corresponding to landfills receiving more than 25 inches of
annual precipitation: a default value from EPA (1998)
Table 9.2: Annual precipitation in City of Tangerang (2010-2012)46

Year Annual Rainfall (inch)
2010 73.18
2011 47.05
2012 46.77
Average 55.64
Based on the Table 9.2 above, the average annual precipitation in City of Tangerang is
higher than 25 inch. In this case, the degradation rate (k) that will be used for City of
Tangerang is 0.04/year. The amount of waste after the degradation in City of Tangerang
can be calculated by using exponential decay formula 47, as follow:
𝐖𝐭 = 𝐖𝟎 𝐞−𝟎.𝟎𝟒𝐭 (9.1)
Where: Wt = Waste in year t

W0 = Waste in year 0
t = year t – year 0
The waste accumulation for 3 condition is presented in the Table 9.3.
2) Daily Cover, Liner System and Cover System

Total volume of daily cover in n years (Vdc) (on the basis of 15 cm soil cover on top and
sides for lift height of 1.5 to 2 m) 48.
𝐕𝐝𝐜 = 𝟎. 𝟏𝐕𝐰 (9.2)
Where: Vdc = Total volume of daily cover (m3/year)

Vw = Total volume of waste generation (m3/year)
Total volume required for components of liner system and of cover system (on the
assumption of 1.5 m thick liner system (including leachate collection layer) and 1.0 m
thick cover system (including gas collection layer)4.
𝐕𝐜 = 𝐟 𝐱 𝐕𝐰 (9.3)
46
Tangerang Municipality in Figures 2013
47
http://math.ucsd.edu/~wgarner/math4c/textbook/chapter4/expgrowthdecay.htm
48
urbanindia.nic.in/publicinfo/swm/annex17.pdf‎

94
Where: Vc = Total volume of liner and cover system (m3/year)
Vw = Total volume of waste generation (m3/year)
f = 0.25 for 10 m high landfill, 0.125 for 20 m high landfill and 0.08 for
30 m high landfill. This is valid for landfills where width of landfill is
significantly larger than the height.
For City of Tangerang CDIA Team assumed that the height of the landfill is 20 m, so the
f that used for the calculation is 0.125. The volume of daily cover, liner and cover system
for 3 condition is presented in the Table 9.4.
Table 9.3: Waste accumulation in landfill cell for 3 condition

Waste Accumulation in Landfill Cell (m3)
Year
2014 414,950.11 567,907.52 161,881.56
2015 828,700.18 1,134,172.65 323,294.95
2016 1,241,844.61 1,699,608.88 484,472.07
2017 1,654,974.35 2,265,025.01 645,643.46
2018 2,068,677.79 2,831,226.33 807,038.67
2019 2,483,541.60 3,399,015.74 968,886.56
2020 2,900,151.58 3,969,194.98 1,131,415.67
2021 3,319,093.45 4,542,565.70 1,294,854.51
2022 3,740,953.77 5,119,930.65 1,459,431.90
2023 4,166,320.70 5,702,094.79 1,625,377.30
2024 4,595,784.85 6,289,866.46 1,792,921.12
2025 5,029,940.12 6,884,058.49 1,962,295.05
2026 5,469,384.54 7,485,489.33 2,133,732.40
2027 5,914,721.08 8,094,984.22 2,307,468.41
2028 6,366,558.51 8,713,376.32 2,483,740.55
2029 6,825,512.20 9,341,507.86 2,662,788.92
2030 7,292,205.03 9,980,231.31 2,844,856.50
2031 7,767,268.20 10,630,410.55 3,030,189.54
2032 8,251,342.10 11,292,922.03 3,219,037.88
2033 8,745,077.21 11,968,655.99 3,411,655.27
2034 9,249,134.93 12,658,517.65 3,608,299.75
2035 9,764,188.53 13,363,428.45 3,809,233.98
2036 10,290,924.02 14,084,327.28 4,014,725.58
2037 10,830,041.09 14,822,171.74 4,225,047.52
2038 11,382,254.04 15,577,939.43 4,440,478.46
2039 11,948,292.74 16,352,629.28 4,661,303.15
2040 12,528,903.60 17,147,262.81 4,887,812.76
2041 13,124,850.55 17,962,885.58 5,120,305.34
2042 13,736,916.07 18,800,568.48 5,359,086.15
2043 14,365,902.22 19,661,409.23 5,604,468.08

Table 9.4: The volume of daily cover, liner and cover system
Daily Cover, Liner System and Cover System (m3/year)
Year
Daily Cover Liner & Daily Cover Liner & Daily Cover Liner & Cover
(Vdc) Cover (Vc) (Vdc) Cover (Vc) (Vdc) (Vc)
2014 41,495.01 51,868.76 56,790.75 70,988.44 16,188.16 20,235.19
2015 43,002.05 53,752.56 58,853.31 73,566.64 16,776.09 20,970.11
2016 44,563.82 55,704.78 60,990.78 76,238.47 17,385.37 21,731.71
2017 46,182.32 57,727.90 63,205.88 79,007.34 18,016.78 22,520.98
2018 47,859.59 59,824.49 65,501.42 81,876.78 18,671.12 23,338.91
2019 49,597.78 61,997.23 67,880.34 84,850.42 19,349.23 24,186.54
2020 51,399.10 64,248.88 70,345.66 87,932.07 20,051.97 25,064.96
2021 53,265.84 66,582.31 72,900.51 91,125.64 20,780.23 25,975.29
2022 55,200.38 69,000.48 75,548.15 94,435.19 21,534.94 26,918.67
2023 57,205.18 71,506.48 78,291.95 97,864.94 22,317.05 27,896.32
2024 59,282.79 74,103.49 81,135.40 101,419.25 23,127.58 28,909.47
2025 61,435.86 76,794.82 84,082.12 105,102.65 23,967.54 29,959.42
2026 63,667.12 79,583.90 87,135.86 108,919.83 24,838.00 31,047.51
2027 65,979.42 82,474.27 90,300.51 112,875.64 25,740.08 32,175.11
2028 68,375.70 85,469.62 93,580.10 116,975.12 26,674.93 33,343.66
2029 70,859.00 88,573.75 96,978.79 121,223.49 27,643.72 34,554.65
2030 73,432.50 91,790.62 100,500.92 125,626.15 28,647.70 35,809.63
2031 76,099.46 95,124.33 104,150.97 130,188.71 29,688.15 37,110.18
2032 78,863.28 98,579.11 107,933.58 134,916.98 30,766.38 38,457.97
2033 81,727.49 102,159.36 111,853.58 139,816.97 31,883.77 39,854.71
2034 84,695.71 105,869.64 115,915.94 144,894.92 33,041.74 41,302.17
2035 87,771.74 109,714.67 120,125.84 150,157.30 34,241.77 42,802.21
2036 90,959.48 113,699.35 124,488.64 155,610.79 35,485.38 44,356.73
2037 94,263.00 117,828.75 129,009.88 161,262.35 36,774.16 45,967.70
2038 97,686.49 122,108.12 133,695.34 167,119.17 38,109.74 47,637.18
2039 101,234.33 126,542.91 138,550.96 173,188.70 39,493.83 49,367.29
2040 104,911.01 131,138.76 143,582.93 179,478.66 40,928.19 51,160.24
2041 108,721.23 135,901.54 148,797.66 185,997.07 42,414.65 53,018.31
2042 112,669.83 140,837.28 154,201.77 192,752.22 43,955.08 54,943.86
2043 116,761.83 145,952.29 159,802.16 199,752.70 45,551.47 56,939.34
d. Landfill Cell Available

Based on the DED for rehabilitation of Rawa Kucing Landfill, the calculated landfill cells
volume available at the Rawa Kucing Landfill are presented on the Table 9.5 below.
Table 9.5: Calculated landfill cells volume available at Rawa Kucing Landfill
Block A 360,140.79 m3
Block B 335,603.72 m3
Block C 311,052.33 m3
Block D 227,692.98 m3
Block E 249,043.90 m3
Block F 203,354.94 m3
Block G 59.351.04 m3
Blok A+B 822,963.44 m3
Blok C+D+E+G 1,296,385.90 m3
TOTAL 2,119,349.34 m3

96
e. Landfill Lifetime
The landfill lifetime can be identified by comparison of the total accumulation of waste pile
including daily cover, liner system as well as cover system and the total landfill cell available
at the site as presented on the Table 9.6.
Table 9.6: Total estimated accumulation of waste

Total Landfill Cell Required (m3)
Year
2014 508,313.88 695,686.71 198,304.91
2015 925,454.79 1,266,592.60 361,041.15
2016 1,342,113.21 1,836,838.13 523,589.16
2017 1,758,884.56 2,407,238.23 686,181.22
2018 2,176,361.87 2,978,604.52 849,048.70
2019 2,595,136.62 3,551,746.51 1,012,422.34
2020 3,015,799.56 4,127,472.70 1,176,532.60
2021 3,438,941.60 4,706,591.84 1,341,610.02
2022 3,865,154.64 5,289,913.98 1,507,885.51
2023 4,295,032.36 5,878,251.68 1,675,590.67
2024 4,729,171.13 6,472,421.11 1,844,958.17
2025 5,168,170.80 7,073,243.26 2,016,222.01
2026 5,612,635.56 7,681,545.02 2,189,617.91
2027 6,063,174.77 8,298,160.37 2,365,383.60
2028 6,520,403.82 8,923,931.53 2,543,759.14
2029 6,984,944.95 9,559,710.14 2,724,987.29
2030 7,457,428.15 10,206,358.39 2,909,313.83
2031 7,938,491.98 10,864,750.24 3,096,987.87
2032 8,428,784.49 11,535,772.60 3,288,262.22
2033 8,928,964.05 12,220,326.54 3,483,393.75
2034 9,439,700.28 12,919,328.51 3,682,643.67
2035 9,961,674.94 13,633,711.58 3,886,277.96
2036 10,495,582.85 14,364,426.70 4,094,567.69
2037 11,042,132.83 15,112,443.97 4,307,789.37
2038 11,602,048.65 15,878,753.94 4,526,225.38
2039 12,176,069.98 16,664,368.93 4,750,164.27
2040 12,764,953.38 17,470,324.41 4,979,901.20
2041 13,369,473.32 18,297,680.30 5,215,738.30
2042 13,990,423.19 19,147,522.47 5,457,985.09
2043 14,628,616.35 20,020,964.09 5,706,958.88
In conclusion, following BAU, BAU 2 and recommended ISWM system, will provide the landfill
will operational capacity until 2017/2018, 2016/2017 and 2025/2026, respectively.That means
the recommended ISWM system will extend the lifetime of the landfill upto 4 times more
compared to the business as usual scenario.

CHAPTER 10
FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
10.1 Existing Financial Aspects for Solid Waste Management

10.1.1 Municipal Finances for City of Tangerang
Sources of revenues are mainly two:
1- Local Origin Revenues (PAD), predominantly from local taxes and various cost recovery
options (SWM, parking, advertising, etc.); and
2- Higher Level Transfers from the Central and Provincial Government.
Higher Level Transfers have been reduced significantly from around 64% in 2010 to
approximately 57% in 2011 and 2012. On the other hand local revenues increased significantly
from 17.2% in 2010 to 27.1% in 2011. Tables 10.1 and 10.2 below illustrate these financial facts.
Expenditures are mainly divided into direct and indirect expenses 49. Based on the type and usage,
the indirect expenditures are categorized as recurrent, and direct expenses as capital investments.
City of Tangerang has an increasing own source of revenues (PAD), and decreasing dependency
level on the central government transfers.
Table 10.1: Actual Revenues and Expenditures for City of Tangerang (in Rp.billion)
2010 2011 2012
Total revenues 1,338.92 1,839.86 2,188.93
Local revenues 230.63 499.08 631.52
Higher Level Transfer 1,105.00 1,327.00 1,553.00
Other revenues 3.00 14.00 4.55
Total expenditures 1,396.73 1,635.67 1,925.25
Recurrent expenses 1,082.16 1,308.32 1,494.77
Capital investment 313.45 323.71 430.13
Other expenditures 0.12 3.65 0.35
Surplus/(Deficit) (56.82) 204.19 263.67
Source: Bappeda Kota Tangerang, 2013
Table 10.2: Revenues and Expenditure Ratios for City of Tangerang

Indicator 2010 2011 2012
Local revenues : Total revenues 17.2% 27.1% 28.9%
Central Gov‟t transfer:Total revenues 67.1% 57.4% 57.8%
Capital investment: Total expenditure 22.4% 24.8% 28.8%
Salaries: Recurrent Expenditure 76.2% 70.9% 65.3%
a. Capital investments as a percentage of total expenditures increased from 22.4% in 2010 to

nearly 29% in 2012.
b. Salaries have fallen from 76% of recurrent expenditures in 2010 to 65% in 2012, with a further
decrease to 60% planned in the 2013 budget. This allows for an increase in supplies and
services, including higher allocations for operations and maintenance, as well as further
investment in urban infrastructure service deliveries. Table 10.3 below summarizes the
performance in the last three years.
49
Ministry of Home Affairs (MoHA) regulation number 13/2006 on Local Financial Guidelines.

98
The balance sheets which expresses fixed assets in terms of historical costs and without
depreciation allowances, show a cumulative surplus (SILPA) of nearly Rp 750 billion, plus long-
term investments of more than Rp 100 billion. The finance department shows a firm control over
receivables and has negligible short-term liabilities. In conclusion, Kota Tangerang carries no
debt.
Table 10.3: Balance Sheet for City of Tangerang in 2010 - 2012 (Rp. Billion)
2010 2011 2012
Audited Audited Unaudited
TOTAL ASSETS 4,380.55 4,856.07 5,502.01
CURRENT ASSETS 348.23 532.47 791.88
Cash 294.96 481.81 745.29
Own-Source Taxes Receivable 5.03 2.67 3.19
Own-Source cost recovery Receivable 0.32 17.51 2.82
Other Receivables 28.63 22.73 22.69
Inventory 19.27 17.92 17.90
LONG-TERM INVESTMENTS 91.29 107.23 105.12
FIXED ASSETS 3,913.41 4,191.99 4,567.71
Land 1,110.05 1,138.40 1,158.85
Equipment & Materials 339.33 398.28 505.28
Buildings 915.70 998.65 1,087.80
Roads & Irrigation Networks 1,522.51 1,611.31 1,735.25
Other Fixed Assets 18.59 25.02 26.45
Work in Progress 7.22 20.33 54.09
OTHER ASSETS 27.61 24.37 37.29
Demands on Profit/Loss 0.01 0.11 0.05
Third Party Partnership 15.12 15.12 26.39
Assets Not Capitalized 6.77 7.67 9.11
Other Assets 5.71 1.47 1.74
TOTAL LIABILITIES/EQUITY 4,380.55 4,856.07 5,502.01
SHORT-TERM LIABILITIES 4.22 0.17 0.00
Accounts Payable 0.00 0.17 0.00
Interest Payable 0.00 0.00 0.00
Short-Term Debt Payable 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Short-Term Debt 4.22 0.00 0.00
LONG-TERM DEBT 0.00 0.00 0.00
CURRENT EQUITY 344.01 532.46 791.88
Accumulated Budget Surplus/Deficit (SILPA) 294.90 481.62 745.29
Postponed Revenues 0.07 0.00 0.00
Accounts Payable Reserve 33.99 32.92 28.69
Inventory Reserve 19.27 17.92 17.90
Long-Term Debt Reserve (4.22) 0.00 0.00
INVESTMENT EQUITY 4,032.32 4,323.60 4,710.12
Long-Term Investments 91.29 107.23 105.12
Fixed Assets 3,913.41 4,191.99 4,567.71
Other Assets 27.61 24.37 37.29
Source: Bappeda Kota Tangerang, 2013
10.1.2 Actual Expenditures and Curent Findings on Solid Waste Management Sector
The O&M for SWM sector by DKP from 2009 to 2012 is shown in Table 10.4 below. In
conclusion, the O&M budget for the SWM sector increased by 20% annually from 2010 to date.

Table 10.4: Detailed Actual O&M Cost for SWM of City of Tangerang (in Rp. million)
Item 2009 2010 2011 2012
Total Operations and Maintenance Cost (Based on Actual Budget
27,949 31,342 38,588 46,955
of Tangerang City)
Remuneration and Allowance of Labor 10,796 13,864 22,256 26,523
Fuels
Waste Collection and Transportation 7,240 6,812 5,994 8,159
Operations at Landfill 2,622 2,219 1,733 2,485
Lubricants 272 361 475 846
Maintenance 42 45 56 58
Spare parts 5,605 5,936 6,648 6,427
Composting 250 331 249 470
Total Annual Capex at TPA
Rent of Heavy Equipment 80 154 154 541
Procurement of Red Dirt 295 848 376 360
Methane Equipment 87 89 75 125
Landfill Road Concrete Block 443 339 400 62
Rehabilitation of Collection Points 211 340 167 393
Source: DKP Kota Tangerang, 2013
Table 10.5 below shows data on actual SWM expenditures, for both Opex and Capex, in years
2011 and 2012, as well as the budget expenditures for 2013 (up to June 2013).
Table 10.5: Actual SWM Expenditures for years 2011 to 2013 (Rp.billion)
2011 2012 2013
OPEX 93 142 171
CAPEX 15 48 61
Total 108 190 232
There was significant increase for Opex and Capex in 2012 compared to 2011, which is mainly
due to the purchase of replacement and additional collection and transportation fleet trucks. The
breakdown of O&M expenditures for SWM at City of Tangerang is shown in Table 10.6 below.
Table 10.6: O&M Cost for SWM at City of Tangerang (Rp. million)
2009 2010 2011 2012
Salaries 10,977 13,864 22,256 26,524
Fuel-Waste Transportation 7,240 6,813 5,995 8,159
Fuel –TPA 2,623 2,219 1,733 2,486
Oil 273 362 476 847
Spare Parts 5,606 5,936 6,649 6,428
Based on the 2012 volume of waste processed by DKP which was estimated at 74% of the total
household and household-type, the unit volume of transportation costs from transfer points to
final disposal site are shown below in Table 10.7.
Based on the 2012 City of Tangerang budget forr SWM, unit costs for O&M of the transportation
costs as shown in 2012 Master Plan are as follows:
a. Road Sweeping Rp.457,021 per ton

b. Arm Roll Truck Rp 78,396 per ton
c. Dump Truck Rp. 46,963 per ton

100
Table 10.7: O&M unit costs for waste transported from transfer points to final disposal (Rp/m3)
2009 2010 2011 2012
Salaries 12,422 12,959 19,992 22,701
Fuel-Waste Transportation 8,913 6,368 5,385 6,983
Fuel –TPA 2,968 2,074 1,557 2,128
Oil 309 338 427 725
Spare Parts 6,344 5,549 5,972 5,501
Source: Draft Final Report Institutional and Cost Recovery, World Bank, 2013.
10.1.3 Solid Waste Management Revenues and Solid Waste Services Tariff
1- Revenues
Solid waste revenues are obtained from SW services tariff and the City‟s budget (APBD) which is
allocated for Capex and Opex. The percentage of cost recovery is shown in Table 10.8 below:
Table 10.8: Actual Revenues, Cost Recovery Indicators and the City Budget on SWM for 2011 to
2013 (in IDR Billion)
SW service % Cost Recovery % Cost Recovery APBD Subsidy APBD Subsidy
Year
fees Opex Opex+Capex Opex Opex+Capex
2011 1.46 1.6 1.4 91.5 106.5
2012 2.00 1.4 1.1 140.0 190.0
2013 6.00 3.5 2.6 165.0 226.0
Source: APBD and DKP Kota Tangerang 2011-2013
The table above shows that the revenue from SW service tariffs only covers 1.4% and 1.1% for
years 2011 and 2012, respectively. This percent increased in 2013 (up to June 2013) to 2.6%.
2- Cost Recovery tariff

The city has established recently a regulation for cost recovery, namely Local Regulation Number
1 for year 2011 which states that the responsibility for billing and collecting SW service fees will
be determined by the Mayor. The Mayor instructed the Head of DKP to carry out collection of
SWM service fees. According to DKP, the mechanism is still under discussion by the Local
Parliament (DPRD) and is expected to be endorsed this year. To date, the head of DKP issued
assignment letter to the waste collection and transportation fleet drivers and supervisors to collect
the SW service fees and invoices are issued by the Local Finance Management Agency (Badan
Pengelolaan Keuangan Daerah – BPKD). This mechanism is not suitable for the following main
reasons:
 There is no provision of this task / function in their contracts.
 They have no legal mandate to collect SW service fees.
 Distraction from their main job responsibility.
 DKP does not have sufficient number of employees, capacity or procedures to manage SW
service fees collection.
 Not a transparent mechanism, since there is no clear billing and administrative process in
place.
According to the City (Mayor of City of Tangerang), “the number of households is around
450,000 in Kota Tangerang, a 75% collection rate as assumed by DKP for 2012, and applying a
monthly tariff of Rp 7,500, the potential revenues from the residential sector alone would amount
to Rp 25.3 billion”. This needs to be examined further (please see Section 5.7). A target of Rp 6
billion for year 2013 has been set, and to date cost recovery reached Rp.754 million (as of June
2013), which is very low compared to the set target.

10.1.4 Financial Capacity for City of Tangerang
1- Fiscal Capacity
Fiscal capacity50 is referred to description of local financial capacity that is reflected from Local
Revenue (exclude specific allocation fund, emergency fund, existing borrowing fund, and other
revenue that have been earmarked to certain expenses).
2- Financial Capacity
Funding allocated to the local development program is usually based on the Government
Regulation number 8 for year 2008 on Staging, Procedure, Control and Evaluation of Local
Development Plans. In this regulation local development program must include analysis of
funding framework, aiming to calculate the local financial capacity. Financial capacity is the sum
of revenue accounts that are not specifically allocated deducted from accounts that are non-
discretionary and prioritized.
Table 10.9: Actual Revenues, Expenditures and Budget for City of Tangerang during 2010- 2012
(Rp. Billion)
2010 2011 2012
AUDITED AUDITED UNAUDITED
TOTAL REVENUES 1,338.92 1,839.86 2,188.93
LOCAL REVENUES 230.63 499.08 631.52
Taxes 159.76 418.01 516.47
Cost recovery 30.18 39.61 60.37
Rentals of Assets 13.66 12.52 7.41
Other Revenues 27.03 28.94 47.27
HIGHER LEVEL TRANSFERS 1,105.29 1,326.78 1,552.84
CENTRAL GOV’T TRANSFERS 897.83 1,055.80 1,252.12
Shared Revenues 326.68 253.73 315.17
General Allocation Fund 488.98 554.06 747.70
Special Allocation Fund 7.55 11.62 6.85
Adjustment Fund 74.61 236.40 182.40
PROVINCIAL GOV’T TRANSFERS 207.46 270.99 300.73
Shared Revenues 207.46 270.99 300.73
OTHER REVENUES 3.00 14.00 4.55
Central Government Grants 3.00 14.00 4.55
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1,396.73 1,635.67 1,925.25
RECURRENT 1,082.16 1,308.32 1,494.77
Staff 822.92 929.85 967.00
Supplies & Services 228.84 313.75 494.22
Grants (Hibah)
Grants to Lower Level Gov‟t 11.52 41.06 32.11
Social Assistance 17.92 22.71 0.49
Other 0.95 0.95 0.95
CAPITAL INVESTMENT 313.45 323.71 430.13
Land 65.66 29.79 2.26
Equipment & Materials 57.29 73.35 114.76
Buildings 119.64 121.16 181.33
Roads & Irrigation Networks 66.17 92.81 130.95
Other Fixed Assets 4.72 0.00 0.83
OTHER EXPENDITURES 0.12 3.65 0.35
SURPLUS/DEFICIT -56.82 204.19 263.67
Source: Bappeda Kota Tangerang 2010-2012
50
According to Ministry of Finance Regulation no.52/PMK.010/2006 pertaining Procedures on Providing Grant to
Local Government

102
This could be useful to provide any meaningful up-front Capex contribution under any of the
setting options suggested. This assessment of the city‟s finances also examines the capacity of the
city budget to potentially provide annual funding support, based on the waste services tariff and
Capex support scenarios outlined. The city‟s available financial capacity – we use the term
Financial Capacity – to provide support could be approached based on the following formula:
Financial Capacity = Local Revenues + Tax/Non-Tax Sharing + General Allocation Fund +

Any other Local Income – Non-discretionary Expenses
Using the figures presented in Table 10.9, the Financial Capacity has been calculated and
presented in Table 10.10. Table 10.10 shows that in 2010 City of Tangerang had no financial
capacity but in 2012 it became more than Rp. 233 million which has increased to nearly 270%
compared to year 2011.
Table 10.10: Financial Capacity of Kota Tangerang 2010 – 2012 (Rp.Billion)

2010 2011 2012
Financial Capacity -5.47 63.27 233.17
10.1.5 Gaps on Financial Aspects of Solid Waste Management in City of Tangerang

1- Cost recovery: Despite the SWM services provided by DKP to the Citizens being poor, the
cost recovery / SW service fees are on the very low side. That presents a major financial
burden on the City of Tangerang to provide good service and complete coverage to all
Citizens; Existing SWM tariffs to the various levels of income is very low, as well as the
projected tariff is as well very low and fixed for all levels of income, which is not appropriate;
no appropriate, transparent and efficient mechanism for cost recovery is in place.
2- The analysis showed that - with estimated average tariff for low income of Rp.2.500/HH (50%
of total HH), medium income of Rp.5000/HH (45% of total HH), high income of
Rp.15.000/HH (5% of total HH) - the fee collected in June 2013 of around Rp.750 million
came from 70% of collection efficiency. This indicates that the ratio was significantly high. On
the contrary this also indicates that the tariff is inadequate or too low.
3- No clear record of collection receipt also indicates that the collection method and billing is not
sufficient. This would need clear and obvious task division, procedure, collection strategy.
4- Many of the waste collection facilities, waste collection frequency, reliability of the services
which the community demanded and the cost of collection are not suitable. Quality and this
will drop the community satisfaction of the services.
5- Most of the staff provided with fee collection task is the driver of the truck fleet or supervisor
with no capabilities and no sufficient proper authority. These raise many objections and
communities resistance to pay the SW service fees. Further there is no sufficient reliable
management system which could handle the whole collection activities.
6- No provision of SW budget from central government (as in mid-term SW investment plan)
shows that it was difficult to finance the capital expenses needed to develop proper SW
services. This means that the city needs to be seriously to consider the achievement of SW
services in the future.
7- Other sources of finance: To date local government provides more than 95% of the total cost
for SWM services. Given that the City of Tangerang is committed to the master plan ambitious
targets in terms of full coverage of SWM, 3R approach and significant extension of the landfill
lifetime, budget have to increase to cover all these aspects. The City of Tangerang has to tap
into other sources of finance to support in modernizing and transforming the sector to a more
sustainable and integrated sector.

10.2 Recommendation Financial Option for Solid Waste Management
10.2.1 Financing Options
Several external financing options are available for City of Tangerang, including regional and
international financial institutions and Donors (bilateral agreements with Government of
Indonesia). Several projects are at different stages of implementation under the various financing
entities, which can provide financial support to the City of Tangerang on the infrastructure
investments, capacity building, institutional setups, etc. One of the good examples is a World
Bank project which is at an advanced stage of implementation, provides grants at the village level
for investments in infrastructure / equipment that a- requested by the communities; b- within
$50,000 investment; c- can be operated and maintained by the Communities; and d- contributes in
improving the livelihoods of Communities at the village level. Such a project can support City of
Tangerang in implementation of the ITFs or MRFs at the villages / Communities level.
10.2.2 Potential Sources of Revenues

Based on the recent World Bank report51 prepared in 2013, several sources of revenues have been
identified, primarily to support in collecting in a systematic and organized manner SWservice
fees, which are as follows:
1- Property taxes: allocating some of the proceeds from the annual property tax (PBB) and the
one-off property transfer tax (BPHTB) to assist in the funding of the SWM service. The reason
is because property taxes has been widely considered internationally as one of the most
appropriate means, instead of user charges, for funding urban infrastructure service deliveries.
2- SW bill attached to PDAM bill (for PDAM customers): SW service fee can be included
under the PDAM water supply bill, with the PDAM remitting receipts from the surcharge to
the local government treasury in return for an administrative fee. The report also says that this
surcharge could be most successful implemented because it is also owned by the local
government. Nevertheless this scenario would be most effective to increase collection ratio
when it is applied in cities that have high water supply connection ratio. The current coverage
of water pipe connection of Tangerang City is around 28% by this year.
3- SW bill attached to Electricity bill (for PLN customers): Another option to increase
collection ratio that is worthy to be proposed is attaching SW charge to PLN bill which allows
access to wider household coverage of the electricity connection. However most PLN offices
refuse because of PLN is a different legal entity with different owner at different level of
government. However, this option is one of the widely used methods for collecting SW user
charges in many countries globally.
4- Strategy on SW Service Fee Collection. Given that the 3 options above have their pros and
cons, the City of Tangerang can choose certain mechanisms for certain areas / districts,
depending on connectivity to water or electricity meters, or registration of properties, as well
as the possibility of reaching successful agreements with the relevant Governmental agencies.
Regarding tariff increase, this should be done gradually on phases and depending on the type
of service provided by the City of Tangerang / DKP (door to door service, or communal
service, etc.) and in parallel with additional investments and improvements in the quality of
service (to be able to convince the public for paying more SWM service fees), with
classifications of the users (low, middle and high income, commercial and industrial, etc.),
since increase will differ between communities. The tariffs and the periodic increase have to be
51
Institutional Development and Cost Recovery on Indonesia Solid Waste Management Improvement Project for
Regional and Metropolitan Cities, World Bank, June 2013.

104
done based on the findings of a comprehensive survey on the willingness to pay and
affordability of the various communities throughout the City of Tangerang and at all levels.
10.2.3 Implementation Arrangements: Overview of Concessions, BOTs, and DBO

Arrangements
A concession gives an operator the long term right to use all utility assets conferred on the
operator, including responsibility for all operation and investment. Asset ownership remains with
the authority. Assets revert to the authority at the end of the concession period, including assets
purchased by the operator. In a concession the operator typically obtains its revenues directly
from the consumer and so it has a direct relationship with the consumer. A concession covers an
entire infrastructure system (so may include the operator taking over existing assets as well as
building and operating new assets).
A BOT Project (build operate transfer project) is typically used to develop a discrete asset rather
than a whole network and is generally entirely new or greenfield in nature (although
refurbishment may be involved). In a BOT Project the project company or operator generally
obtains its revenues through a fee charged to the utility/ government rather than tariffs charged to
consumers. A number of projects are called concessions, such as toll road projects, which are new
build and have a number of similarities to BOTs.
In a Design-Build-Operate project the public sector owns and finances the construction of new
assets. The private sector designs, builds and operates the assets to meet certain agreed outputs.
The documentation for a DBO is typically simpler than a BOT or Concession as there are no
financing documents and will typically consist of a civil works contract plus an operating
contract, or a section added to the contract covering operations. The Operator is taking no
financing risk and will typically be paid a sum for the design-build of the plant and then an
operating fee for the operating period.
Key Features for Concessions:

 A concession gives a private operator responsibility not only for operation and maintenance of
the assets but also for financing and managing all required investment.
 The operator takes risk for the condition of the assets and for investment.
 A concession may be granted in relation to existing assets, an existing utility, or for extensive
rehabilitation and extension of an existing asset (although often new build projects are called
concessions).
 A concession is typically for a period of 25 to 30 years (i.e., long enough at least to fully
amortize major initial investments).
 Asset ownership typically rests with the awarding authority and all rights in respect to those
assets revert to the awarding authority at the end of the concession.
 General public is usually the customer and source of revenue for the operator.
 Often the operator will be operating the existing assets from the outset of the concession - and
so there will be immediate cash flow available to pay operator, set aside for investment,
service debt, etc.
 Unlike most management contracts, concessions are focused on outputs - i.e., the delivery of a
service in accordance with performance standards. There is less focus on inputs - i.e., the
service provider is left to determine how to achieve agreed performance standards, although
there may be some requirements regarding frequency of asset renewal and consultation with

the awarding authority or regulator on such key features as maintenance and renewal of assets,
increase in capacity and asset replacement towards the end of the concession term.
 Some infrastructure services are deemed to be essential, and some are monopolies. Limits will
probably be placed on the operator–by law, through the contract or through regulation–on tariff
levels. The operator will need assurances that it will be able to finance its obligations and still
maintain a profitable rate of return and so appropriate safeguards will need to be included in
the concession agreement or in legislation.
 In many countries there are sectors where the total collection of tariffs does not cover the cost
of operation of the assets let alone further investment. In these cases, a clear basis of
alternative cost recovery will need be set out in the concession, whether from general
subsidies, from taxation or from loans from government or other sources.
 Within the context of common law systems, the closest comparable legal structure is the BOT,
which is typically for the purpose of constructing a facility or system.
Key Features for BOT Projects:

 In a BOT project, the public sector grantor grants to a private company the right to develop
and operate a facility or system for a certain period (the "Concession Period"), in what would
traditionally be a public sector project
 Usually a discrete, greenfield new build project.
 Operator finances, owns and constructs the facility or system and operates it commercially for
the concession period, after which the facility is transferred to the authority.
 BOT is the classic tool for project finance. As it relates to new build, there is no revenue
stream from the outset. Lenders are therefore anxious to ensure that project assets are ring-
fenced within the operating project company and that all risks associated with the project are
assumed and passed on to the appropriate actor. The operator is therefore usually a special
purpose vehicle.
 The revenues are often obtained from a single "off take purchaser" such as a utility
or government, who purchases project output from the project company (this is different from
a pure concession where output is sold directly to consumers and end users). In the power
sector, this will take the form of a Power Purchase Agreement. For more, see Power Purchase
Agreements.
 Project company obtains financing for the project, and procures the design and construction of
the works and operates the facility during the concession period.
 Project company is a special purpose vehicle; its shareholders will often include companies
with construction and/or operation experience, and with input supply and offtake purchase
capabilities. It is also essential to include shareholders with experience in the management of
the appropriate type of projects, such as working with diverse and multicultural partners, given
the particular risks specific to these aspects of a BOT project. The offtake purchaser/ utility
will be anxious to ensure that the key shareholders remain in the project company for a period
of time as the project is likely to have been awarded to it on the basis of their expertise and
financial stability.
 Project company will coordinate the construction and operation of the project in accordance
with the requirements of the concession agreement. The off-taker will want to know the
identity of the construction sub-contractor and the operator.
 The project company (and the lenders) in a power project will be anxious to ensure it has a
secure affordable source of fuel. It will often enter into a bulk supply agreement for fuel, and
the supplier may be the same entity as the power purchaser under the Power Purchase
Agreement, namely the state power company. For examples, click on Fuel Supply/Bulk Supply

106
Agreements. Power is also the main operating cost for water or wastewater treatment plant and
so operators will need certainty as to cost and source of power.
 The revenues generated from the operation phase are intended to cover operating costs,
maintenance, repayment of debt principal (which represents a significant portion of
development and construction costs), financing costs (including interest and fees), and a return
for the shareholders of the special purpose company.
 Lenders provide non-recourse or limited recourse financing and will, therefore, bear any
residual risk along with the project company and its shareholders.
 The project company is assuming a lot of risk. It is anxious to ensure that those risks that stay
with the grantor are protected. It is common for a project company to require some form of
guarantee from the government and/or, particularly in the case of power projects, commitments
from the government which are incorporated into an Implementation Agreements.
 In order to minimize such residual risk (as the lenders will only want, as far as possible, to bear
a limited portion of the commercial risk of the project) the lenders will insist on passing the
project company risk to the other project participants through contracts, such as a construction
contract, an operation and maintenance contract
Contractual Structure:
Figure 10.1: Contractual structure of a typical BOT Project or Concession
Figure 10.1 above shows the contractual structure of a typical BOT Project or Concession,
including the lending agreements, the shareholder's agreement between the Project company
shareholders and the subcontracts of the operating contract and the construction contract, which
will typically be between the Project company and a member of the project company consortium.
It is the agreements on the right hand side of the page that this section focuses on.
Each project will involve some variation of this contractual structure depending on its particular
requirements: not all BOT projects will require a guaranteed supply of input, therefore a fuel/
input supply agreement may not be necessary. The payment stream may be in part or completely
through tariffs from the general public, rather than from an offtake purchaser

10.3 Financial Analysis and Costing for Recommended Integrated Solid Waste
Management
Expenditures for SWM consist of capital expenditures (CAPEX) and operation & maintenance
expenditures (OPEX). The following sections presents the CAPEX and OPEX for the
recommended ISWM system for the City of Tangerang and the three investment packages,
namely collection and transportation investment package, material recovery facilities (MRFs) at
the local level; and Intermediate Treatment Facility (ITF) located at Rawa Kucing site. It is
important to note that CDIA Team developed a conservative scenario (higher CAPEX and OPEX
estimates and lower revenues for the ITF) and a realistic scenario (realistic CAPEX and OPEX
estimates and revenues for the ITF).
10.3.1 Capital Expenditures (CAPEX)

The CAPEX for the different equipment are presented in Table 10.11 and 10.12 below.
Table 10.11: Total CAPEX for Recommended ISWM System for City of Tangerangduring 30
years (with Conservative Pricing for ITF– in Rp million)52
Unit Total Total
Price Capexat Capexat
Quantity Percentage
In Rp. constant current
thousand price 2013 price
Collection & Transportation 523,716 11.95% 799,622
Collection Equipment 88,784 2.03% 183,774
Drum Container 454,830 40 18,193 0.42% 31,082
Cotton Bag 864,178 4 3,457 0.08% 5,906
Collection Points (1.2m3) - Organic 12,603 3,000 37,809 0.86% 86,845
Collection Points (1.2m3) - Inorganic 2,231 3,000 6,693 0.15% 15,324
Waste Container (120L) 90,967 4 364 0.01% 622
Arm Roll Container (6m3) 305 60,000 18,300 0.42% 37,823
Handcarts (Organic) 258 1,000 258 0.01% 531
Handcarts (Inorganic) 3,710 1,000 3,710 0.08% 5,641
Transportation Equipment 434,932 9.92% 615,848
Compactor Truck 262 1,006,000 263,572 6.01% 368,992
Arm Roll Truck 307 357,000 109,599 2.50% 153,390
Dump Truck 173 357,000 61,761 1.41% 93,466
MRF/Waste Bank 51,000 1.16% 64,547
Buildings, Civil Work & Utility 12 3,150,000 37,800 0.86% 43,592
In Vessel Composting Reactor 24 350,000 8,400 0.19% 13,753
Belt Conveyor 36 50,000 1,800 0.04% 3,238
Compactor 36 50,000 1,800 0.04% 2,428
Bailer 24 50,000 1,200 0.03% 1,537
ITF/Anaerobic Digester 2,777,480 63.38% 4,245,597
Anaerobic Digester Plant 1,022,000 2.65 2,703,190 61.68% 4,138,614
Heavy Equipment 12 2,300 27,600 0.63% 38,824
Compost Packaging Line 3 230 690 0.02% 971
Power Plant System
1- Gas Turbine 8 4,600 36,800 0.84% 56,383
2- Cabling, connections, etc 1 6,325 6,325 0.14% 6,811
3- Transformer for 1 MW Engine 5 575 2,875 0.07% 3,994
Landfill Development 631,714 14.42% 886,006
Sanitary Cell Construction (incl. LTP) 11.62 23,183 631,714 14.42% 886,006
Contingencies & VAT 398,391 9.09% 510,977
Total Capital Expenditure 4,382,301 100.00% 6,506,748
52
Source: CDIA Team Calculation

108
Table 10.12: Total CAPEX for Recommended ISWM System for City of Tangerang during 30
years (with Realistic Pricing for ITF– in Rp million)53
Unit Total Total
Price Capexat Capexat
Quantity Percentage
In Rp. constant current
thousand price 2013 price
Drum Container 454,830 40 18,193 0.42% 31,082
Cotton Bag 864,178 4 3,457 0.08% 5,906
Collection Points (1.2m3) - Organic 12,603 3,000 37,809 0.88% 86,845
Collection Points (1.2m3) - Inorganic 2,231 3,000 6,693 0.16% 15,324
Waste Container (120L) 90,967 4 364 0.01% 622
Arm Roll Container (6m3) 305 60,000 18,300 0.43% 37,823
Handcarts (Organic) 258 1,000 258 0.01% 531
Handcarts (Inorganic) 3,710 1,000 3,710 0.09% 5,641
Transportation Equipment 434,932 10.15% 615,848
Compactor Truck 262 1,006,000 263,572 6.15% 368,992
Arm Roll Truck 307 357,000 109,599 2.56% 153,390
Dump Truck 173 357,000 61,761 1.44% 93,466
MRF/Waste Bank 51,000 1.19% 64,547
Belt Conveyor 36 50,000 1,800 0.04% 3,238
Compactor 36 50,000 1,800 0.04% 2,428
Bailer 24 50,000 1,200 0.03% 1,537
Heavy Equipment 12 2,300 27,600 0.64% 38,824
Power Plant System
1- Gas Turbine 14 4,600 64,400 1.50% 97,487
Landfill Development 631,714 14.74% 886,006
Sanitary Cell Construction (incl. LTP) 11.62 23,183 631,714 14.74% 886,006
The ISWM system recommended in the technical concept (Chapter 7) for City of Tangerang
would require the capital expenditures as presented on the Table 10.11 and 10.12 above after the
inclusion of the existing equipment in good working condition and/or newly purchased.
10.3.2 Operating and Maintenance Expenditures (OPEX)

1- Assumptions
Operation & maintenance expenditures for the recommended ISWM system consist of several
components which are as follows:
a. Staffing:
The detailed staffing requirements for the recommended ISWM system for City of Tangerang for
the 30 years planning period is presented in Table 10.13 below.
53

Table 10.13: Staffing Requirement for the ISWM system during 30 years period
Year 2014 2018 2023 2028 2033 2038
Hand cart 433 493 88 598 214 748
Compactor Truck 135 21 30 36 44 52
Arm Roll Truck 212 32 47 56 67 81
Dump Truck 104 16 23 28 33 40
Plant Manager 12 - - - - -
Sorting 48 - - - - -
IVC Reactor 24
Clean Up 12 - - - - -
Security 24 - - - - -
Administration/Accounting 12 - - - - -
Intermediate Treatment Facility 40 10 30 60 20 40
Total 1,016 562 188 718 358 921
Source: CDIA Team estimates based on manufacturers and best operational practices.
b. Fuel Consumption for Collection & Transportation Fleet
Table 10.14: Fuel requirement and prices for collection & transportation fleet
Type of Equipment Liters/day
Dump Truck 22
Armroll 29
Compactor Truck 36
Fuel price(present official price)
Diesel Fuel price (Rp./l) 5,500
Source: CDIA estimates based on distance average, 2012.
c. Operating Cost of MRF/Waste Bank

Table 10.15: Operating cost for MRF
Maintenance (Rp. thousand/ton) 22
Utilities & Fuel (Rp. thousand/ton) 16
Source: CDIA Team estimates and calculations
d. Operating Cost for Landfilling

Operational costs for landfilling are based on 2012 prices and adjusted based on best international
practices.Table 10.16 below shows the OPEX for City of Tangerang landfill based on 2012
prices.
Table 10.16: Operating costs for landfilling

O&M Cost (in O&M Cost
Cost Component
Rp. million) (Rp./ton)
Salaries 1,425.60 1,220.18
Fuel – TPA 4,971.80 4,255.41
Oil/Lubricants 502.85 430.39
Heavy equipment rent 1,083.11 927.04
Red dirt procurement 720.00 616.25
Methane gas infrastructure 250.00 213.98
Concrete block street 1,125.00 962.90
Total 10,078.36 8,626.16
Source: DKPP, City of Tangerang, 2012.

110
e. Environmental monitoring, social campaigns and Other Operational Costs
Table 10.17: Environmental monitoring, social campaigns andother operational costs

Environmental monitoring & social related campaign
1.00%
events for communities (% of the total OPEX cost)
Administration & overhead (percentage of Salaries) 10.00%
Insurance (as percentage of asset) 0.20%
Source: CDIA Team estimates
2- OPEX for Recommended ISWM System
Table 10.18: Annual Operating Cost for Recommended ISWM system during 30 years
period (Rp. Million)
2015 2021 2027 2034 2041 2043
Collection & transportation
Salaries 8,170 14,136 25,294 57,913 111,194 127,306
Fuel 10,531 26,041 92,908 322,358 728,282 892,874
MRF
Salaries 2,171 3,258 4,890 7,852 12,608 14,435
Operating Cost 35 137 178 729 991 1,083
Utilities & Fuel 26 101 131 535 728 795
Landfill
Salaries 156 252 407 711 1,242 1,457
Fuel & gas 546 880 1,420 2,481 4,333 5,082
Oil 55 89 144 251 438 514
Heavy equipment rent 119 192 309 540 944 1,107
Red dirt procurement 79 127 206 359 628 736
Methane gas infrastructure 27 44 71 125 218 256
Concrete block street 123 199 321 561 981 1,150
Others
Environmental monitoring 217 1,393 2,453 5,492 10,608 12,598
Administration & overhead 1,050 1,765 3,059 6,648 12,505 14,320
Insurance 1,087 1,868 3,048 3,553 5,222 4,599
Anaerobic digester
Annual operating cost 91,520 114,085 147,305 189,948 204,219
Preventive maintenance for AD 2,896 5,793 7,723 10,620 11,585
Preventive maintenance for gas
0 0 1,380 460 460
engine generators
Total Operating Cost 24,393 144,898 254,717 566,515 1,091,951 1,294,576
Total Operating Cost w/o
50,292 65,493 85,289 116,067 157,951 172,486
Improvement
10.3.3 Other Cost Assumptions

Financial projections are consisting of several projections of CAPEX, OPEX, Depreciation, and
Revenue Income (from the SWM service fee, sale of compost, sale of recyclables, and power
generation if any, respectively). The sales of compost and recyclables unit prices are based on the
market survey study. Two scenarios have been proposed, namely, conservative scenario (with
existing prices and SW service fees) and realistic scenario (based on upgrading the whole SWM
chain and servicequalityand consequently higher prices for compost and recyclables and SW
service fees). The assumptions used for these projections are as follows:
1- Escalating factor: is applied for some of the OPEX and CAPEX components that could be
produced locally including cotton bag, handcart, containers, etc. OPEX escalation factors are
in accordance with BI (Indonesian Central Bank) estimation for the next 3 years which is 4.5%
on average. The power or fuel escalation factors are estimated at 5% to 15% (according to

Energy & Resources Ministry estimation) which depends on classification of the user so the
estimated escalation of 8% would be sufficient for the next 6 years. Personnel cost should be
higher than CPI (consumer price index) at 4.5% but should not exceed the electricity increase
in tariff. The fuel (diesel) is escalated to around 22-23% every 2 years54.
2- Value added tax (VAT) is 10% according to current applied tax regulations.
3- Depreciation is according to the life time of asset/equipment and calculated following straight
line method.
Table 10.19: Escalation Factor
Escalation Factor Value
Local capital goods 4.5%
Salaries/wages 7%
Power/fuel 23% (every 2 year)
Other operating cost 4.5%
Operation & maintenance 4.5%
General &adm.cost 4.5%
Source: CDIA estimates based on official data by relevant local Authorities
Table 10.20: Depreciation Percentages

Depreciation Percentage years
Collection equipment 20% 5
Transportation fleet 10% 10
AD Plant 5% 30
ME component of MRF 7% 15
Heavy equipment 7% 15
Building & Civil work 3% 30
Source: Based on manufacturers feedback on the lifetime of the equipment / plant.
4- The sources of funding to finance CAPEX and OPEX (financial gap) are assumed to be from
the Local Government, Central Government, loans and/or grants.
10.3.4 Revenues, Tariff, and Collection Rate

Revenue consists of SW service fees (tariffs), sales of compost and recyclables. The existing and
realistic cost recovery tariff schemes are presented in Table 10.21. The unit prices for recyclables
that would be considered in the analysis are presented in Table 10.24.
Table 10.21: Existing and Realistic SW ServiceTariff Schemes

Ongoing Cost Recovery Realistic Cost Recovery
SW service SW service
Escalation Escalation
Tariff (Rp) Tariff (Rp)
15% at 2018 and Become Rp.5,000 at 2017
Low 2,500 2,500
every next 3 year and 15% every next 3 year
Middle 5,000 15% every next 3 5,000 and Rp.40,000 at 2020 and
year 15% every next 3 year
High 15,000 15% every next 3 15,000 and Rp.100,000 at 2020 and
year 15% every next 3 year
Source: CDIA recommendation and estimates
54
Diesel fuel price in Indonesia (according to Pertamina Oil Company) has increased around 14.2% per year over the
last 20 years and around 11.3% per year over the last 10 year.

112
Further adjustment could be carried through the fee collection rate. The figure of collection rate is
taken from the ratio between the numbers of each type of residential that SW fee could be
collected upon the total number of all residential in Tangerang.
Table 10.22 below shows that for the Ongoing SW fee collection rate, a conservative adjustment
has been proposed based on the existing condition.
Table 10.22: Conservative / ongoing SW service fee escalation (%)

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Unit
0 1 2 3 4 5
SW Service Fee (Retribution)
Fee Adjustment 1 (for low
% - - 15.0
income)
Fee Adjustment 2 (for
% 10.0 15.0
medium income)
Fee Adjustment 3 (for high
% 10.0 15.0
income)
Colectibility rate % 70 75 80 80 80 80
.
Low income average tariff Rp 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,875
Medium income average
Rp 5,000 5,000 5,500 5,500 5,500 6,325
tariff
High income average tariff Rp 15,000 15,000 16,500 16,500 16,500 18,975
Table 10.23: Realistic / ongoing SW service fee escalation (%)

2013 2017 2020 2021 2022 2023
Unit
0 4 7 8 9 10
SW Service Fee (Retribution)
Fee Adjustment 1 (for low
% - 15.0
income)
Fee Adjustment 2 (for
% 15.0
medium income)
Fee Adjustment 3 (for high
% 15.0
income)
Colectibility rate % 70 80 80 80 80 80
Low income average tariff Rp 2,500 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,750
Medium income average
Rp 5,000 20,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 46,000
tariff
High income average tariff Rp 15,000 50,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 115,000
Table 10.24: Recyclables Values

Recyclables Percentages of Weight Estimated Prices (IDR/kg)
Paper 7.2% 3,500
Cardboard 15.5% 3,500
Plastic 67.1% 6,000
Glass 8.6% 750
Metal 1.6% 7,500
Source: CDIA market survey
Compost Value
Based on the market survey, compost pricing ranged from 600 to 2000Rp / kg. Accordingly
CDIA Team decided to use under the conservative scenario 800 Rp/ kg and 1000 Rp/kg for the
realistic scenario. Price adjustment is assumed 10% every 5 (five) years for conservative scenario
and 15% every 3 (three) years for realistic scenario.

Electricity Sale
Electricity price from waste to energy treatment facilities has been set up by the Ministry of
Energy & Mineral Resources through Regulation No. 19/2013 on electricity tariff, which is
Rp.1,450 per kWh. Price adjustment is assumed 10% every 5 (five) years for conservative
scenario and 15% every 3 (three) years for realistic scenario. This is based on the historical
change in pricing tariff, which was an increase from 1100 to 1450 Rp/kwh during a 3 years
period.
Table 10.25: Revenues from Recommended ISWM system during 30 years period
Conservative Scenario (in Rp.million)
2015 2021 2027 2034 2041 2043
2 8 14 21 28 30
SW Services Fee 12,140 24,782 37,848 62,562 97,538 122,114
Sale of Recyclables
8,233 21,579 28,456 42,832 58,973 62,941
from ITF & MRF
Compost value from
3,587 4,887 6,659 10,343 14,605 15,685
ITF
Sale of Recyclables
- 14,900 20,302 31,533 44,526 47,819
from ITF
Compost value from
- 38,544 80,025 113,659 177,341 190,665
AD
Electricity sales - 25,520 42,108 61,758 93,410 93,410
Total Revenue 23,960 130,211 215,397 322,688 486,392 532,633
Source: CDIA Team calculation
Table 10.26: Revenue from Recommended ISWM system during 30 years period
Realistic Scenario (in Rp.million)
2015 2021 2027 2034 2041 2043
2 8 14 21 28 30
SW Services Fee 12,806 131,711 201,859 321,453 578,046 615,730
Sale of Recyclables
8,233 21,579 28,456 42,832 58,973 62,941
from ITF & MRF
Compost value from
3,587 4,887 6,659 10,343 14,605 15,685
ITF
Sale of Recyclables
- 9,407 12,817 19,909 28,112 30,191
from ITF
Compost value from
- 69,511 173,509 296,282 505,265 624,711
AD
Electricity sales - 46,023 121,731 214,652 354,847 408,074
Total Revenue 24,627 283,118 545,031 905,472 1,539,847 1,757,331
10.3.5 Financial Analysis Summary

The calculations and financial analysis are conducted for the recommended ISWM system which
has been in detail in the technical sections.
For the ISWM system, the financial analysis is presented as follows:

a- the existing system - business as usual – (for comparison reasons only); and
b- therecommended ISWM system.

114
The financial analysis is carried for the following:
1. Recommended ISWM system for the CAPEX, OPEX, revenues and financial indicators for the
30 years period for the conservative and realistic scenarios for collection & transportation,
MRFs, ITF/AD to power and landfilling of rejects / inert material
2. Investment package 3 – ITF CAPEX, OPEX, revenues and financial indicators for the 30 years
periods for conservative and realistic scenarios. Under each scenario, the CDIA Team
financially analyzed the following:
a) ITF with revenues from electricity generation only financed by the City;
b) ITF with revenues from electricity generation & compost financed by the City;
c) ITF with revenues from electricity generation only financed by a grant; and
d) ITF with revenues from electricity & compost financed by a grant.
The financial analysis took into consideration the additional requirements for both CAPEX and
OPEX during the 30 years period, which has been presented in the sections above, which includes
but not limited to replacement of equipment at the end of its lifetime, preventative and required
maintenance works, overhauling of gas generator engines, additional staff, escalation of prices for
the various OPEX related items.
The outcomes of the financial model for the recommended ISWM system for City of Tangerang
are presented in Table 10.27.
Table 10.27: Outcome of Financial Model for Recommended ISWM System for City of
Tangerang for 30 years period – BAU, Conservative & Realistic Scenarios (in Rp.million)
Recommended System
*w/
Business As **w/ Realistic
Conservative
usual Tariff Scenario
Tariff Scenario
Initial CAPEX (at 2015 - at current
Rp.millions 658,971 645,213
prices)
Annual CAPEX Rp.millions 37,552 19,722 19,541
Annual OPEX Rp.millions 37,985 52,119 46,762
Annual CAPEX & OPEX Rp.millions 75,537 71,841 66,303
Annual Revenue Rp.millions 8,875 102,708 268,386
Annual Gap - Surplus (Deficit) Rp.millions (66,662) (68,321) (12,502)
Operating Ratio <1 4.28 1.72 0.58
NPV (Rp.millions) >0 (772,604) (2,049,626) (375,047)
Project FIRR >WACC 0.00% 0.00% 7.74%
Payback Period (years) - 16
The conclusions from the financial analysis of the Recommended ISWM system are as follows:
d- It is important to highlight that the BAU scenario is following the current 74% SW service
coverage for the population of City of Tangerang, while the conservative and realistic
scenarios are on the basis of 100% SW service coverage for the population of City of
Tangerang.
e- The whole recommended system with conservative scenario has more negative gap/deficit than
business as usual eventhough gives significant increase of operating efficiency which means
the project could not cover its all cost. On the contrary the system with realistic scenario has no

gap and therefore its operating cost could be covered well, and provides 100% SW coverage
services and ISWM system for the whole city, with 4R approach.
f- The realistic scenario of the recommended ISWM system has positif NPV and the IRR 7.74%
and 16 years payback period which is financially viable.
10.4 Economic Analysis for Recommended Integrated Solid Waste Management

10.4.1 Objectives and Overview of Economic Analysis
The purpose of the economic analysis is to analyse economic benefits and costs which are not
necessarily captured in the financial analysis. The solid waste management improvement often
yields benefits beyond the financial revenue stream accrued to the project and thus generates
netwelfare to the society. The economic analysis section describes the economic benefits and
costs and quantify them where data is available. Key indicators such as the Net Present Value
(NPV), the Economic Internal Rate of Return (EIRR) and the benefit and cost ratio (B/C) are
presented.
The proposed project has several benefits. The most direct benefits are accrued to the population
who receive better collection services in terms of improved frequency and sanitation. Generally,
the population is not directly concerned with the final waste treatment but prefers safe,
environmentally sound and affordable tariff. The Willingness to Pay (WTP) is a common method
to estimate the value consumer places on improved solid waste management services and hence
economic benefits of the project. Due to limited budget and time, no survey was conducted for the
City of Tengerang to determine WTP of the population to pay for improved SMW services. The
analysis draws on the WTP estimates conducted for similar cities to estimate WTP for the City of
Tengarang55.
ISWM also generates additional benefits from waste recovery process. Under the proposed ISWM
concept, the by-products of the improved SWM are sales of recyclables (from better sorting of
waste at MRF), and compost products and electricity generation (from anaerobic digestion plant).
Recovery of waste also benefits the environment as it results in avoided exploitation of raw
materials owing to higher recovery rate of recycling valuable materials.
Investment to improve SMW will also lead to operational efficiency gains by reducing
transportation and disposal costs per unit of waste. Operational efficiency gains are already
quantified in the financial analysis and could be directly captured by savings in operational
expenses and hence release of the city‟s valuable financial resources for other more productive
uses.
Improved SWM has wide-ranging environmental benefits. Currently about 30% of wastes are
disposed in an open environment and they either get burned, disposed in rivers, or in abandoned
areas – all contributing to water, soil and air pollution. Avoided environmental damages from
unmanaged wastes are key benefits from improved SWM investment. Such benefits include
pollution reduction, better air and water quality as well as associated health benefits. These
benefits will directly go to the poorer households in the city who are more exposed to open
55
ADB (2013) Demand Assessment and Willingness to Pay Survey for Municipal Solid Waste Management Services in
City of Batam.Aprilia, Aretha, Tetsuo Tezuka and GertSpaargaren (2012) Household Solid Waste Management in
Jakarta, Indonesia: A Socio-Economic Evaluation.Martin Daniel Siyaranamual (2013) Social Interaction and Public
Goods Provision: A Case of Waste Management in Bandung, Indonesia.

116
dumping practices as they are less likely to be covered by proper SWM services, less mobile in
their choice of residence or workplace, less affordable in accessing health care or treatment.
In addition, improved SWM also lead to land resource saving by extending the life of the landfill.
Moreover, improved landfill operation can reduce waterways pollution fromleachate. Costs of
treatment (or avoided cost of treatments) are one of the benefits of improved SWM investment.
Local environmental benefits also include improved living condition of the population living
nearby the landfill site or open dump sites. The aesthetics value such as smell and sight from open
dumping of solid waste are not easily quantified but they obviously affect level of welfare and
quality of life by impacting consumption and production activities of households in the affected
areas. According to World Bank (2008)56, a case where residents living close to an open dumping
site in Bekasi were compensated for the smells („smell compensation‟) reflect a certain value that
improved SWM generate to the society.
Poorly managed landfill site also resulted in loss of economic value of land area around the waste
collection and disposal site. Land that is used for improper disposal of solid waste will be
unusable for other more productive uses. World Bank (2008) suggested that the price of land
close to solid waste disposal areas can be highly depressed. In the case of Bantargebang in the city
of Bekasi, Banten Province, it was recorded that the average price of land close to the disposal
site was about 10 % of the average price in the other parts of the city. The effect on land price and
its productivity could also last for many years. Due to limited data and difficulty in estimating the
area of land affected by the landfill, this benefit is not quantified. Proper management of landfill
and collection points will significantly reduce land areas exposed to negative physical conditions
of SWM and associated loss in economic value.
Improved solid waste also has important regional and global environmental benefits from
reducing GHG emissions. ISWM investment generates GHG emission reductions by both
reducing methane release into the atmosphere from improved landfill operation at the existing site
and also by generating and selling electricity from renewable sources to the grid which effectively
replaces fossil fuel-based grid electricity. As discussed in the previous section, the existing
landfill site has no LFG management resulting in methane release in the atmosphere causing
global warming. While it is still debatable on what should be the appropriate economic value of
the carbon emission, referenced carbon prices from the EU Emission Trading System or the
carbon tax and levies set in some countries could be used to provide some kind of benchmark
about the economic value of GHG emission reduction. 57
Other economic benefits also include employment generation as some activities in the SWM
chain employ a lot of labor especially sorting. Normally sorting is done by informal sector and
often engages low-income households of the city. In total it is estimated that 3,763 jobs will be
created with ISWM investment proposed. Employment creation for low-income population of the
city will directly contribute to poverty reduction and increased welfare by providing safety
working environment, better working conditions and increases in income. Economic costs include
all financial capital costs and operating costs excluding applicable taxes.
56
World Bank (2008).Economic Impacts of Sanitation in Indonesia.
57
Bowen, Alex (2011).The case for carbon pricing.

10.4.2 Economic Internal Rate of Return
The economic analysis is undertaken for the integrated solid waste management investment
package and the construction of Intermediate treatment facilities. The EIRR for the project is
calculated based on available data. However, it should be noted that the results are preliminary
and a more detailed analysis may be needed to refine the assumptions and fine-tune the results.
10.4.2.1 General Assumptions

1- The calculation is done in current price with the annual escalation factor of 4.5%, in line with
the financial analysis.
2- National Conversion Factor for non-labor cost is 0.8 according to WB/ADB appraisal practices
in Indonesia
3- Exchange rate is IDR 11,500 to 1 USD
4- Discount rate is 12%
5- Project life is 30 years.
10.4.2.2 Assumptions of the Integrated Solid Waste Management Scenario

Economic benefits which are included in the calculation are:
1- The WTP of households and non-residential customers who are served under the city‟s
improved ISWM services. Several estimates of WTP for Indonesia were reviewed and the
WTP estimates for Batam City were used as reference in the calculation. The average WTP
for household is IDR 18,000 (10% lower than Batam‟s average of IDR 20,000 given lower
level of affordability in Tengareng). Non residential service fee is based on waste they
generated and transported to landfill. Sales of recyclables, compost and electricity generated
and sold to the grid based on the realistic scenario. Market price adjustments are the same as
the financial analysis.
2- The economic value of avoided GHG emission from improved landfill practice at the existing
site during year 2 to year 20 of project life.
3- The economic value of avoided GHG emission from electricity generated from renewable
sources during year 1 to year 20 of project life.
4- Carbon price is assumed to be 5 USD per ton of CO2e which is a realistic estimate based on a
review of carbon prices used in similar analyses (8 Euro per ton of CO2e and 12 USD per ton
of CO2e for analyses taken in 2012).58 Carbon price used in the economic analysis is expected
to reflect the long term value of carbon emission reduction to society rather than the financial
value of selling carbon credits. Given the highly volatile price movement in the carbon
trading system due to uncertainty of the future carbon market, the current tradingprice is not
used in the analysis as it does not seem to reflect the long-term cost of carbon emission to the
society, which is still debatable what the appropriate price range should be.
Economic costs which are included in the calculation are:

1- Capital costs of collection & transportation, MRF, ITF, landfill, and others excluding
applicable taxes.
2- Operating costs of collection & transportation, MRF, ITF, landfill, and others excluding
applicable taxes.
58
World Bank (2012) Project Appraisal Document Ningbo Municipal Solid Waste Minimization and Recycling
Project.Aprilia Aretha, Tetsuo Tezuka and GertSpaargaren (2012) Economic Evaluation of HH SWM in Jakarta.

118
CDIA Team could not include the cost of environmental degradation (cost of pollution) since
within this short period of time (2 months) the team could not gather reliable data that would
provide realistic economic analysis.
10.4.2.3 Assumptions for ITF Scenario

Economic benefits which are included in the calculation are:
1- Sales of compost and electricity generated and sold to the grid based on the realistic scenario.
Market price adjustments are the same as the financial analysis.
2- The economic value of avoided GHG emission from electricity generated from renewable
sources during year 1 to year 20 of project life.
3- Carbon price is assumed to be 5 USD per ton of CO2e.
Economic costs which are included in the calculation are:

1- Capital costs of ITF excluding applicable taxes.
2- Operating costs of ITF excluding applicable taxes.
10.4.2.4 Results
The results of the economic analysis show that the EIRR for the whole improved ISWM package
is 30.53% exceeding the threshold of 12%. The NPV is positive at IDR 1,165,269 million at the
discount rate of 12%. The B/C ratio is 1.46 which is above the threshold of 1. In sum, the project
is economically viable and generates net positive welfare to the society. It should be noted that
several environmental benefits, especially local environmental benefits, have not been quantified,
the main reason being the limited time of the study (2 months) to gather reliable data to carry out
accurate estimations.
The EIRR for the ITF investment package is 14.95%. The NPV is positive with a surplus of IDR
190,181 million. The B/C ratio is 1.15 which is above 1. In sum, the project is economically
viable and generates net positive welfare to the society. It should be noted that several
environmental benefits, especially local environmental benefits, have not been quantified.
Table 10.28: Economic Indicators of Proposed ISWM Investment Package and ITF Package
EIRR (%) NPV at 12% Discount Rate (IDR) B/C Ratio
Proposed ISWM 30.53 1,165,269 1.46
ITF 14.95 190,181 1.15
Source: CDIA Calculation
10.4.2.5 Sensitivity Analysis

A sensitivity test was conducted to examine the impact of an increase in cost and decrease in
benefit on the EIRR, NPV and B/C. In the scenario where benefits are reduced by 10% and cost
increases by 10%, the EIRR for proposed ISWM and ITF reduced to 20.35% and 10.77% which
is under 12% but still not consider the invironment impact yet.However the EIRR for ISWM are
still higher than the threshold EIRR of 12%. This implies that with 10% changes in benefits and
costs, the project is still economically viable.
Table 10.29:Sensitivity Analysis (10% Increase in Cost and 10% Decrease in Benefits)
EIRR (%) NPV at 12% Discount Rate (million IDR) B/C Ratio
Proposed ISWM 20.35 545,957 1.20
ITF 10.77 (79,993) 0.94

CHAPTER 11
INVESTMENT PACKAGES FOR RECOMMENDED
INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
In this Chapter CDIA Team will present independent investment packages for the whole ISWM
system, divided as follows:
- Investment Package 1 – Collection and Transportation
- Investment Package 2 – MRF
- Investment Package 3 –Intermediate Treatment Facility
The main purpose of presenting stand alone investment packages is to enable the City of
Tangerang to develop and implement these projects under the best arrangements, which will vary
from one package to the other. The technical, financial, economical, implementation and
operational arrangement and risk assessment for each investment package will be presented
11.1 Investment Package 1: Collection and Transportation

11.1.1 Technical Aspects
Table 11.1 below presents Investment Package 1 for collection and transportation component.
Table 11.1: Investment Package 1 for collection and transportation component

Type of
Specifications Number of Units
Equipment
Waste Container
2014 2018 2023 2028 2033 2038
- Tested to EN 840 – DIN 30700
- 120 liters capacity
120 liter
- Full thickness design
Waste
- Solid steel galvanised wheel 25192 2607 3641 4118 4657 5267
Container
axle with solid wheel tyres
(Organic)
- 5 years lifetime
- Green colour
- 120 liters capacity
120 liter
- Full thickness body
Waste
- Solid steel galvanised wheel 25192 2607 3641 4118 4657 5267
Container
axle with solid wheel tyres
(Inorganic)
- 5 years lifetime
- Yellow colour
- 1.2 m3 capacity
1.2 m3 Waste
- High strength Trunnions (Din
Container 1300 1510 1819 2188 2629 3156
Lifting Side Lugs) supplied as
(Organic)
standard
- 5 years lifetime
- Green colour
1.2 m3 Waste
- 1.2 m3 capacity
Container 235 271 324 387 462 553
(Inorganic)
- High strength Trunnions (Din

120
Type of
Specifications Number of Units
Equipment
Lifting Side Lugs) supplied as
standard
- 5 years lifetime
- Yellow colour
Cotton Bag - 20 liters capacity 478652 49530 69181 78242 88490 100081
(Inorganic) - Can be tied
Drum - 50 liters capacity
Container - 5 years lifetime 251922 26068 36411 41180 46574 52674
(Organic) - Plastic made
Arm Roll - 6 m3 capacity
Container - 5 years lifetime 76 2 84 14 99 31
(Organic) - Steel made
Waste Collection and Transportation
2014 2018 2023 2028 2033 2038
3
- 6 m capacity
- 10 years lifetime
- Isuzu, Mitsubishi, or similar
Compactor
chasis 59 9 73 26 93 50
Truck
- Fuel diesel
- Drive wheel 4x2
- 6 shift transmission
- 6 m3 capacity
- 10 years lifetime
- Isuzu, Mitsubishi, or similar
Arm-roll
chasis 71 11 86 30 109 56
Truck
- Fuel diesel
- Drive wheel 4x2
- 6 m3 capacity
- 10 years lifetime
- Isuzu, Mitsubishi, or other
Dump Truck similar standard 35 40 48 57 68 82
- Fuel diesel
- Drive wheel 4x2

11.1.2 Financial Aspects
11.1.2.1 Capital Expenditures (CAPEX)
The capital expenditures (CAPEX) for investment package 1 including the phasing are presented
on Table 11.2, 11.3, and 11.4.
Table 11.2: CAPEX for Investment Package 1: SWM Collection & Transportation package
during 30 years period (Rp million)
Unit Total Total
Price Capex Capex
Quantity Percentage
(Rp. (constant ( current
thousand) price 2013) price)
Waste Container (120 L - Organic) 454,830 40 18,193 0.47% 31,082
Waste Container (120 L - Inorganic) 864,178 4 3,457 0.09% 5,906
Waste Container (1,20 m3 - Organic) 12,603 3,000 37,809 0.97% 86,845
Waste Container (1,20 m3 - Inorganic) 2,231 3,000 6,693 0.17% 15,324
Cotton Bag (20 L - Inorganic) 90,967 4 364 0.01% 622
Drum Container (20 L - Organic) 305 60,000 18,300 0.47% 37,823
Arm Roll Container (6 m3 - Organic) 258 1,000 258 0.01% 531
Transportation Equipment 3,710 1,000 3,710 0.10% 5,641
Compactor Truck 434,932 11.18% 615,848
Arm Roll Truck 262 1,006,000 263,572 6.78% 368,992
Dump Truck 307 357,000 109,599 2.82% 153,390
Total Capital Expenditure 576,087 100.00% 879,584
Table 11.3: Phasing of CAPEX for Investment Package 1: Collection & Transportationfor the
first 5 year (Unit)
Total 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
(unit) 2 3 4 5 6 7
Collection Equipment
a Drum Container 277,991 83,974 83,974 83,974 26,069 - -
b Cotton Bag 528,184 159,551 159,551 159,551 49,531 - -
c Collection Points (1.2 m3)-Organic 2,811 433 433 433 1,511 - -
d Collection Points (1.2 m3)-Inorganic 505 78 78 78 271 - -
e Waste Container (120 L) 55,599 16,795 16,795 16,795 5,214 - -
f Arm Roll Container (6 m3) 77 25 25 25 2 - -
g Handcarts (Organic) 86 14 14 14 43 - -
h Handcarts (Inorganic)
Transportation Equipment
a Compactor Truck 70 20 20 20 10 - -
b Arm Roll Truck 82 24 24 24 11 - -
c Dump Truck 0 - - - - - -

122
Table 11.4: Phasing of CAPEX for Investment Package 1: Collection & Transportation for the
first 5 year (at current price - Rp million)
2015 2016 2017 2018
Total
2 3 4 5
Collection Equipment 34,538 8,342 8,342 8,342 9,510
a Drum Container 13,005 3,874 3,874 3,874 1,384
b Cotton Bag 2,471 736 736 736 263
3
c Collection Points (1.2 m ) - Organic 10,515 1,499 1,499 1,499 6,017
3
d Collection Points (1.2 m ) - Inorganic 1,889 270 270 270 1,079
e Waste Container (120 L) 260 77 77 77 28
3
f Arm Roll Container (6 m ) 5,349 1,730 1,730 1,730 159
g Handcarts (Organic) 107 17 17 17 57
h Handcarts (Inorganic) 943 140 140 140 523
Transportation Equipment 108,518 30,766 30,766 30,766 16,221
a Compactor Truck 76,668 21,667 21,667 21,667 11,667
b Arm Roll Truck 31,850 9,099 9,099 9,099 4,554
Total 143,055 39,108 39,108 39,108 25,731
11.1.2.2 Operating and Manintenance Expenditures (OPEX)

The operating and maintenance expenditures (OPEX) for investment package 1 are presented on
Table 11.5.
Table 11.5: Annual Operating Cost for Investment Package 1: Collection & Transportation
(Rp. Million)
2015 2021 2027 2034 2041 2043
Collection & transportation
Salaries 8,170 14,136 25,294 57,913 111,194 127,306
Fuel 10,531 26,041 92,908 322,358 728,282 892,874
Total Operating Cost 18,701 40,177 118,202 380,270 839,476 1,020,180
11.1.2.3 Revenues
Investment package 1 will generate revenues from SW service fees which are reflected in the
ISWM system for City of Tangerang. The best implementation and operational arrangement for
this component will be by the City of Tangerang.
11.1.2.4 Recommended Financing Option

CAPEX has to be provided by the local government as well as its OPEX. Main reason being
under existing pricing, the ISWM system is not breaking even, and bringing a private operator
will increase the financing gap even more. This is primarily contributed by the relatively low
revenues from cost recovery tariff.
11.1.3 Implementation and Operational Arrangement

Given that the City of Tangerang is operating the collection and transportation system and huge
collection fleet is already owned by DKP as well as staff / crew, it is recommended to have the
City of Tangerang implement and operate investment package 1, namely the purchase of the
required collection and transportation fleet and auxiliary equipment presented above and to be
responsible for the operation of the collection and transportation system.

It is highly recommended that City of Tangerang have maintenance agreement with the trucks
suppliers(compactor, dump and arm roll trucks) to carry out the preventitive maintenance and any
required mechanical or electrical fixing for period of 5 years including provision, installation and
at least 1 year warranty of spareparts.Upon statisfactory performance, maintenance contracts
should be extended, and at all times maintenance contracts should be in place during the
lifetimeof the trucks.
11.1.4 Risk Assesment

Three major risks are identified under the proposed collection and transportation package which
are presented in the table below with the recommended mitigation measures.
Table 11.6: Risk assessment for Investment Package 1

Compactor trucks City should have an after sales maintenance contract with the
require regular manufacturer / supplier (part of the terms of the procurement of the
maintenance trucks) during the operational lifetime of the equipment.
Compactor trucks Part of the contract should also include training program to the drivers
require trained operator and collection fleet for the truck (mainly driver and collection fleet).
Imported trucks are Major cost item of compactor truck is for the truck chasis which are
very expensive, and available locally (Isuzu, Mitsubishi, etc.). City has two options, either
compactor trucks are leave this up to the truck chasis manufacture to purchase and install
not manufactured from overseas, OR instruct in the tender documents compactor units to
locally be locally manufactured under license. The later has advantage that the
local manufacturer would be the capable entity to provide maintenance
and training.
11.2 Investment Package 2: Material Recovery Facility

Table 11.7 below presents Investment Package 2 for MRF component. It details “reference”
specifications for the various types of equipment required to equip the MRF with and the number
of equipment units required during the 30 years planning period.
Table 11.7: Investment Package 2 for MRFs component at the local level
Additional Number of Units
Requirements Specifications
2014 2028
 Permanent and semi permanent building (hangar steel)
MRF Building 12 0
 Total area requirement: 30 x 30 m
 Type: Belt Conveyor
 Belt width: 120 cm
Sorting Line 12 24
 Belt length: adjustable
 Driving Motor 20 HP
 Type: Pressing Machine
Compactor  Capacity: 20-30 tons/day 12 24
 Driving Motor 20 HP
 Type: Strapping Band Machine
Bailing 12 12
 Type of tape: strapping band
 Manufacturer: HotRot Solutions
In-Vessel  Type: HotRot 1811 with Integrated Feed Hooper
Composting  Capacity: 2.5 tons/day 12 12
Reactor  Energy Requirement: 60-70 kW/day
 Overall dimension : 12.80 m x 2.17 m x 2.33 m

124
Based on the recommended configuration and ISWM system, total recyclables and compost from
inveatment package 2 in demand that will be processed and sold on monthly basis during the 30
years period is presented in Table 11.8 below.
Table 11.8: Total production of processed recyclables and compost from MRFs at City of
Tangerang during 30 years
Total Production / sales (tons/day)
Type of Product
2014 2018 2023 2028 2033 2038 2043
Paper 4.532 5.227 6.248 7.467 8.926 10.669 12.752
Cardboard 9.813 11.318 13.528 16.170 19.328 23.102 27.613
Plastics 42.524 49.046 58.623 70.071 83.754 100.108 119.657
Glass 5.452 6.288 7.516 8.983 10.738 12.834 15.341
Metals 1.022 1.179 1.409 1.684 2.013 2.406 2.876
Compost 10.80 10.80 10.80 10.80 10.80 10.80 10.80

The capital expenditures (CAPEX) for investment package 2 including the phasing are presented
on Table 11.9, 11.10, and 11.11.
Table 11.9: CAPEX for Investment Package 2: MRFs package during 30 years Period (Rp
million)
Unit Price Total Capex Total Capex
Quantity (Rp. (constant Percentage ( current
MRF/Waste Bank 51,000 90.91% 64,547
Belt Conveyor 36 50,000 1,800 3.21% 3,238
Compactor 36 50,000 1,800 3.21% 2,428
Bailer 24 50,000 1,200 2.14% 1,537
Total Capital Expenditure 56,100 100.00% 71,001
Table 11.10: Phasing of CAPEX for Investment Package 2: MRF for the first 5 year (Unit)
Total 2015 2016 2017
(unit) 2 3 4
MRF
a Buildings, Civil Work & Utility 12 4 4 4
b In Vessel Composting Reactor 12 4 4 4
d Compactor 12 4 4 4
e Bailer 12 4 4 4
Table 11.11: Phasing of CAPEX for Investment Package 2: MRF for the first 5 year
(at constant price - Rp million)
Total 2015 2016 2017
2 3 4
MRF
a Buildings, Civil Work & Utility 43,592 14,531 14,531 14,531
b In Vessel Composting Reactor 4,844 1,615 1,615 1,615
d Compactor 646 215 215 215
e Bailer 646 215 215 215
Total 50,419 16,806 16,806 16,806

11.2.2.2 Operating and Maintenance Expenditures (OPEX)
Table 11.12.
Table 11.12: Annual Operating Cost for Investment Package 2: ITFs & MRFs at local level
during 30 years period (Rp. Million)
2015 2021 2027 2034 2041 2043
MRF/Waste Bank
Salaries 2,171 3,258 4,890 7,852 12,608 14,435
Maintenance 35 137 178 729 991 1,083
Utilities & Fuel 26 101 131 535 728 795
Total Operating Cost 2,232 3,496 5,199 9,115 14,328 16,313
11.2.2.3 Revenues
Investment package 2 will generate partial revenues from sale of recyclables (since a conservative
estimate of 50% of the recyclables market value will be paid to the low income areas / residents
when they hand over their recyclables as an incentive / encouragement to increase recycling),
which is reflected in the ISWM system for City of Tangerang. The best implementation and
operational arrangement for this component will be by the City of Tangerang, due to the fact that
this model will be operated by the communities at the low income areas which accordingly
require investment by the City of Tangerang as it will be an attractive business investment
scheme.
Accordingly Tables 11.13 below presents the revenues generated from investment package 2 –
MRF.
Table 11.13: Revenues from Investment Package 2 – MRF during 30 years period
(in Rp.million)
2015 2021 2027 2034 2041 2043
2 8 14 21 28 30
Recyclable sale 8,233 21,579 28,456 42,832 58,973 62,941
Compost value 3,587 4,887 6,659 10,343 14,605 15,685
Total Revenue 11,820 26,466 35,115 53,175 73,578 78,625
11.2.2.4 Financial Analysis

Financial analysis for investment package 2, namely MRF is presented on the Table 11.14.
Table 11.14: Outcome of Financial Model for Investment Package 2 – MRF for 30 years period
Initial CAPEX (at 2015 - at current prices) 18,487
Annual CAPEX 473
Annual OPEX 1,039
Annual CAPEX & OPEX 1,512
Annual Revenue 17,954
Annual Gap - Surplus (Deficit) 4,470
Operating Ratio 0.16
NPV (Rp.millions) 134,094
Project FIRR 76.33%
Payback Period (years) 4

126
The table above shows that the package of MRF have positif NPV with proper return of IRR
around 76.33% and gives also efficient operation cost at 0.16 operating ratio.

CAPEX and OPEX has to be provided by the City due to the fact that these facilities are at the
low income areas, and the model is about encouraging and providing incentives for Citizens and
Communities to segregate their waste and bring the recyclables to the waste banks, and get
rewarded up to 50% of the market price for those recyclables (CDIA Team estimate). But also the
private sector could have high interest in such a model given its high FIRRR and payback period.
If PSP is the model to be followed, a competitive tendering process should be put in place to
ensure the City gets a win – win deal with PS for the benefit of the Citizens and sustainability of
the sector.

Given that the waste bank concept is primarily community driven program, with lots of
interaction with the public, and the City through the Environment Agency have implemented thus
far all facilities and initiatives in place with successful experiences on the program, it is
recommended to have the implementation of the investment package 2 by City of Tangerang,
specifically the expansion of waste banks, construction of an MRF per region (total 12 MRFs) and
purchase and installation works of the recommended equipment presented in Table 11.7 above
and to be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the MRFs. Having said that, private
sector can also be an option if the City wishes to. The model is financially attractive for private
sector, but the City needs to ensure to go into competitive bidding process to ensure a win – win
agreement is in place for the benefit of the Citizens and the sustainability of the sector.
It is highly recommended that City of Tangerang have maintenance agreements with 2 to 3 third
party maintenance facilities who will be responsible for preventative maintenance for the MRFs
and any required mechanical or electrical fixing for period of 5 years including provision,
installation and at least 1 year warranty of spareparts. Upon statisfactory performance,
maintenance contracts should be extended, and at all times maintenance contracts should be in
place during the lifetimeof the MRFs.

A major riskis identified under the proposed MRFpackage which is presented in the Table 11.15
below with the recommended mitigation measures.

Market prices influence by third party traders City should sell the recyclables on monthly or
quarterly basis locally and country wide.
Regional sales should also be exercised but
quantities have to be larger, thus sales on
quarterly basis may make more financial sense
to attract overseas buyers. That would even
bring the prices higher.

11.3 Investment Package 3: Intermediate Treatment Facility
The type of anaerobic digestion process that is appropriate for City of Tangerang is the dry
anaerobic digestion, single stage, and batch feeding system. However, it is important to highlight
that other types are as well relevant, and since it is a very well developed technology, and
thousands of medium to large scale anaerobic digester plants are operating for many years all over
the world, with hundreds of manufacturers, City of Tangerang should be open for other types of
anaerobic digestion as long as biogas generation rate per ton of waste is maximized as well as
electricity generation, operation costs are minimized, and EHS aspects are well addressed.
Table 11.16 below summarizes the data and assumptions used for the conceptual design of the
anaerobic digestion plants, for both conservative and realistic scenarios.
Table 11.16: Data and Assumption for conservative and realistic scenarios for investment
package 3 – anaerobic digestion to electricity generation
ASSUMPTION
ITEM UNIT RANGE
Gas Generation
Biogas per ton of waste m3 85 80 80 to 160
Methane concentration in biogas % 70 55 55 to 75
CH4 produced (m3 / ton waste) m3/ton waste 59.5 44 -
Electrical Output
Energy contained in 100%biogas Kcal/m3 8300 8300 -
Energy contained in CH4 biogas Kcal/m3 5810 4565 -
Electrical Efficiency of IC gensets % 36.72% 36.72%
Assumed percentage of Parasitic Load % 15% 20% 10% to 20%
Operating Hour hours/year 8,000 8,000
Exchange rate IDR/USD 11,500 11,500
Feed-in Tariff IDR/kWh 1,450 1,450
% of input
Compost quantity generated 30 20 20 to 35%
waste
Compost price $/kg 0.0696 0.0696 800 to 1400 Rp/kg
Compost price $/ton 87 70
Annual compost price increase % 5 5
Total compost sale % 50 50
Financial
Unit CAPEX for Anaerobic
USD/ton 220 230 200 to 250
digester plant
Preventative maintenances cost for
% 0.5 0.5
AD
Heavy equipment
2 Bulldozers million USD 0.40 0.40
2 Loaders million USD 0.40 0.40
Compost Packaging line million USD 0.02 0.02
Power plant system
Gas engine generators (1 MW) million USD 0.40 0.40
Overhauling Period years 5 5
Overhauling cost % 60 60 50%-60%
Preventative maintenances period years 2 2
Preventative maintenances cost % 10 10
Cabling, connections, etc. million USD 0.55 0.55
Transformer for 1 MW engine million USD 0.05 0.05
Unit Cost for OPEX USD/ton 15.00 20.00 $12 to $20/ton

128
All data on Table 11.16 above is based primarily on manufacturers, research work on
successfully operating projects, market survey results and CDIA calculations.
A detailed calculation sheet (soft copy available) has been prepared for the intermediate treatment
facility (ITF) during its 30 years lifetime, with detailed financial costing, and the final outcome is
presented below in Table 11.17.
Table 11.17: Result of Calculation on anaerobic digestion plant for City of Tangerang
Unit Conservative Realistic
Total organic waste processed tons 12,362,762.41 12,362,762.41
Initial Capacity of AD plant tons/day 400 400
Final installed capacity of AD plant tons/day 2000 2000
Initial Land Area Requirements Ha 4 4
Final Land Area Requirements Ha 17 17
GAS GENERATION
Methane produced m3 543,961,545.99 735,584,363.33
ELECTRICAL OUTPUT -
Initial MW Installed MW 1 2
Final MW Installed MW 5 10
Total Electricity Output MW/year 722,038.20 1,380,254.08
COMPOST
Compost quantity generated tons/yr 2,472,552.48 3,708,828.72
The unit price of electricity generation for the realistic scenario is 37 cents / kwh. However, for
the optimistic scenario which is based on the highest biogas generation rate per ton of solid waste
following manufacturers technical data provided to CDIA Team (160 m3 of biogas / ton of waste),
will provide unit price of electricity of 20 cents/kwh.
11.3.2 Financial Analysis and Costing

The capital expenditures (CAPEX) for investment package 3 including the conservative and
realistic scenario as well as the phasing of it are presented on Table 11.18, 11.19, 11.20, 11.21.
Table 11.18: CAPEX for Investment Package 3: Intermediate Treatment Facility (ITF) with AD
to Power Generation package during 30 years period (Conservative Scenario - Rp million)
Quantity (Rp. (constant Percentage (current
Heavy Equipment 12 2,300 27,600 0.90% 38,824
Power Plant System
1- Gas Turbine 8 4,600 36,800 1.20% 56,383
3- Transformer for 1 MW
5 575 2,875 0.09% 3,994
Engine

Table 11.19: CAPEX for Investment Package 3: Intermediate Treatment Facility (ITF) package
during 30 years period (Realistic Scenario - Rp million)
Quantity (Rp. (constant Percentage (current
Heavy Equipment 12 2,300 27,600 0.93% 38,824
Power Plant System
1- Gas Turbine 14 4,600 64,400 2.18% 97,487
Table 11.20:Phasing of CAPEX for Investment Package 3: ITF/AD to Power Generation for the
first 5 year (unit)
Total Unit 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
2 3 4 5 6
ITF / Anaerobic Digester
a Anaerobic Digester Plant 219,000 ton/day 146,000 - 36,500 - 36,500
b Heavy Equipment 4 Unit 4 - - - -
c Compost Packaging Line 1 Unit 1 - - - -
1- Gas Turbine 3 Ls 2 - 1 - -
2- Cabling, connections, etc 1 Ls 1 - - - -
3- Transformer for 1 MW Engine 3 Unit 2 - 1 - -
Table 11.21:Phasing of CAPEX for Investment Package 3 (at constant price - Rp million)
Total 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
(Rp.million) 2 3 4 5 6
ITF / Aerobic Digester
a Anaerobic Digester Plant 612,031 397,782 - 104,480 - 109,769
b Heavy Equipment 9,907 9,907 - - - -
c Compost Packaging Line 248 248 - - - -
1- Gas Turbine 15,112 9,907 - 5,204 - -
2- Cabling, connections, etc 6,811 6,811 - - - -
3- Transformer for 1 MW Engine 1,889 1,238 - 651 - -
645,998 425,894 - 110,335 - 109,769
11.3.2.2 Operating and Maintenance Expenditures (OPEX)

Table 11.22 and 11.23.
Table 11.22: Annual Operating Cost for Conservative Scenario of Investment Package 3: ITF
during 30 years period (Rp. Million)
2015 2021 2027 2034 2041 2043
Anaerobic Digester
Annual operating cost 0 91,520 114,085 147,305 189,948 204,219
Preventive maintenance for AD 0 2,896 5,793 7,723 10,620 11,585
Preventive maintenance for gas engine
generators 0 0 0 1,380 460 460
Total Operating Cost 0 94,416 119,878 156,408 201,027 216,264
Source: CDIA calculation

130
Table 11.23: Annual Operating Cost for Realistic Scenario of Investment Package 3: ITF during
30 years period (Rp. Million)
2015 2021 2027 2034 2041 2043
Anaerobic Digester
Annual operating cost 0 68,640 85,564 110,479 142,461 153,164
Preventive maintenance for AD 0 2,770 5,541 7,388 12,005 12,928
Preventive maintenance for gas
0 0 0 2,760 0 0
engine generators
Total Operating Cost 0 71,410 91,104 120,626 154,466 166,093
Source: CDIA calculation
11.3.2.3 Revenues
Investment package 3 will generate revenues from the sale of electricity and compost; however,
increase in revenues is directly proportional to the quality of the design, construction and
operation and maintenance of the facility. Accordingly investment package 3 is the only model
that is suitable for a PPP arrangement for at least a 1 year period, after which the facility is
transferred to the City of Tangerang for its operation (please refer to Implementation arrangement
Section 11.3.3).
Accordingly Table 11.24 and 11.25 below presents the revenues generated from investment
package 3 – ITF / waste to energy plant for the conservative and realistic scenarios, respectively.
Table 11.24: Revenues from Investment Package 3 – ITF/AD during 30 years period
2016 2021 2027 2034 2041 2043
3 8 14 21 28 30
Recyclables sale 11,332 14,900 20,302 31,533 44,526 47,819
Compost value - 38,544 80,025 113,659 177,341 190,665
Electricity sale 5,800 25,520 42,108 61,758 93,410 93,410
Total Revenue 17,132 78,964 142,435 206,951 315,276 331,894
Table 11.25: Revenues from Investment Package 3 – ITF during 30 years period
Realistic Scenario (in Rp.million)
2016 2021 2027 2034 2041 2043
3 8 14 21 28 30
Recyclables sale 7,155 9,407 12,817 19,909 28,112 30,191
Compost value - 69,511 173,509 296,282 505,265 624,711
Electricity sale 11,600 46,023 121,731 214,652 354,847 408,074
Total Revenue 18,755 124,941 308,057 530,843 888,223 1,062,975
11.3.2.4 Financial Analysis

Financial analysis for investment package 3, namely ITF (Anaerobic digestion to electricity
generation) is presented below in Tables 10.26 and 10.27 for the conservative and realistic
scenarios, respectively. The assumptions used under the conservative and realistic scenarios are
summarized in Table 87 below. The financial analysis is carried out for four different options /
financing options (City verses grant) as presented in the tables.

Electricity Generation for 30 years period Conservative Scenario (in Rp.million)
AD to Power: Conservative Scenario
Electricity Electricity &
Electricity Electricity with Grant Compost with
Only & Compost for AD Grant for AD
Capex Capex
482,242 482,242 482,242 482,242
current prices) Rp.millions
AnnualCAPEX Rp.millions 13,973 13,973 13,973 13,973
Annual OPEX Rp.millions 22,413 22,413 22,413 22,413
Annual CAPEX & OPEX Rp.millions 36,386 36,386 36,386 36,386
Annual Revenue Rp.millions 19,253 64,828 19,253 64,828
Annual Gap - Surplus
(51,155) (35,660) (38,999) (23,504)
(Deficit) Rp.millions
Operating Ratio <1 2.63 0.79 2.63 0.79
NPV (Rp.millions) >0 (1,534,640) (1,069,792) (1,169,964) (705,116)
Project FIRR >WACC:12% 0.00% -6.44% 0.00% -6.10%
Payback Period (years) - - - -
The table above still shows deficit which means could not cover all cost. Nevertheless option 2
and 4 has good efficient operating ratio.
Electricity Generation for 30 years period Realistic Scenario (in Rp.million)
AD to Power: Realistic Scenario
Electricity Electricity &
Electricity Electricity with Grant Compost with
Only & Compost for AD Grant for AD
Capex Capex
468,483 468,483 468,483 468,483
current prices) Rp.millions
AnnualCAPEX Rp.millions 13,792 13,792 13,792 13,792
Annual OPEX Rp.millions 17,121 17,121 17,121 17,121
Annual CAPEX & OPEX Rp.millions 30,912 30,912 30,912 30,912
Annual Revenue Rp.millions 58,038 148,784 58,038 148,784
Annual Gap - Surplus
(33,958) (6,234) (22,331) 5,393
(Deficit) Rp.millions
Operating Ratio <1 0.63 0.25 0.63 0.25
NPV (Rp.millions) >0 (1,018,736) (187,027) (669,916) 161,793
Project FIRR >WACC:12% -4.12% 9.75% -3.61% 15.87%
Payback Period (years) - 17 - 16
The table above shows better result for 4 which is provided with compost generation, and could
recover all cost and has good return to the this package on its own. This means that for this
package need grant to be implemented.
The conclusions derived from the above financial analysis for the three different schemes are as
follows:
The conclusion from the financial analysis of the four different options under the realistic scenario
for investment package 3 – anaerobic digestion to electricity generation is as follows:

132
a- Options 4 of realistic scenario are financially viable with positive NPV, FIRR>12% and
payback period within the 30 years lifetime of the project.
b- Without good compost market, demand and sales, grant for the initial CAPEX is essential to
make the project financially viable (option 4).
c- Under the four different options for realistic scenario and the two options (2 & 4) for
conservative scenario, the operating ratio is very low which indicates high operation
efficiency.
CDIA Team also develop the financial model for RDF implementation. Table 11.28 below
present the financial for implementation of RDF.
Table 11.28: Financial analysis for RDF technology

Required capacity if Same capacity as
RDF selected59 AD60
Capacity (tons/day) 1200 400
Unit Cost for CAPEX (USD/ton) 110 157
Total CAPEX (million USD) 48.000 22.857
Unit Cost for OPEX (USD/ton) 13 16
61
Total OPEX (million USD) / yr 5.694 2.336
62
RDF Pellet Produced 32% 32%
RDF Pellet produced for City of Tangerang (tons/day) 384 128
RDF Pellet price (USD/ton) 40.5 50.0
Total revenues (Million USD/year) 5.68 2.34
From the Table above, it can be concluded that the RDF plant will breakeven its operational
costs for 1200 tons / day and 400 tons / day capacity at $40.5 and $50, respectively.

Based on the detailed financial analysis carried out it is clear that this technology will not happen
without a grant for the initial investment (please refer to Tables 11.18 and 11.19). The main
reasons being the relatively low electricity tariff and modest compost market which is reflected on
low compost price. Accordingly, two financing models are available:
1- Grant the initial CAPEX to the City of Tangerang through the Ministry of Public Works
project with the World Bank.
2- Private sector financing but that means much higherCAPEX and OPEX since financial
institutions interests will be added on the CAPEX and profit margin will be added on top of the
OPEX estimates presented, which can amount to a range of 15 to 20%. This means an
additional financial burden on the Local Government.
CDIA Team recommends financing model 1, namely on granting the initial CAPEX to the
City of Tangerang.
59
Based on mixed waste colection
60
for the sake of comparison of the same capacity as the anaerobic digestion technology
61
OPEX does not include profit for operator
62
Acc. To mass balance provided, RDF produced will be equal to 32% of input (110 tons of RDF generated from350t/d
raw MSW)

Given that the anaerobic digester to electricity generation plant is designed specifically for each
site, and the fact that this is a new technology in the context of Indonesia with no local experience
for the different aspects of development, and that optimization of the operation has significant
impact on the gas generation rates and consequently the electricity generation potential, the CDIA
Team recommends the following arrrangements for the development of the ITF:
1- Private sector participation (PSP) based on a Design, build and operate (DBO) arrangement /
contract for 10 years between the City of Tangerang and private sector, and the operation
contract will be renewed upon satisfactory performance of the operator.
2- Tender documents should be prepared in such a way to give freedom to manufacturers to
present their own technologies and evaluation criteria should be based among others on highest
biogas / methane generation per ton of waste / maximum electricity generation rates.
3- Design and build phases are paid separately.
4- Operation phase is paid based on base fee for actual operation costs per month and 1 MW
installation and generation capacity, plus a percentage of the electricity sold to the grid over
and above the 1 MW (to provide an incentive for the operator to optimize the operation of the
plant and gas and electricity generation rates).
The above recommendations are for guidance, and a thorough legal and financial analysis is
required to ensure that a comprehensive bidding documents and tendering process is in place and
a win – win contract for both Local Government and the private operator is in place with proper
incentive for the private operator to design, build andoperate the plant to achieve its highest
efficiency and revenues.

Three major risks are identified under the proposed investment package 3, namely anaerobic
digestion to electricity generation package which are presented in the table below with the
recommended mitigation measures.

Waste is not segregated at source properly Despite the fact that the ITF is equipped with
which means the MRF at the ITF level will MRF to safeguard the anaerobicdigester, City
receive organics with higher inorganic rates of Tangerang has the responsibility to esnure
than planned / designed for. that the segregation at source is effectively
carried out.
Lower waste quanity than the contracted for Local government is responsible to ensue that
will be received by the plant the minimum quantity contracted for to be
received by the ITF reaches the plant on daily
basis.
Operation of the plant to achieve highest gas Local government should have an operation
and electricity generation rates contract with the designer and builder of the
plant to operate and maintain the plant during
its lifetime (10 years O&M contract) to be
renewed every 10 years upon satisfactory
performance of the operator.
A financial incentive has to be in the contract

between the Local Government and the
operator to ensure optimum operation and

134
performance of the plant is maintained at all
time with highest gas and electricity generation
rates.
Compost market is very modest in Tangerang Local government has to develop a strong
and in Indonesia in general. If compost market campaign for promoting compost. It has to be
can be created the project will be financially highlighted that compost generated from
profitable and will subsidize other parts of the anaerobic digesters is of very high quality and
SWM chain. cannot be compared to other types of windorw
or passive composting that are the ones existing
in Indonesia.
CDIA Team considered in the financial model

that only 50% of the compost volumes will be
sold at lowest market price, and the remaining
50% to be used by the local government for
promotion purposes (given for free), parks and
green areas of the City and use as daily /
regular cover at landfill replacing purchase of
daily / intermediate cover.
It is important to note that CDIA Team does not consider local government having a power
purchase agreement (PPA) with PLN as risky in anyway given that there are clear regulations
with all necessary elements for establishing in a timely manner a PPA between the local
government and PLN.
11.4 Investment Package 4: Rehabilitation of Rawa Kucing Landfill

The City of Tangerang today has a contractor on site building a new sanitary cell of 2.3 hectares
and leachate treatment system comprising anaerobic and maturation ponds. CDIA Team
recommends the additional rehabilitation and re-engineering works for the whole site to
compliment what the City is doing, to be carried out on three phases as follows:
PHASE 1 Excavation of all existing waste and put temporarily adjacent to the new sanitary cell
location that will be build following sanitary cell construction requirements. A new
sanitary cell of 8 hectares is required to receive all old waste from the existing site.
A leachate treatment plant will also be built in parallel to the construction of the new
cell. After construction of the new 8 hectares sanitary cell, old excavated waste will
be put back into the new sanitary cell (with proper compaction and adding a cover
layer every 1 m of compacted waste layer). The new cell will have remaining
capacity to serve for 1 year until reaching final capacity. During this year, phase 2
should be completed..
PHASE 2 After completion of phase 1, start up for the construction of second cell for a total
area of 6 hectares, following sanitary landfill construction requirements..
PHASE 3 Construction of the landfill facilities, which will include drainage works for the
whole site, operator and management / administrative office, laboratory building,
workshop, heavy equipment and vehicles hangar, washing hangar and landscaping
for the whole site, This Phase can start in parallel with Phase 1 as long as the
construction will not delay Phase 1 completion time..

The plan layout for investment package 4-rehabilitation of Rawa Kucing Landfill is presented in
Figure 11.1
Figure 11.1: Plan layout of Investment Package 4-Rehabilitation for Rawa Kucing Landfill

The capital expenditures (CAPEX) for rehabilitation of Rawa Kucing Landfill as per
recommendation from CDIA Team on Section 11.4.1 above are presented on the Table 11.30.
Table 11.30: Phasing of CAPEX for Investment Package 4: Landfill Development for the first 5
year (at current price - Rp.million)
Total 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
(Rp.million) 2 3 4 5 6 7
Landfill Development
Sanitary cell
construction &
270,944 115,223 57,611 98,110 - - -
Leachate
infrastructure

136
CAPEX has to be provided by the local government in order to avoid bank interest rates and
unnecessary higher financing costs, given that the budget is available.

The operation of the landfill can be given to private operator, or the operator of the ITF facility,
given that it is the same site, and the ITF plant will requiredispose of the inerts, as well as
possibility of compost used as regular cover material. In that case an operation fee shoud be
included as well as tipping fee for any waste disposal on site.

Major risk identified under the proposed rehabilitation and re-engineering of Rawa Kucing
package is presented in the table below with the recommended mitigation measures.

Safety hazards during Contract with the contactor should include EHS clauses following
rehabilitation works Indonesian and / or international standards to have proper safety
(excavation of old precautions taken during constrction phases.
waste and methane gas
emissions, explosion
hazards, landslides,
etc.).
11.5 Land Requirements

Land area re-allocations are required only for the MRF, since the area for ITF and landfilling are
already available in Rawa Kucing Landfill. The following sections describe in a concise manner
the land requirements for MRF, Intermediate Treatment Facility and landfill.
11.5.1 Land Requirement for Material Recovery Facility

Recommended ISWM system requires 12 units of Material Recovery Facility throughout the City
of Tangerang, 4 MRF in each service area. The typical area requirement for Material Recovery
Facility at the local level according to CDIA Team‟s design is 30 x 30 m or 900 m2. However if
there is lack of availability of land, City of Tangerang can applied the material recovery facility
on 15 x 15 m2area with some adjustment on the equipment. The land requirement for Material
Recovery Facility is presented on Table 11.32.
11.5.2 Land Requirement for Intermediate Treatment Facility

According to manufacturers‟ data and recently developed anaerobic digestion plants to energy
generation, typical land requirement including all pretreatment, electricity generation, compost
maturation bays, etc. is 1 hectare per 100 tons/day capacity. Tables 11.32 present the land
requirement for Intermediate Treatment Facility.
11.5.3 Land Requirement for Rawa Kucing Landfill

Based on the calculation of capacity of landfill cells from DED for Rawa Kucing Landfill, the
rehabilitated cells will be sufficient up to 2025. From 2026, City of Tangerang will require a new
area for landfill cells. The requirement of landfill cell area for City of Tangerang is presented on
Table 11.32

Table 11.32: Land requirement for recommended ISWM system in City of Tangerang
Initial Land Additional Land Requirement (Ha)
Year Requirement
(Ha) 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2033 2037
MRF 0.54 0 0 0 0 0.54 0 0
Intermediate Treatment Facility 4 1 2 2 1 2 2 3
Landfill (Ha) 0 0 0 0 6.36 0 4.03 8.06

138
CHAPTER 12
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR RECOMMENDED INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT
12.1 Implementation Plan

The implementation plan for recommended integrated solid waste management in City of Tangerang are comprise the plan for upgrading the solid waste
management prior to the application of ITF. The implementation plan for recommended integrated solid waste management in City of Tangerang are
presented in Table 12.1.
Table 12.1: Implementation plan for ISWM system for City of Tangerang
Year
1 2 3 4 5 6
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Surveys
Public awareness and community participation campaigns
Establishment of efficient institutional structure / BLUD
Detailed Feasibility Studies for investment packages 1 & 2
Detailed Engineering design for ITF
Developing financing plan for ISWM system
Developing tender documents for DBO for ITF
Tendering and bidding process for the 4 investment packages
Implementation of investment package 1 on phases
Implementation of investment package 3– ITF on phases

139
12.2 Phasing of Investment Packages
Tables 12.2 and 12.3 present the financial projections for the recommended phased approach of the ISWM system during the first 5 years (2015-2020),
divided into the 3 packages, at constant and current prices, respectively.
Table 12.2: Phasing of implementation plan for ISWM system for City of Tangerang – conservative scenario
Unit Total 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
2 3 4 5 6 7
a Drum Container Unit 277,991 83,974 83,974 83,974 26,069 - -
b Cotton Bag Unit 528,184 159,551 159,551 159,551 49,531 - -
c Collection Points (1.2m3) - Organic Unit 2,811 433 433 433 1,511 - -
d Collection Points (1.2m3) - Inorganic Unit 505 78 78 78 271 - -
e Waste Container (120 L) Unit 55,599 16,795 16,795 16,795 5,214 - -
f Arm Roll Container (6m3) Unit 77 25 25 25 2 - -
g Handcarts (Organic) Unit 86 14 14 14 43 - -
h Handcarts (Inorganic) Unit 841 130 130 130 451 - -
a Compactor Truck Unit 70 20 20 20 10 - -
b Arm Roll Truck Unit 82 24 24 24 11 - -
c Dump Truck Unit - - - - - - -
MRF and Waste Bank
a Buildings, Civil Work & Utility Unit 12 4 4 4 - - -
b In Vessel Composting Reactor Unit 12 4 4 4 - - -
c Belt Conveyor Unit 12 4 4 4 - - -
d Compactor Unit 12 4 4 4 - - -
e Bailer Unit 12 4 4 4 - - -
a Anaerobic Digester Plant ton/day 219,000 146,000 - 36,500 - 36,500 -
b Heavy Equipment unit 4 4 - - - - -
c Compost Packaging Line Ls 1 1 - - - - -
1- Gas Engine Generators MW 2 1 - - - 1 -
2- Cabling, connections, etc Ls 1 1 - - - - -
3- Transformer for 1 MW Engine Ls 2 1 - - - 1 -

140
Table 12.3: Recommended ISWM CAPEX implementation plan – conservative scenario (Rp.million)
Total 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
2 3 4 5 6 7
Collection Equipment 34,538 8,342 8,342 8,342 9,510 - -
a Drum Container 13,005 3,874 3,874 3,874 1,384 - -
b Cotton Bag 2,471 736 736 736 263 - -
c Collection Points (1.2 m3) - Organic 10,515 1,499 1,499 1,499 6,017 - -
d Collection Points (1.2 m3) - Inorganic 1,889 270 270 270 1,079 - -
e Waste Container (120 L) 260 77 77 77 28 - -
f Arm Roll Container (6 m3) 5,349 1,730 1,730 1,730 159 - -
h Handcarts (Inorganic) 943 140 140 140 523 - -
Transportation Equipment 108,518 30,766 30,766 30,766 16,221 - -
a Compactor Truck 76,668 21,667 21,667 21,667 11,667 - -
b Arm Roll Truck 31,850 9,099 9,099 9,099 4,554 - -
c Dump Truck - - - - - - -
MRF 50,419 16,806 16,806 16,806 - - -
a Buildings, Civil Work & Utility 43,592 14,531 14,531 14,531 - - -
b In Vessel Composting Reactor 4,844 1,615 1,615 1,615 - - -
c Belt Conveyor 692 231 231 231 - - -
d Compactor 646 215 215 215 - - -
e Bailer 646 215 215 215 - - -
Anaerobic Digester 668,541 438,402 - 109,229 - 120,910 -
a Anaerobic Digester Plant 639,851 415,863 - 109,229 - 114,759 -
b Heavy Equipment 9,907 9,907 - - - - -
c Compost Packaging Line 248 248 - - - - -
1- Gas Engine Generators 10,422 4,954 - - - 5,468 -
2- Cabling, connections, etc 6,811 6,811 - - - - -
3- Transformer for 1 MW Engine 1,303 619 - - - 683 -
Landfill Development 270,944 115,223 57,611 98,110 -
a Rawa kucing rehabilitation & re-engineering 270,944 115,223 57,611 98,110 -

141
Table 12.4: Phasing of implementation plan for ISWM system for City of Tangerang – realistic scenario
Unit Total 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
2 3 4 5 6 7
a Drum Container Unit 277,991 83,974 83,974 83,974 26,069 - -
b Cotton Bag Unit 528,184 159,551 159,551 159,551 49,531 - -
c Collection Points (1.2 m3) - Organic Unit 2,811 433 433 433 1,511 - -
d Collection Points (1.2 m3) - Inorganic Unit 505 78 78 78 271 - -
e Waste Container (120 L) Unit 55,599 16,795 16,795 16,795 5,214 - -
f Arm Roll Container (6 m3) Unit 77 25 25 25 2 - -
g Handcarts (Organic) Unit 86 14 14 14 43 - -
h Handcarts (Inorganic) Unit 841 130 130 130 451 - -
a Compactor Truck Unit 70 20 20 20 10 - -
b Arm Roll Truck Unit 82 24 24 24 11 - -
c Dump Truck Unit - - - - - - -
MRF and Waste Bank
a Buildings, Civil Work & Utility Unit 12 4 4 4 - - -
b In Vessel Composting Reactor Unit 12 4 4 4 - - -
c Belt Conveyor Unit 12 4 4 4 - - -
d Compactor Unit 12 4 4 4 - - -
e Bailer Unit 12 4 4 4 - - -
a Anaerobic Digester Plant ton/day 219,000 146,000 - 36,500 - 36,500 -
b Heavy Equipment unit 4 4 - - - - -
c Compost Packaging Line Ls 1 1 - - - - -
1- Gas Engine Generators MW 3 2 - 1 - - -
2- Cabling, connections, etc Ls 1 1 - - - - -
3- Transformer for 1 MW Engine Ls 3 2 - 1 - - -

142
Table 12.5: Recommended ISWM CAPEX implementation plan – realistic scenario (Rp.million)
Total 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
2 3 4 5 6 7
Collection Equipment 34,538 8,342 8,342 8,342 9,510 - -
a Drum Container 13,005 3,874 3,874 3,874 1,384 - -
b Cotton Bag 2,471 736 736 736 263 - -
c Collection Points (1.2 m3) - Organic 10,515 1,499 1,499 1,499 6,017 - -
d Collection Points (1.2 m3) - Inorganic 1,889 270 270 270 1,079 - -
e Waste Container (120 L) 260 77 77 77 28 - -
f Arm Roll Container (6 m3) 5,349 1,730 1,730 1,730 159 - -
h Handcarts (Inorganic) 943 140 140 140 523 - -
Transportation Equipment 108,518 30,766 30,766 30,766 16,221 - -
a Compactor Truck 76,668 21,667 21,667 21,667 11,667 - -
b Arm Roll Truck 31,850 9,099 9,099 9,099 4,554 - -
c Dump Truck - - - - - - -
MRF 50,419 16,806 16,806 16,806 - - -
a Buildings, Civil Work & Utility 43,592 14,531 14,531 14,531 - - -
b In Vessel Composting Reactor 4,844 1,615 1,615 1,615 - - -
c Belt Conveyor 692 231 231 231 - - -
d Compactor 646 215 215 215 - - -
e Bailer 646 215 215 215 - - -
Anaerobic Digester 645,998 425,894 - 110,335 - 109,769 -
a Anaerobic Digester Plant 612,031 397,782 - 104,480 - 109,769 -
b Heavy Equipment 9,907 9,907 - - - - -
c Compost Packaging Line 248 248 - - - - -
1- Gas Engine Generators 15,112 9,907 - 5,204 - - -
2- Cabling, connections, etc 6,811 6,811 - - - - -
3- Transformer for 1 MW Engine 1,889 1,238 - 651 - - -
Landfill Development 1,383,521 163,404 63,203 114,735 2,573 10,977 -
a Rawa kucing rehabilitation & re-engineering 270,944 115,223 57,611 98,110 -

143
CHAPTER 13
CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND
NEXT STEPS
During the twomonth preparation period for the City of Tangerang study, which is presented in
detail in this finalreport, the conclusions, recommendations and proposed next steps are as
follows.
13.1 Conclusions
Regulatory framework: Government of Indonesia through its different ministries and City of
Tangerang issued numerous laws, legislations and decrees related to SWM sector, all aiming at a
timely upgrade of the whole sector, which includes but not limited to waste minimization, 3R
approach, implementation of Central Treatment Plant, extension of lifetime of disposal site,
rehabilitation and upgrade of dumpsite to sanitary landfill, increased SW coverage and increased
SW service fees coverage, and last but not least better institutional settings to effectively manage
the sector.
Institutional: Existing institutional structure is not efficient in properly managing the SWM
sector, and requires improvementespecially after implementing the recommended ISWM system.
Technical: Existing SWM infrastructure from collection to final disposal is not suitable for City
of Tangerang population, insufficient and inefficient. Street sweeping is efficient and streets are
very clean. The recommended integrated SWM system will achieve highest 3R and waste to
energy generation levels. This is in line with the central and local governments regulations. In
addition, Rawa Kucing landfill site will receive 23% of total solid waste generated and collected
compared to 74% of total waste generated from the City of Tangerang (business as usual), which
means that the landfill lifetime will be extended three folds compared to the business as usual.
Financial: Cost recovery today is negligible. City of Tangerang budget for the SW sector has
increased significantly, which reflects the commitment of the city to the SW sector. However,
additional budget is required to realize the vision and the 3R /waste to energy / green
city/sustainable development for the City of Tangerang, which is presented in the recommended
ISWM system..
EHS: Major EHS concerns exist today at the collection and transportation points, ITFs and final
disposal site.
Social: Relatively large number of informal sector relies on poorly managed sector. Community
perception on SW services provided by the City of Tangerang does not seem to be good.

144
13.2 Recommendations
Institutional: In order for the City of Tangerang to properly manage the SW sector in an
integrated and comprehensive approach (from collection to final disposal following good/best
practices) as well as implementation of relatively advanced systems/technologies compared to
what is there today in place, the institutional structure needs to be significantly improved and
BLUD concept is recommended to be closely looked at and considered.
Technical: To achieve the ambitious goals and targets set by the GOI and City of Tangerang to
primarily preserve valuable resources (human, land, water and air), modernization of the sector
from collection to final disposal is essential, using appropriate technologies and systems to the
City of Tangerang local conditions and cultures, need to be implemented as per the three
presented concepts for the various levels of income of the population, non-residential and market
concepts. Quality of service need to be significantly improved which is directly related to
Communities‟ willingness to pay and participation.
Increasing the waste banks and upgrading them and implementation of the MRF facilities at the
local level is highly recommended which would maximize the 3R concept, cost efficiently process
and transport to the Rawa Kucing site the recyclables for sales at the end of each month at good
market prices.
Implementation of the ITF / anaerobic digester to electricity generation plant will benefit the
sector, the Local Government and sustainable development in many ways, including generating
power from waste, producing high quality compost and its applications for various uses and
extension of the landfill lifetime upto 3 times compared to BAU.
However some challenges do exist that Local Government need to mitigate which has been
summarized under each of the investment packages, and the major ones are:
1- Successful implementation of source segregation of wastes;
2- Increase and upgrade waste banks and promotion of recycling at the city level;
3- Successful implementation and operation of the MRFs and the ITF; and
4- Promotion and creation of compost market locally and within the region.
City of Tangerang should embark in a detailed study on hazardous wastes generated at the City
that would quantify, categorize, and recommend the best hazardous waste management system for
City of Tangerang from technical, financial, economic, institutional, environmental and social
perspectives, following best international practices and appropriateness to City of Tangerang.
It is recommended that City of Tangerang carries out a separate study on glass waste in the near
future, mainly to a)- accurately quantify and classify glass wastes generated in the City of
Tangerang; b)- Extended producer responsibility (EPR) and how much glass waste does that
include, policies, institutional, technical and other aspects to ensure that EPR is properly
implemented; c)- If the waste quantity remaining after EPR actions makes a business / financial
sense for PSP, carry out market survey on the potential demand from private sector and cost
benefit analysis for a recycling plant potential in City of Tangerang.
Otherwise, if the cost benefit analysis outcome confirms that it is not an attractive option for PSP
in glass wastes, then the recommended CDIA Team‟s ISWM system for glass should be fully
implemented. Until such study is carried out, City of Tangerang is responsible to safely manage

glass wastes to avoid safety concerns related to poor glass management practices. This is in line
with the City of Tangerang‟s Environment Agency directions and policies.
Financial: Significant financing is required for CAPEX in the new systems and technologies,
which requires City of Tangerang to move in parallel with self-financing, financial institutions
and Donors, as well as cost recovery structure. On the long term and for the sustainability of the
SWM systems, revenues need to be secured, which requires cost recovery law/decree,
enforcement mechanism and comprehensive survey for willingness, affordability and community
participation. The outcome of this is a realistic cost recovery structure in place, with periodic
increases. Having said that, the annual financing gap of the most cost efficient system proposed is
only at $1.09 million.
EHS: Standard operating procedures need to be developed, on the job training provided to the
operators and continuous monitoring and supervision to ensure its implementation. The reasons
being ensuring maximum EHS standards are maintained and safeguarding the environment, as
well as the expensive systems and technologies installed from breakdown and ensuring maximum
performance and lifetime following manufacturers‟ specifications.
Social: Social study to be carried on the willingness to pay and/or participate, acceptance of the
proposed concepts by the communities, and feedback of the informal sector on inclusion in the
proposed new SWM concepts, and following SOPs, EHS measures, etc.
13.3 Next Steps

1- Comprehensive survey to be carried out to present to the Communities with the conceptual
design for their respective communities, get their feedback, commitment, enthusiasm,
comments, etc. willingness and affordability to pay survey, and extent of participation in the
SWM scheme.
2- Detailed feasibility study to identify the collection points locations and number of containers,
MRFs locations, additional waste banks required to serve the low income areas and to feed
into the MRFs..
3- Establishment of an efficient institutional structure for the SWM entity/authority for the future,
namely BLUD to manage the sector in a cost efficient, integrated, and sustainable manner.
4- Serious discussions leading to memorandums of agreement/issuance of legally binding
documents between City of Tangerang and the relevant authorities (taxes and/or utility
companies) for the cost recovery fees collection mechanism.
5- Serious discussions with funding institutions, donors and City of Tangerang Planning agency
and other relevant agencies to line up financing needs for the whole ISWM system.
6- Startup of bidding and tendering process for the various investment packages.

146
ANNEX
ANNEX A
SITE VISIT REPORT
A.1 Residential Areas

A.1.1 Low Income Areas
Table A.1, A.2, and A.3 below summarizes the major aspects for the SWM chain for the low income residential areas, divided into technical, environment,
health and safety (EHS) and institutional.
Table A.1: Summary of the Existing Condition for Low Income Residential: Benua Indah Housing Complex – West Area
SWM Chain Existing Condition Comments
Technical Aspects
- Each householdis provided with 1 drum Advantages:
container 50 liters capacity (Figure A.1.(a)) - The waste container size and capacity is ideal for this area, as it is sufficient for
- Door to door collection system is being the volume of waste generated and can be easily lifted and transfered to hand
provided by the community themselves, twice a carts, ensuring safe operation.
day (morning and afternoon). - All containers are covered with lids, which avoids odors, and presence / breeding
- Capacity of handcart is 1 m3 environment for flies and rodents.
- Each hand cart is operated by one labor and - Same containers size and type is being used throughout the neighborhood, which
provide service for 2 neighborhoods provides good image of the community on the solid waste collection aspect.
(approximately 80 to 100 Households). - Waste collection carts size and capacity ideal for the community, to fit in the type
Collection and widths of roads, ease of accessibility to narrow areas, safety for children and
community walking around more frequently.
- Very well cleaned neighborhood.
- Overall very well managed system and should be replicated in other similar rural
areas.
Disadvantages:
- Unnecessary additional transportation trip (cost) by the city to serve the afternoon
transportation trip.
- Waste going twice a day to the treatment facility presents a problem as it has to be
processed otherwise if left in the open will attract insects, rodents, etc. and odor
A-1
generation source for the neighboring areas.
Recommendations:
- Community should be informed of transportation service once per day (fixed
morning time) at the transfer points, to lower transportation costs incurred by the
City.
- Community should be informed of treatment service at the treatment facility once
per day (fixed morning time), in order to ensure waste is being processed during
day and no accumulation of wastes for the following day (avoid odors and flies /
rodents breeding environment).
- No waste is allowed to be disposed of by the communities except at the fixed
morning time in order to keep transfer points and treatment facility clean at all
times, and minimize the work load on the moderately equipped treatment facility.
- Waste from hand cart will be transported to - Very cost efficient and sustainable system in place to provide transportation for
Solid Waste Treatment Facility (Figure only the rejects from solid waste treatment facility.
A.1.(b)) using transportation fleet from DKP; - Transfer points are not clean and waste containers provided are not suitable for
- Waste that goes to TPA using transportation the operation (not covered, not easily accessible and thus encourages random
Transportation fleet is from the residuesgenerated at the Solid disposal outside of the container).
Waste Treatment Facility (TPST Benua Hijau);
- The transportation trucks comes to treatment
facility upon request by the facility manager to
transport rejects to the TPA.
- Recycling initiatives is conducted at Waste - DKP should take the lead in providing community training and equipment for
Bank and Solid Waste Treatment Facility source segregation at the household level.
- In general segregation at the treatment facility is not effective given that the waste
has been mixed, compacted (by its weight) and squashed due to high moisture
Recycling content and ambient temperatures. Waste segregation, cleaning and having a
recyclable product at reasonable value at the treatment facility level is not
efficient and costly. In addition segregation at the treatment facility level
generates more reject material (waste that cannot be further processed), and thus
more waste going to the landfill.
- Treatment initiatives is conducted at Solid
Treatment Waste Treatment Facility (TPST Benua Hijau).
Please refer to Section A.3
Disposal - The waste is disposed at TPA Rawa Kucing.
A-2
- Retribution tarrif for this community is IDR - Service fees go directly to the neighborhood administration to pay for the service
FINANCIAL 2500/month. and associated costs.
ASPECTS - The salary for handcarts labor is IDR - The salary for handcarts labor is below the minimum regional salaries for City of
500,000/month. Tangerang.
- Very clean neighborhood, which indicates high - Collection: Is carried by the Community in an excellent manner. Collection
awareness, participation and cooperation level process in place follows best practices for small / rural / low income communities.
by the community to keep their village clean. - Transportation / transfer point: are not clean and waste containers provided are
- Using covered waste containers supports in not suitable for the operation (not covered, not easily accessible and thus
maintaining clean and hygienic environment, encourages random disposal outside of the container). From health perspective
and minimizes odors, and insects and rodents represents a breeding environment for insects and rodents, and spread of disease.
breeding. From safety perspective, the containers in place does not allow safe loading
- Using closed container provides good system, as its all manual, and requires heavy loading mechanism. From
ENVIRONMENT, containment of any liquids generated from the environmental perspective, leachate is generated since waste is exposed, and
HEALTH & MSW. drains into groundwater, etc. as well as adding more moisture to the already high
SAFETY - Using good size containers that are easily moisture content waste (50 to 60%). Obnoxious odors are generated due to the
ASPECTS liftable avoids injuries to waste collection prolonged time of waste exposed, since disposal at the transfer points is not
team. carried out at specific time of the day.
- Treatment facility: The staffs are not consistently wearing the proper gear which
presents a health and safety issue. Leachate is generated from inefficient
composting process which infiltrates into the ground water table / contaminates
the soil. Waste is exposed for extended periods of time, thus presenting a breeding
ground for insects and rodents, spread of disease as well as source of obnoxious
odors.
- Landfill: Landfill has major HSE concerns.
Benua Indah - DKP should provide standard operating procedures and on the job training to
- Solid waste management at Benua Indah is ensure optimization and efficiency of the operation and maintaining the facility in
conducted by the community (Neighboorhood good working order, as well as avoidance of negative environmental, health,
Administration). safety and hygiene issues.
INSTITUTIONAL - Neighborhood Administration cooperate with - This is a very good example of community based solid waste management system.
ASPECTS DKP Tangerang to provide transportation fleet.
- DKP provided the collection hand cart and its
related tools, as well as the equipment at the
waste treatment facility. The community is
responsible to operate and maintain the system.
A-3
- Solid waste management staffs are from the - Very clean neighborhood, which indicates high awareness, participation and
village, known to the citizens and thus present cooperation by the community to keep their village clean.
a comfortable relationship / arrangement. - Job opportunities have been created for the Community to manage their waste in a
SOCIAL
self-sustainable manner, and serve their people.
ASPECTS
- Additional jobs can be created for a- segregation at source rather than segregation
at the treatment facility; b- treatment facility after upgrading and expanding
capacity to serve the whole village and other villages as well.
(a). Same waste container at every house at Benua Indah / very clean streets (b). Solid Waste Treatment Facility at Benua Indah (TPST Benua Hijau)
Figure A.1: Existing condition at Benua Indah Housing Complex
A-4
Table A.2: Summary of the Existing Condition for Low Income Residential: Kenanga Village – Middle Area
SWM Chain Existing Situation Comments
TECHNICAL ASPECTS
- Waste container at household are provided by Advantages:
community - Very well cleaned neighborhood.
- Not every house has container Disadvantages:
- Collection system are door to door by using hand cart. - The SWM scheme does not cover the whole community (mainly because
of very narrow streets), which results in random disposal of waste by the
community households.
Collection Recommendations:
- Community who are served by handcarts should be informed of
collection service once per day (fixed morning time) in order to avoid
random disposal.
- Community who are not served by handcarts should be informed of
collection time and location to bring their waste to handcarts for transfer
to transfer points.
- Waste from handcart will be transported to transfer - No close by collection point for the community and the transferpoint is
point (Figure A.2.(a)) located far from the very far from the community. Accordingly some citizens disposed of
Transportation community; their waste in open areas.
- Waste from transferpoint will be transported to Rawa
Kucing Landfill using transportation fleet
- There is no recycling initiative in this village. - There should be a recycling facility for this type of community to
Recycling minimize the waste requiring management (collection / transportation /
disposal) and avoid the illegal waste disposal by the community.
- There is no treatment initiative in this village. - There should be a recycling facility for this type of community to
Treatment minimize the waste requiring management (collection / transportation /
disposal) and avoid the illegal waste disposal by the community.
- The waste collected by the handcarts is disposed of at - Random disposal should be avoided, by DKP providing collection points
the transfer points, which is taken on the dump trucks and specific time on daily basis to serve the community.
to the final disposal site, Rawa Kucing dumpsite.
Disposal
- Community households which do not have SWM
service dispose of their waste randomly in open areas
(Figure A.2.(b)).
A-5
FINANCIAL - No service fees are collected from this community. Since DKP is not providing the service no retribution fees are paid by the
ASPECTS Community.
- The neighborhood is very clean, which indicates that - Collection: does not cover the whole community, and accordingly those
ENVIRONMENT, the community is involved in streets sweeping and who are not covered dispose of their waste randomly in open areas
HEALTH, & maintaining the cleanliness of their village (Figure which presents EHS concern.
SAFETY ASPECTS A.2.(c)). - Transportation/transfer point: is not cleaned regularly and maintained
in a good condition. This presents a EHS concern.
- Solid waste in this area is managed independently by - The successful model of Benua Indah village (west area) should be
the community. replicated, where DKP provided the tools and management scheme to
INSTITUTIONAL
- DKP Tangerang does not provide service, tools / the village, and the Neighborhood Administration implemented it.
ASPECTS
equipment or management scheme / guidanceto this - Implementation of recycling and treatment initiative would be of great
area. help to all parties from all perspectives.
(b). Transfer point at Kenanga (b). Households not served dispose their waste in (c). Very clean streets at Kenanga neighborhood
open areas
Figure A.2: Existing condition at Kenanga Village
A-6
Table A.3:Summary of the Existing Condition for Low Income Residential: Parung Jaya Village – East Area
TECHNICAL ASPECTS
- Not all houses have containers. Some of the community throw their Advantages
waste by using the plastic bag and put the waste in front of their In general, very well cleaned neighborhood.
houses.
- Collection system is done using the cart motorcycle. Disadvantages
- Waste collection schedule is done every day from 6 to 9 am in the The waste containers used are not the same which causes
Collection morning. delays in the collection process.
Recommendations
Community should be provided by one waste container
with good design, which has sufficient capacity and EHS
friendly (covered and can be lifted).
The cart motorcycle crew will coordinate directly with the crew from This area needs to be provided by the transfer station as a
Transportation the transportation fleet. Then the cart motorcycle will come to the place to transfer the waste from the cart motorcycle to the
transportation fleet and transfer the waste. transportation fleet.
Recycling There is no recycling initiative.
Treatment There is no treatment initiative.
Disposal The final disposal for this area is carried out at Rawa Kucing landfill.
ENVIRONMENT, Very clean neighborhood, which indicates high awareness, participation
HEALTH & and cooperation level by the community to keep their village clean.
SAFETY ASPECTS
Waste management system in this area is conducted by the
INSTITUTIONAL
neighborhood administration and cooperates with DKP Tangerang to
ASPECTS
provide the transportation fleet.
A-7
Figure A.3: Citizens dispose of their wastes in different containers (Parung Jaya Village)
A-8
A.1.2 Middle Income Areas
Table A.4, A.5, and A.6 below summarizes the major aspects for the SWM chain for the middle income residential areas, divided into technical,
environment, health and safety (EHS) and institutional.
Table A.4:Summary of the Existing Condition for Middle Income Residential: West Area
TECHNICAL ASPECTS
Pondok Arum Housing Complex Advantages:
- Types of container: drums (25 & 50 liter capacities), metal, plastic - In general very well cleaned neighborhoods.
and concrete (varied capacities and types), with / without lid
(Figures A.4.(a) & A.4.(b)). Disadvantages:
- Not all houses have containers. - Unnecessary additional transportation trip (cost) to serve the
- Collection system are door to door by using hand cart everyday, afternoon collection trip
morning and afternoon. - Design of waste container is not uniform and some of it is
- Capacity of handcart is 1 m3 difficult for waste collection, such as the concrete container
which can‟t be easily and safely emptied to transfer the waste
Bugel Indah Housing Complex to the carts since waste is collected manually and the crew are
- Mostly don‟t have waste containers, community will put their waste not equipped with safety gear (masks, gloves, etc.) for safe
into plastic bag and leave it in front of their houses. collection process.
- Some houses have concrete waste containers and there is a
Collection
segregation waste container initiative at the area (Figure A.4.(c)). Recomendations:
- Collection system are door to door by using hand cart every - Community should be provided withone waste container
morning and afternoon. design, which is environmentally friendly (covered) and safe
3
- Capacity of handcart is 1 m to use (easily lifted).
- Community should be informed of transportation service once
Cibodas Baru I Housing Complex per day (fixed morning time) at the transfer points, to lower
- Use different types of containers. transportation costs incurred by the City.
- Not every house has container, some of the community burn the - No waste is allowed to be disposed of by the communities
waste to dispose of it (Figure A.4.(d)). except at the fixed morning time in order to keep transfer
- Collection system are door to door by using hand cart every points and treatment facility clean at all times, and minimize
morning and afternoon. the work load on the moderately equipped treatment facility.
- Capacity of hand cart is 1 m3.
- There are 100 hand carts to provide service for 2 villages.
A-9
Pondok Arum Housing Complex - The design of the transfer stations / intermediate treatment
- Waste will be transfered from hand carts to Transfer site (Figure facilities in all areas is not appropriate and lacks essential
A.4.(e)) requirements for having a good operation. The facilities lack
- Transportation fleet will collect the waste from Transfer Station proper equipment, trained staff, operation process (standard
(depending on waste quantity but in average takes 2 hrs) and operating procedures), etc. Accordingly the facilities does not
transport it to the final disposal site. serve the purpose of its establishment which is decreasing the
waste going for final disposal and decreasing associated
Bugel Indah Housing Complex transportation and disposal costs. In fact it is an additional
- Waste will be transfered from hand carts to arm roll container at the source of financial burden to the DKP, presents a major
Transfer site (Figure A.4.(f)). source of environmental, health and safety concern and
- Transportation fleet will collect the arm rollsand transport them to provides negative impression to the citizens at neighboring
the final disposal site. areas to such facilities (please refer to Section X for detailed
Transportation
assessment).
Cibodas Baru I Housing Complex - Lifetime of the arm roll container at Benua Indah Housing
- Waste will be transfered from hand carts to Roadside Collection Complex has ended, and should be taken out of operation and
Points. replaced.
- Collection fleet will collect the waste from Roadside Collection - Due to the poor design of the transfer station with no proper
Points and transfer it to Solid Waste Treatment Facility (TPST and clean access to the facility, citizens throw their waste
Cemara) from a distance to avoid coming close to the site. Accordingly
- Waste that cannot be processed and / or residue will be transported waste is scatered around the Transfer Station, requiring more
from Solid Waste Treatment Facility to final disposal site. time for cleaning up and collection.
- Not cost efficient system since manual collection form the
transfer points to the collection fleet is time intensive.
Pondok Arum Housing Complex

- There is no recycling initiative
Bugel Indah Housing Complex

- There is no recycling initiative
Recycling
Cibodas Baru I Housing Complex
- Recycling initiatives is conducted at Solid Waste Treatment
Facility (TPST Cemara). Please refer to Section A.3.
A-10
Pondok Arum Housing Complex
- There is no treatment initiative
Bugel Indah Housing Complex

Treatment - There is no treatment initiative
Cibodas Baru I Housing Complex

- Treatment initiatives is conducted at Solid Waste Treatment
Facility (TPST Cemara). Please refer to Section A.3.
Disposal The final disposal for every all sites is at TPA Rawa Kucing
FINANCIAL - Retribution tarrif for this type of community is IDR 5000/month - The salary for handcarts labor is below the Minimum
ASPECTS - The salary for handcarts labor is IDR 500.000/month Regional Salaries for City of Tangerang
Very clean neighborhood, which is due to the Cleanliness Sections in - Major environmental concerns at the transfer points and
each housing complex that provides the sweeping and cleaning intermediate treatment facilities. Due to the poor design, of
ENVIRONMENT,
crew.Some communitieshave their own cleaning initiative. both facilities and inadequate / lack of equipment provided,
HEALTH &
lack of SOPs and trained staff, the facilities are a source of
SAFETY
environmental, health and safety concern to the staff /
ASPECTS
operators and the citizens living in the vicinity of those
facilities.
Waste management system in each site are conducted by the Very efficient and practical setup, that middle income
developer of housing complex and cooperate with DKP Tangerang to communities are provided with the necessary resources for
provide the transportation fleet. collection system, and they run it through the Communities
INSTITUTIONAL
management.
ASPECTS
However, the system requires modifications to lower costs, yet
maintain high level of cleanliness and efficient and sufficient
service .
A-11
(a). Different types of collection containers (drum (b). Concrete waste containers at Pondok Arum (c). Segregation waste initiative at Bugel Indah
and metal containers) at Pondok Arum Housing Housing Complex Housing Complex
Complex
(d). Burning of waste as disposal method by (e). Inefficient setup for the transfer station at (f). Very poor condition of the transfer station at
residents at Cibodas Baru I Housing Complex Pondok Arum Bugel Indah Housing Complex
Figure A.4: Existing condition of Middle Income Residential-West Area
A-12
Table A.5: Summary of the Existing Condition for Middle Income Residential: Poris Paradise Housing Complex – Middle Area
TECHNICAL ASPECTS
- Types of containers : variable but mostly drum containers Advantages:
(Figure A.5.(a)) - Very well cleaned neighborhood.
- Not every house has a container Disadvantages:
- Collection system is door to door using collectionfleet - Design of waste container is not uniform thus negatively affecting
every morning. productivity.
Collection - Hand carts collect bulk waste and providecleaning - Very expensive system in place (inconsistent containers and dump trucks
services (Figure A.5.(b)). used are not suitable for the type of service.
Recommendations:
- Community should be provided with uniform waste containers with
good design, which is environmentallyand user friendly (covered and
easily liftable).
- Waste will be transported to TPA Rawa Kucing by
Transportation
collectionfleet.
Recycling - There is no recycling initiative
Disposal The final disposal is in TPA Rawa Kucing
FINANCIAL - Retribution tarrif for this type of community is IDR
ASPECTS 5000/month
- The housing complex is clean, since the cleanliness - Health concern related to the uncovered dump truck moving within the
section at the housing complex provides cleaning community to collect the waste. It takes too much time given that the
ENVIRONMENT, services, includingstreet sweeping. design of collection containers and collection fleet is not suitable and
HEALTH, & efficient.
SAFETY - Safety concern related to the dump truck moving within the residential
ASPECTS area during daytime while residents / children are outside.
- It is advisable to have the service carried out early in the morning when
the community is less active.
- Solid waste management at Poris Paradise is conducted Good concept setup, but implementation needs improvement, given the
INSTITUTIONAL
by the complex developer cooperating with DKP long time required for collection, which has higher cost implications.
ASPECTS
Tangerang to provide the collection . transportation fleet
A-13
(a). Drum waste containers at Poris Paradise Housing Complex (b). Hand cart for bulk waste collection and cleaning services
Figure A.5: Existing condition at Poris Paradise Housing Complex
A-14
Table A.6:Summary of the Existing Condition for Middle Income Residential: Pondok Bahari Indah Housing Complex – East Area
TECHNICAL ASPECTS
- Not all houses have containers. Advantages
- Waste container is using the small collection point at certain area Very well cleaned neighborhood.
(Figure A.6.(a)).
- Collection system is door to door using baskets (Figure A.6.(b)) and Disadvantages
collection truck is parked in the neighborhood. Design of waste container is not uniform and some of
- Waste collection schedule is three times a week. it is difficult for waste collection, such as concrete
- The crews are 4 – 5 people for each neighborhood. container which cannot be easily and safely emptied to
Collection transfer the waste to the collection fleet since the
waste is collected manually and the crew is not
equipped with safety gear for safe collection process.
Recommendations
Community should be provided by one waste
container with good design, which has sufficient
capacity and EHS friendly (covered and can be lifted).
- Waste transportation is done using the dump trucks.
Transportation - Waste transportation schedule is three times a week.
- Waste will be transported to Rawa Kucing landfill.
Recycling There is no recycling initiative
Treatment There is no treatment initiative
ENVIRONMENT, Very clean neighborhood, which indicates high awareness, participation and
HEALTH & cooperation level by the community to keep their village clean.
SAFETY
ASPECTS
Waste management system in this area is conducted by the neighborhood
INSTITUTIONAL
administration and cooperates with DKP Tangerang to provide the collection
ASPECTS
and transportation fleet.
A-15
(a). Uncovered plastic drum container at Pondok (b). The crew collecting from uncovered concrete (c). Crew walking in the neighborhood collecting
Bahari Indah Housing Complex containers from the area using basket waste using the basket (not wearing the proper
equipment and gear)
Figure A.6: Existing condition at Pondok Bahari Indah Housing Complex
A-16
A.1.3 High Income Areas
Table A.7, A.8, and A.9 below summarizes the major aspects for the SWM chain for the high income residential areas, divided into technical, environment,
health and safety (EHS) and institutional.
Table A.7:Summary of the Existing Condition for High Income Residential: West Area
TECHNICAL ASPECTS
Global Mansion Housing Complex Advantages
- Types of containers: mostly 50 liter drums (Figure - Very well cleaned neighborhood.
A.7.(a)). Disadvantages
- Not every house has a container - The waste containers used are not the same, which causes delays in
- Collection system are door to door by using hand cart the collection process.
every morning and afternoon. - The built in waste containerssimilar to the ones at Victoria Park
- Capacity of hand cart: 1 m3. Housing Complex are not good example of waste containers. This
type of waste container consumes lots of time for collection.
Victoria Park Housing Complex - Unnecessary additional transportation trip to serve the afternoon
- Door to door collection system is provided by using collection.
Collection hand cart (1 cubic meter capacity) every morning and Recommendation
afternoon (Figure A.7.(b)). - Community should be provided by one waste container with good
- Type of container: concrete containers built by the design, which has sufficient capacity,EHS friendly (covered and can
developer within the boundaries of the house (Figure be easily lifted).
A.7.(c)) - Community should be informed of transportation service once per day
- Houses without the built in waste container hang their (fixed morning time) at the transfer points, to lower transportation
waste in front of their houses (Figure A.7.(d)). costs incurred by the City.
- No waste is allowed to be disposed of by the communities except at
the fixed morning time in order to keep transfer points and treatment
facility clean at all times, and minimize the work load on the
moderately equipped intermediate treatment facility.
Global Mansion Housing Complex - The design of the transfer stations / intermediate treatment facilities in all
- Waste will be transfered from hand carts to transfer areas is not appropriate and lacks essential requirements for having a
Transportation station / point. good operation. The facilities lack proper equipment, trained staff,
- Transportation fleet will collect the waste from Transfer operation process (standard operating procedures), etc. Accordingly the
station / point and dispose of it at the TPA. facilities does not serve the purpose of its establishment which is
A-17
Victoria Park Housing Complex decreasing the waste going for final disposal and decreasing associated
- Waste will be transfered from hand carts to arm roll transportation and disposal costs. In fact it is an additional source of
container at Transfer Station (Figure A.7.(e)). financial burden to the DKP, presents a major source of environmental,
- Transportation fleet will collect the waste from arm roll health and safety concern and provides negative impression to the
container at Transfer Station and dispose of it at the citizens at neighboring areas to such facilities (please refer to Section X
TPA. for detailed assessment).
- Lifetime of the arm roll container at Victoria Park Housing Complex
has ended, and should be taken out of operation and replaced.Waste is
scatered around the Transfer Station, requiring more time for cleaning
up and collection.
- Not cost efficient system since manual collection form the transfer
points to the collection fleet is time intensive.
Recycling There are no recycling initiatives at both areas.
Global Mansion Housing Complex - Treatment facility at Victoria Park complex is at the pilot scale and
- There is no treatment initiative. does not help in any way in reducing waste disposal to landfill.
- For the high income communities, waste minimization and treatment
Treatment Victoria Park Housing Complex is very minimal (nearly negligible). Accordingly, waste generated
- Treatment initiatives are conducted by using composter from these areas is mostly transported to the landfill.
(10 unit @50 L), placed at Transfer Station (Figure
A.7.(f))
The final disposal for all areas is carried out at TPA Rawa
Disposal
Kucing
- Retribution tarrif for this type of community is IDR - The salary for handcarts labor is below the Minimum Regional
FINANCIAL
15000/month Salaries for City of Tangerang
ASPECTS
- The salary for handcarts labor is IDR 500,000/month
ENVIRONMENT, Very clean neighborhoods, which is due to the Cleanliness
HEALTH & Sections in each housing complex that provides the
SAFETY sweeping and cleaning crew.
ASPECTS
Waste management system in each site are conducted by
INSTITUTIONAL
the developer of housing complex and cooperate with
ASPECTS
DKP Tangerang to provide the transportation fleet.
A-18
(a). Drum waste container at Global Mansion (b). Inefficient (attached) concrete waste container (c). Community hanging their waste in front of
Housing Complex at Victoria Park Housing Complex their house
(d). Hand cart for waste collection in Victoria Park (e). Inefficient Transfer site / station and source of (f). Pilot scale composting initiatives at Victoria
Housing Complex EHS concern at Victoria Park Park provided by DKP Tangerang
Figure A.7: Existing condition at High Income Residential-West Area
A-19
Table A.8:Summary of the Existing Condition for High Income Residential: Banjar Wijaya Housing Complex: Middle Area
TECHNICAL ASPECTS
- Different types of containers are used, however Advantages
mostlyconcrete (Figure A.8(a)) and attached concrete waste - Very well cleaned neighborhood.
containers (Figure A.8(b)). Disadvantages
- Handcarts are used for collection. - Very bad design for waste containers used, which
Collection are problematic in terms of accessibility and
consumes lots of time to empty.
Recommendation
- Community should use one type of containers that
is user and EHS friendly for facilitating collection.
- Waste will be transfered by handcarts to transfer point within - The design of the transfer point / station is not
the complex (Figure A.8.(c)) appropriate and lacks essential requirements for
- Transportation fleet will collect the waste from Transfer point having a good operation. The facilities lack proper
twice a week and transport it to Rawa Kucing dumpsite. equipment, trained staff, operation process (standard
Transportation operating procedures), etc. It presents a major source
of environment, health and safety concern and
provides negative impression to the citizens at
neighboring areas to such facilities.
Recycling There is no recycling initiative

Disposal The final disposal is at Rawa Kucing dumpsite.
- Retribution tarrif for this type of community is IDR
FINANCIAL ASPECTS
15000/month
- The housing complex isvery clean. The transfer point presents a major EHS concern and
ENVIRONMENTAL, HEALTH - The transfer point is not clean, with odors, flies and gives a bad impression to the Community. The facility
and SAFETYASPECTS unpleasant scene. is not properly equipped and designed, and it seems
it‟s not cleaned regularly.
- Solid waste management at Banjar Wijaya is conducted by Very good setup.
INSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS the complex managementdeveloper in cooperationwith DKP
Tangerang to provide the transportation system.
A-20
(a). Inefficient design for concrete waste (b). Inefficient design and difficult accessibility for (c). Transfer point at Banjar Wijaya
containersused in Banjar Wijaya Housing Complex concrete waste containersused in Banjar Wijaya
Housing Complex
Figure A.8: Existing condition at Banjar Wijaya Housing Complex
A-21
Table A.9: Summary of the Existing Condition for High Income Residential: Metro Garden Housing Complex East Area
TECHNICAL ASPECTS
- Types of containers: concrete container built by the developer within Advantages
the boundaries of the house (Figure A.9.(a)). Very well cleaned neighborhood.
- Waste collection system is door to door by using handcart (Figure
A.9.(b)). Disadvantages
The built in waste containers are not suitable design, as
Collection they are difficult and take time to empty.
Recommendations
Community should be provided by one waste container
with good design, which has sufficient capacity and EHS
friendly (covered and can be lifted).
- Waste will be transferred from handcart to the transfer station. - The design of the transfer station is not appropriate
- Waste transportation schedule is once in two days. and lacks essential requirements for having a good
- Transportation fleet will collect the waste from the transfer station and operation. The facilities lack of proper equipment,
dispose of it at the landfill. trained staff, operation process (standard operating
procedures), etc.
Transportation - Waste is scatered around the transfer station,
requiring more time for cleaning up and waste
transfer.
- Not cost efficient system since manual collection
from the transfer point to the transportation fleet is
time intensive.
The crew at the transfer station will segregate the recyclable waste and sell
Recycling
it to get additional revenue.
The waste management system was managed by the developer and the For the high income area, waste minimization and
private sector, by operating an incineration plant. The plant stopped treatment is minimal. Accordingly, waste generated from
Treatment operation since the community could not afford to maintain its high O&M this area is mostly transported to the landfill.
costs, and the plant was shut down. Today the waste management system
is by the community.
A-22
ENVIRONMENT, Very clean neighborhoods, which is due to the Cleanliness Sections in
HEALTH each housing complex that provides the sweeping and cleaning crew.
&SAFETY
ASPECTS
Waste management system in this area is conducted by the neighborhood
INSTITUTIONAL
administration and cooperates with DKP Tangerang to provide the
ASPECTS
transportation fleet.
(a). In-house permanent waste container – not user (b). Handcart collection crew (not wearing proper (c). Major EHS issues at transfer site serving
friendly in emptying gear) Metro Garden Housing Complex
Figure A.9: Existing condition at Metro Garden Housing Complex
A-23
A.2 Markets
Table A.10 and A.11 below summarizes the major aspects for the SWM chain for markets, divided into technical, environment, health and safety (EHS) and
institutional.
Table A.10: Summary of the Existing Condition for the SWM Chain for Markets – Tanah Tinggi Market
EXISTING SITUATION COMMENTS
Technical Aspects - Waste quantity generated from the market is significantly high (50
- Tanah Tinggi Market has an area of 2,4 Ha, which consists of fruit stall, tons/day equivalent to 15 trips per day). The cost associated to this is as
vegetable stall, and grocery stall. well significantly high.
- The amount of waste produced by Tanah Tinggi Market is about 96-108 m3 - The team noticed that waste comprising fruits and vegetables were not all
equivalent to 12-18 unit of arm roll container. This is equivalent to spoiled and require disposal.
approximately 50 tons of organic waste per day generated. - The market is not properly managed / controlled in terms of SWM, and
- 3 arm roll containers are on site at the market to accomodate the waste sellers dispose of their waste on the floor close to their shops / locations,
generated from Tanah Tinggi Market. and not in the dedicated arm roll containers.
- Waste collection from tanah tinggi market is done everyday by using arm - Accordingly collection system in place is inefficient and expensive
roll trucks and skid loader. (consuming lots of time).
- Waste will be collected from each stall by using skid loader (Figure -
A.10(a)) and sweeping crew (Figure A.10(b)), and then transfered to arm - Waste transportation is very costly form this market.
roll truck by using skid loader (Figure A.10(c)). Reccomendations
- Waste collection crewconsists of 7 persons, 6 sweeping labors and 1 skid - Given that very low / negligible waste service fees is paid by sellers, the
loader driver. sellers prefer to dispose of their waste rather than providing proper
- Arm roll truck will transport the waste to composting facility at TPA Rawa refrigerators to preserve their goods and thus minimize waste generation.
Kucing. - Waste minimization techniques should definitely be applied at such
- A pilot treatment unit comprising 4 composter units (50 liter capacity each) facilities, including developing regulations for waste service fees related to
provided by DKP Tangerang at Tanah Tinggi Market. the size of the shop, provision of refrigerators, and / or involvement of
- The amount of organic waste that managed by treatment initiatives is about NGO to have proper food residual processing and preserving and free
75-100 kg/day distribution to the needy people.
- 1 unit of waste bank is located at the Tanah Tinggi Market. - Visually the team believes that at least 40% from waste generated can be
- Officers of cleanliness section are the ones who bring recyclables to the avoided by applying the proposed waste minimization techniques above
waste bank. among other techniques.
EHS Aspects - Odors and insects are present at the market, which is an indication that
- Although the Cleanliness Section provides a service for sweeping, the waste waste is left uncovered for period of time, as well as the facility is not
at Tanah Tinggi Market isn‟t managed properly. There is still waste that clean.
scatered and pile up around the road. - No system is enforced to provide good SWM practices on site.
A-24
- The EHS condition of the market is very poor. - Not all crew members are wearing protection gear.
- Environment: major sources of odor to the operators and sellers from the Recommendations:
exposed waste in many locations without proper containment. - Standard operating procedures should be developed which will detail
- Health: Exposed wastes for extended period of time presents a major health among other important criteria, SWM system and related EHS aspects.
concern from odors and gases generated, as well as insects and rodents
attracted to wastes (breeding environment) and in contact with crew / buyers
and sellers.
- Safety: The crew is not using proper self protection equipment on site.
Institutional Aspects Proper regulations should be developed to reinforce the responsibilities of the
- Tanah Tinggi Market is developed and managed by private sector. DKP team in properly managing the facility, including penalties for not
- The solid waste management at Tanah Tinggi Market are conducted by following SWM practices as per SOP.
Cleanliness Section of the market and cooperate with DKP Tangerang.
(a). Skid loader collecting the waste (b). Waste collection by Sweeping team (not (c). Skid loader transferring waste into the arm roll
wearing proper gear) truck
Figure A.10: Existing condition at Tanah Tinggi Market
A-25
Table A.11: Summary of the Existing Condition for the SWM Chain for Markets – Lembang and Saraswati Market
Existing Condition Comments
Technical aspects: - The market is not properly managed / controlled in terms of MSW and
Lembang Market sellers dispose of their waste on the floor close to their shops/locations.
- Waste collection is carried out daily, from midnight to the morning before - No arm roll or containers at the markets in order for shop owners dispose of
the market starts. The crew will collect the waste to the illegal collection their waste. Accordingly, shops dispose of their waste in the streets /
area. hallways of the market, and DKP crew carry out sweeping, collection and
- Waste transportation is done by DKP, and waste is transferred from loading to the trucks.
transfer point (Figure A.11(b)) to the landfill. - The loading process is not efficient since there is no proper equipment for
- There is no waste treatment done at this market. loading, and thus a very long time is required by large team to load the
- Waste segregation activities are carried out by waste pickers at the illegal waste to the transportation truck.
transfer site.
Recommendations
Saraswati Market - Markets should be equipped with arm rolls and / or containers for shops to
- Waste collection is done by the crew from DKP using handcart to the dispose of their waste directly. This will facilitate collection and
transfer station (Figure A.11(c)) located at the back of the market. transportation.
- Waste generated that is transported to the landfill is approximately 24 - Given that very low / negligible waste service fees is paid by sellers, the
m3/day. sellers prefer to dispose of their waste rather than providing proper
- Waste transportation is carried out by DKP. refrigerators to preserve their goods and thus minimize waste generation.
- The transportation schedule is twice a day, in the morning and evening. - Waste minimization techniques should definitely be applied at such
- The total transportation crew is 5 – 6 persons. facilities, including developing regulations for waste service fees related to
- It takes the transportation crew 2 to 3 hours to load the waste from the the size of the shop, provision of refrigerators, and / or involvement of
collection station to the transportation truck. NGOs to have proper food residual processing and preserving and free
- There is no waste treatment unit in this market. However, some informal distribution to the needy people.
waste pickers are operating in the market.
Environmental, health and safety aspects: - Odors and insects are present at the market, which is an indication that
- Environment: major sources of odor to the operators and sellers from the waste is left uncovered for period of time, as well as the facility is not clean.
exposed waste in many locations without proper containment. - No system is enforced to provide good SWM practices on site.
- Health: Exposed wastes for extended period of time presents a major - Not all crew members are wearing protection gear.
health concern from odors and gases generated, as well as insects and Recommendations
rodents attracted to wastes (breeding environment) and in contact with crew Standard operating procedures should be developed which will detail among
/ buyers and sellers. other important criteria, SWM system and related EHS aspects.
- Safety: The crew is not using proper self protection equipment on site
A-26
Institutional aspects: Proper regulations should be developed to reinforce the responsibilities of the
Lembang Market DKP team in properly managing the facility, including penalties for not
This market is illegal, accordingly waste management is not carried out by following SWM practices as per SOP.
DKP.
Saraswati Market
- Saraswati Market is managed by private sector.
- The solid waste management at Tanah Tinggi Market is conducted by
cooperating with DKP Tangerang.
(a). Lembang Market (b). Illegal transfer point at Lembang Market (c). Waste collection area at Saraswati Market -
managed by waste scavengers not equipped with any containers / arm roll for
(outside of DKP control) proper disposal by market
Figure A.11: Existing condition at Lembang and Saraswati Market
A-27
A.3 Treatment Initiatives
a. TPST at low income areas - Benua Hijau
Table A.12: Summary of the Existing Condition for the SWM Chain for Treatment Initiative – TPST Benua Hijau
Technical Aspects Advantages:
- This intermediate treatment facility receives waste from Benua Indah community - Significant waste minimization management system.
which consists of 6 neighborhood administration (@ 35-40 Households per - Significant cost minimization on the transportation aspect since
neighborhood). only reject / residual material which averages 20% of the total
- Waste management process at the intermediate treatment facility is as shown below waste collected requires transportation and disposal at the TPA.
in the process flow diagram: - Preservation of valuable landfill space.
Disadvantages:
Waste from - Facility is not equipped with compaction and bailing machine to
carts facilitate effective storage of recyclables and ease / low cost
means for transportation.
- Composting system is operated anaerobically, although it should
Manual be aerobic system. Consequently odors and leachate are generated
Sorting and cause of nuisance to the community. In addition quality of
final compost is questionable and thus given for free to the
community.
Recyclables - Sorting is carried out manually on the floor which is not efficient,
Organic Residue
inorganic unsafe method, consumes large area, and source of insects and
rodents.
Recommendations:
Sorting by Goes to - Standard operating procedures should be developed for such
Composting intermediate treatment facilities.
type TPA
- On the job training on all aspects of the operation, including
health, safety and environmental aspects should be provided to the
Distributed
Sold to 3rd
facility‟s crew.
freely to - Plant should be equipped with proper sorting (conveyor belt for
party
community
manual and semi – automated sorting), compaction, bailing
equipment, onsite storage facility and compact in-vessel
- Amount of waste generated from the communities and managed at the facility is composting unit.
approximately 300-500 kg/day, with waste composition of 67% organic waste, 15%
recyclables (Figure A.12.(a)), and 18% residue / reject.
A-28
Financial Aspects - Salary provided to the facility crew is below the minimum
- DKP Tangerang provides the salary for the officers at the facility. Each officer regional salaries for City of Tangerang.
receives IDR 1.000.000 – IDR 1.200.000 per month
- Another source of revenue for this facility is from the sale of the recycleables. The
facility receives IDR 30,000/day which is allocated for O&M cost for the facility.
EHS Aspects - Odors and insects are present at the facility, which is an
- The EHS condition of the facility is very poor. indication that waste is left uncovered / unprocessed for extended
- Environment: major sources of odor to the operators and neighboring residents periods of time, as well as the facility not clean.
from the anaerobic composting process (composting is an aerobic process) as - The facility is not organized with wastes and plastics scattered all
presented on Figure A.12.(b); uncontained / uncovered waste left on the floor for over the facility.
manual sorting (Figure A.12.(c)); and soil and ground water contamination from - Crew was wearing protection gear to someextent but not all of
leachate generated from bagged raw organic waste. them were equipped with everything (no masks, boots and gloves
- Health:Exposed wastes for extended period of time presents a major health for some of the crew members).
concern from odors and gases generated, as well as insects and rodents attracted to
Recommendations:
wastes (breeding environment) and in contact with crew / communities. - Standard operating procedures should be developed which will
- Safety: The crew is not consistently using the proper self protection equipment. detail among other important criteria, environmental and health
and safety aspects.
- Facility should be equipped with additional equipment (as detailed
in treatment section above), to mitigate HSE issues.
- Crew should at all times on site wear safety gear.
Social Aspects - Such facilities present a very good avenue for job opportunities to
- There are 2 feedbacks from communities about this facility. First, the community the community and its residents. Having said that, the facilities
accepts the facility and second the community wants to participate in SWM for the need to be upgraded to address EHS issues to the crew and
benefit of their community. residents and maximize efficiency.
- To accomodate the community‟s enthusiasm on SWM for the benefit of their
community, a waste bank was implemented.
Institutional Aspects - DKP should provide standard operating procedures and on the job
- This facility was developed by DKP Tangerang, but operated, maintained and training to ensure optimization and efficiency of the operation and
managed by community under supervision of DKP Tangerang. maintaining the facility in good working order, as well as
- Number of crew = 6 person, accompanied by 1 supervisor from DKP Tangerang. avoidance of negative EHS issues.
- This is a good example of community based solid waste
management system, and a very good source for job opportunities.
A-29
(a). Low volumes of segregated recyclables at (b). Anaerobic composting process at TPST Benua (c). Manual segregation activities on the floor
TPST Benua Hijau Hijau – organics bagged and left for decomposition with poor working environment at TPST Benua
Hijau
Figure A.12: Existing condition of treatment and recycling activity at TPST Benua Hijau
A-30
b. TPST Cimone
Table A.13: Summary of the Existing Condition for the SWM Chain for Treatment Initiative – TPST Cimone
Technical Aspects Advantages:
- Source of the waste managed in this ITF is from the community of - Very good model (if implemented properly) with significant waste
Cimone Jaya and terminal activities. minimization quantities and associated costs that require transportation and
- Amount of waste that goes to this facility is about 12 m3 or equal to 2 arm disposal.
roll units, with 50% being organic waste and approximately 200 kg/week - Landfilling avoidance and preservation of valuable land space.
of inorganics sold to the Central Waste Bank. Disadvantages:
- Waste management scheme at TPST Cimone is as follows: - Facility is not equipped with proper equipment to ensure high levels of
waste minimization and high efficiency (no compaction and bailing
Waste from machine to facilitate effective storage of recyclables and ease / low cost
carts means for transportation, manual sorting on the floor with major EHS
implications and poor composting process followed).
- Sorting is carried out manually on the floor which is not efficient, unsafe
method, consumes large area, and source of insects and rodents.
Segregation Recommendations:
- Standard operating procedures should be developed for such treatment
facilities.
- On the job training on all aspects of the operation, including health, safety
Organic
Recyclable
Residue and environmental aspects should be provided to the facility‟s crew.
inorganic - Plant should be fully equipped with proper equipment such as conveyor
belt for manual and semi – automated sorting, compaction and bailing
equipment and in vessel composting unit.
Segregation To TPA by
Composting
by type arm roll
Distributed Sold to
free of Central
charge Waste Bank
A-31
EHSaspects: - Major EHS concerns from this facility. Odors and insects are present at the
- The HSE condition of the facility is very poor. facility, which is an indication that waste is left uncovered / unprocessed
- Environment: major sources of odor to the operators and neighboring for extended periods of time, as well as the facility is not clean.
residents from the anaerobic composting process (composting is an Recommendations:
aerobic process); uncontained / uncovered waste left on the floor for - Standard operating procedures should be developed which will detail
manual sorting (Figure A.13.(d)). among other important criteria, environmental and health and safety
- Health:Exposed wastes for extended period of time presents a major aspects.
health concern from odors and gases generated, as well as insects and - Facility should be equipped with additional equipment (as detailed in
rodents attracted to wastes (breeding environment) and in contact with treatment section above), to mitigate HSE issues.
crew / communities. - Crew should at all times on site wear safety gear.
- Safety: The crew is not wearing the proper self protection equipment.
Social Aspects - Such facilities present a very good avenue for job opportunities to the
This facility is located relatively far from the served community. community and its residents. Having said that, the facilities need to be
upgraded to address EHS issues to the crew and residents and cost efficient
operation on the whole SWM scheme.
Institutional Aspects - DKP should provide standard operating procedures and on the job training
- This facility was developed by DKP Tangerang and also managed and to ensure optimization and efficiency of the operation and maintaining the
supervised by DKP Tangerang. facility in good working order.
- Number of officers = 4 person, accompanied by 1 supervisor from DKP - This model is a very good source for job opportunities if properly
Tangerang. implemented to the local communities.
A-32
(a). Inorganic recycleables at TPST Cimone (b). Windrow composting activities at TPST (c). Arm roll transporting rejects to TPA
Cimone
(d). Segregation activities carried out on the floor

in a very inefficient / unsafe manner at TPST
Cimone
Figure A.13: Existing condition of treatment and recycling activity at TPST Cimone
A-33
c. TPST Cemara/Al-Mahmud
Table A.14: Summary of the Existing Condition for the SWM Chain for Treatment Initiative – TPST Cemara/Al-Mahmud
Technical Aspect Advantages:
- Source of waste managed by this facility is from community of - Very good model (if implemented properly) with significant waste
Nusa Jaya Village, Karawaci, dan Cibodas Sari. minimization potential and associated costs that require transportation and
- Waste management mechanism at TPST Cemara is as follows: disposal.
- Landfilling avoidance and preservation of valuable land space.
Waste from truck Disadvantages:
- Given the mixed waste received and not properly equipped facility and trained
crew, the facility is inefficient in reducing wastes requiring landfilling (out of
8 arm rolls, equivalent of 1 arm roll is processed, which means 12.5% waste
Segregation
reduction). In fact this facility as it stands presents a major financial burden
(loading, unloading and processing costs), and EHS nuisance to the
community and area served.
Recyclable - Sorting is carried out manually on the open areas which is not efficient, unsafe
Organic Residue
Inorganic
method, consumes large area, and source of insects and rodents.
Recommendations:
Segregation by Goes to - Standard operating procedures should be developed for such treatment
Composting
type TPA facilities.
- On the job training on all aspects of the operation, including health, safety and
environmental aspects should be provided to the facility‟s crew.
Sold to 3rd party - Plant should be properly equipped with conveyor belt for manual and semi –
Given freely
(Every 10 days)
automated sorting, compaction and bailing equipment and in vessel
composting unit.
- Amount of waste that goes to this facility is about 48 m3 or equal to
8 arm roll units (8 dump truck trips).
- From a total of 8 arm rolls /dump trucks that goes to this facility, 1
unit can be segregated in the facility.
- Amount of organic waste that managed by this facility is about 2,5
m3/day and inorganic recycleables is about 100-150 kg/day.
EHS Aspects: - Major EHS concerns from the facility. Odors and insects are present at the
- The EHS condition of the facility is very poor. facility, which is an indication that waste is left uncovered / unprocessed for
- Environment: major sources of odor to the operators and extended periods of time, as well as the facility is not clean.
neighboring residents from the anaerobic composting process
A-34
(composting is an aerobic process); uncontained / uncovered waste Recommendations:
left on the floor for manual sorting (Figure A.13.(c)). - Standard operating procedures should be developed which will detail among
- Health:Exposed wastes for extended period of time presents a other important criteria, environmental and health and safety aspects.
major health concern from odors and gases generated, as well as - Facility should be equipped with additional equipment (as detailed in
insects and rodents attracted to wastes (breeding environment) and treatment section above), to mitigate EHS issues.
in contact with crew / communities. - Crew should at all times on site wear safety gear.
- Safety: The crew is not wearing the proper self protection
equipment.
Social Aspects - Such facilities present a very good avenue for job opportunities to the
This facility is located far from the community. community and its residents. Having said that, the facilities need to be upgraded
to address EHS issues to the crew and residents and have a cost efficient
operation.
Institutional Aspects - DKP should provide standard operating procedures and on the job training to
- This facility was developed by DKP Tangerang but operated, ensure optimization and efficiency of the operation and maintaining the
maintained and managed by community under supervision of DKP facility in good working order, as well as avoidance of negative EHS issues.
Tangerang. - This is a good example of community based solid waste management system
- Number of officers = 4 segregation team, accompanied by 3 if properly implemented, and a very good source for job opportunities.
supervisors.
(a). Inorganic recycleablesnot properly stored at (b). Inefficient composting process at TPST (c). Segregation activities at TPST Cemara/Al-
TPST Cemara/Al-Mahmud Cemara/Al-Mahmud Mahmud
Figure A.14: Existing condition of treatment and recycling activity at TPST Cemara/Al-Mahmud
A-35
A.4 Recycling Initiatives
Table A.15: Summary of the Existing Condition at Waste Bank Gawe Rukun
TECHNICAL ASPECTS
- Segregation is done at households‟ level. Advantages
- Types of containers: fiber and thick drum containers - Clean neighborhood.
provided by the community, supervised by the waste bank - This is a good model that should be replicated.
Collection (Figure A.15.(a)).
- Waste collection system is door to door using handcarts. Recommendations
Need to encourage other communities to establish such a good
neighborhood facility.
- Waste will be transferred from handcart to the waste bank. - Good coordination with DKP is in place.
- Waste transportation schedule is once per day. - Need to be maintained and improved.
Transportation
- The residues from waste banks activities will be picked up
by DKP transportation fleet and disposed of at the landfill.
- The waste bank is managed by a structure approved by the - The compost composition has not been properly and
community. consistently tested at the laboratory.
- The waste bank has a composting facility (Figure A.15.(b)). - Compost price is considered high.
- Compost sold to limited customers and households. - Handcrafts need to be properly marketed.
Recycling
- Most of households are already involved in the waste Bank
activities.
- Inorganics are used to make handcrafts like bags, puppies,
etc.
The waste management system was managed by the waste Requires further expansion of the capacity.
Treatment
bank.
The final disposal of residues is at Rawa Kucing landfill. Some waste reduction is achieved, however, this needs to be
Disposal expanded to be effective in extending the lifetime of the
landfill.
FINANCIAL Compost price has not been set up due to market situation.
ASPECTS
ENVIRONMENT, Operators of the handcrafts are not wearing proper gear while Need to educate and encourage the management to provide
HEALTH collecting waste. proper gear for the operator.
&SAFETY
ASPECTS
A-36
- Waste Bank structure comprises 3 staff, manager, secretary - The surveyed waste bank has a better structure compared to
and accountant. others
INSTITUTIONAL - Waste bank board elected by the community. - Very well and transparent management applied.
ASPECTS - The formation of the board will be confirmed through a
decree issued by the head of DKP Tangerang City.
- The board is paid by the waste bank‟s revenue.
(a). Organic and inorganic waste container (b). Composting unit as (c) Fruit garden as compost aplication (d). Compost product of
available Waste Bank Waste Bank
Figure A.15: Existing condition of recycling activity at Waste Bank Gawe Rukun
A-37
ANNEX B
REVIEW OF TECHNICAL OPTIONS FOR
IMPROVEMENT OF SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT CHAIN
B.1 Technical Option for Waste Collection

According to Regulation of the Minister of Public Works of Republic of Indonesia Number
03/PRT/M/2013 about Implementation of Waste Infrastructure in Household and Similar
Household Waste Management, there are several system of waste collection mechanism. The
different collection systems are as follows:
1- Direct individual system;
2- Indirect individual sytem;
3- Direct communal system;
4- Indirect communal system; and
5- Street sweeping (falls under the collection section – not addressed in this report).
Detailed description of the different waste collection systems are presented below 63.
1. Direct individual system
Waste is collected at the source of generation, using the collection fleet and crew (referred to as
door to door service). Waste will be transported directly to the final site (treatment and/or final
disposal). Figure B.1 below shows the schematic diagram of the direct individual system.
Figure B.1:Direct individual system
2. Indirect individual system

Waste will be collected from the source of generation by the crew using handcarts or other similar
equipment. Waste will be transported to the transfer station or intermediate waste treatment
facility before its transfer to the final treatment and/or final disposal site using the transportation
fleet. Figure B.2 below shows the schematic diagram of the indirect individual system.
63
Damanhuri, E. dan Padmi, T. (2010). Diktat Kuliah Pengelolaan Sampah. Program Studi Teknik Lingkungan, FTSL, ITB.
Bandung.
B-1
Figure B.2:Indirect individual system
3. Direct communal system

Residents/households will dispose of their waste at the nearest/assigned collection point and the
transportation fleet will transport the waste to the final treatment and/or disposal site. This system
relies on high community participation. Figure B.3 shows the schematic diagram of the direct
communal system.
Figure B.3:Direct communal system
4. Indirect communal system

Residents/households will dispose of their waste at the nearest/assigned collection point, which
will be transferred by the collection fleet to intermediate treatment facilities. Transportation fleet
will transport the residue/reject from the ITFs to the final disposal site. This system relies on high
community participation. Figure B.4 shows the schematic diagram of the indirect communal
system.
B-2
Figure B.4:Indirect communal system
5. Street sweeping
Street sweeping system used differs from one area to another. The main factors for selection of
the appropriate system depend primarily on the importance of the area (presence of governmental
agencies, embassies, hotels, etc.), income level and type of roads (main, secondary, unpaved,
etc.). Waste from the street sweeping will be collected and transported to the final disposal site by
the transportation fleet. This study will not address the street sweeping activities since the existing
mechanism in place prove to be efficient in maintaining high cleanliness level of the streets, parks
and public areas.
B.2 Technical Option forWaste Transportation

Type of waste collection and transportation fleet relies primarily on the classification and
specifications of the roads infrastructure. Table B.1 below summarizes the different classes of
roads based on Act of Republic of Indonesia Number 38 Year 2004 about Roads (Article 10).
Roads infrastructure at City of Tangerang has all types of road class, which means maximum
allowable tonnage is upto 10 tons.
Table B.1:Roads classification

Class I Class II Class III A Class III B Class III C
Road function Artery Artery Artery/collector Collector Collector
Dimension
Max 2.5 M Max 2.5 M Max 2.5 M Max 2.5 M Max 2.1 M
(width)
Dimension
Max 18 M Max 18 M Max 18 M Max 12 M Max 9 M
(length)
Heaviest load
> 10 ton 10 ton 8 ton 8 ton 8 ton
axis
B-3
The different waste transportation systems/type of trucks suitable for City of Tangerang is presented in Table B.2 below.
Table B.2:Types of transportation fleet

Type of fleet Dump Truck Arm-roll Truck Compactor Truck Flat Deck Truck
Capacity 6, 8 and 10 m3 6, 8, and 10 m3 6, 8 and 10 m3 1 – 8 tons
Loading Manual Manual Mechanical Manual
Number of crew 2 + driver 2 + driver 2 + driver 2 + driver
(max)
Lifetime (yrs) 7 – 10 7 – 10 7 – 10 7 – 10
Advantages - Low CAPEX and OPEX. - Time efficient loading/ - Time efficient loading/ - Low CAPEX and OPEX.
unloading operation. unloading operation.
- EHS friendly. - More tonnage per cubic
- Not labor intensive. meter.
- More tonnage per cubic - EHS friendly.
meter. - Not labor intensive.
Disadvantages - Labor intensive during - Hydraulic system failure - High CAPEX and OPEX. - Only suitable for compacted
loading of waste. more often if not used with - Suitable for high income and bailed inorganic waste
- Time intensive system. care and properly areas only. only.
- Low tonnage per cubic maintained. - Suitable for high class roads - Requires supporting tool
meter. - High CAPEX and OPEX. only. (heavy equipment) when
- EHS unfriendly. loading and unloading the
waste.
- Requires good driving to avoid
tilting.
Environmental - Uncovered during its - Closed system which - Closed system which avoids - Uncovered during its operation,
aspects operation, source of odor, avoids odors and odors and presence/breeding which maybe a source of odor
nuisance during operation presence/breeding environment for flies and if carrying organic material
and unpleasant scene. environment for flies and rodents. (should be carrying inorganic
rodents. bailed material only).
Health and safety - High risk equipment due - Low risk equipment due to - Low risk equipment due to - Low risk equipment due to low
aspects to high contact time low contact time between low contact time between contact time between
between equipment and equipment and crew during equipment and crew during equipment and crew during
crew members during operation. operation. operation.
manual loading process.
B-4
Financial aspects Average price is IDR 300 Average price is IDR 330 The price is IDR 800 million/6
million/truck million/arm roll truck cubic meter capacity compactor
truck
Illustration
Comparison between dump trucks and compactor trucks:

Given the misperception that dump trucks are more cost efficient than compactor trucks in the context of Indonesia, the CDIA Team carried out a detailed
financial comparison to clarify which collection and transportation type of truck is more cost efficient in the context of Indonesia. Table B.3 below
presents the financial analysis to compare dump truck to compactor truck.
Table B.3:Technical and financial comparison between dump truck and compactor truck
Waste Depreciation Waste
Price (Rp. OM Cost/hour Hours Lifetime OM cost/year
Fleet Trip/day conveyed cost/year conveyed
Million) (Rp) need/trip (years) (Rp.000)
(ton/trip) (Rp.000) (ton/year)
Dump Truck. (Cap.6 m3) 357.5 136,293 2 2 4 10 35,750 397,976 1460
3
Compactor Truck. (Cap. 6 m ) 1000.0 140,793 2 6 4 10 100,000 411,116 4380
Table B.4:Comparison of cummulative unit cost between dump truck and compactor truck
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10
Cumulative cost Dump Truck 433,726 887,350 1,340,974 1,794,599 2,248,223 2,701,847 3,155,472 3,609,096 4,062,720 4,516,345
(Rp.000) Compactor Truck 511,116 1,042,787 1,574,458 2,106,130 2,637,801 3,169,472 3,701,144 4,232,815 4,764,486 5,296,158
Cumulative of waste Dump Truck 1,460 2,920 4,380 5,840 7,300 8,760 10,220 11,680 13,140 14,600
conveyed (tons) Compactor Truck 4,380 8,760 13,140 17,520 21,900 26,280 30,660 35,040 39,420 43,800
Cost per tonne Dump Truck 297.07 303.89 306.16 307.29 307.98 308.43 308.75 309.00 309.19 309.34
conveyed (Rp.000/ton) Compactor Truck 116.69 119.04 119.82 120.21 120.45 120.60 120.72 120.80 120.86 120.92
B-5
Table B.5: The cost reduction of compactor truck compared to dump truck
Compactor Truck Dump Truck
Total Cost (Rp.000) 5,296,158 4,516,345
Waste Transported (tons) 43,800 14,600
Cost (Rp.000/ton) 120.92 309.34
Cost Reduction (%) of Compactor Truck compared with Dump Truck 60.9%
TheTable B.5 above shows total cost for compactor truck is around Rp. 5.30 billion per unit over its life time of 10 years which is a bit higher than the
one of dump truck of Rp.4,52 billion which has the same life time. On the otherhandthe waste conveyed during the compactor truck‟s lifetime is 43,800
tonnes which is around 3 times higher than the dump truck which only conveys 14,600 tonnes. Accordingly it can be concluded that in the context of
Indonesia and specifically for the City of Tangerang the compactor truck has Rp. 120,920 per ton which represents 60.9% cost savings compared to the
dump truck which has Rp.309,300 per ton over the lifetime of the equipment.
B-6
B.3 Technical Option for Waste Treatment and Recycling
The following sections present concise information about the different treatment and recycling
technologies proposed for City of Tangerang, namely material recovery facility (MRFs), in-vessel
composting, anaerobic digestion, and waste to energy technologies (refuse derived fuel and
incineration). Other advanced treatment technologies have been considered including gasification
and plasma technologies, however, given the very high CAPEX and OPEX, and requirement of
highly trained and specialized operators, the CDIA Team decided not to consider these
technologies for its inappropriateness in the context of Indonesia.
B.3.1 Physical Process: Material Recovery Facility

A MRF is a processing facility where materials are sorted and prepared for marketing either to
end users (manufacturers) or to other facilities for additional processing. Usually a MRF is
combined with other treatment technologies, such as biological processes (Mechanical Biological
Treatment) and thermal processes (Mechanical Heat Treatment), mainly to safeguard the
downstream treatment technologies from receiving incompatible waste to the installed treatment
technology/plant.
A. Technical Aspects
Treatment:
Received materials undergo the following processes:
1- Material Receiving and Storage
- Consist of tipping floor and storage area.
- Sized to provide at least two days of incoming storage capacity (not advisable to postpone
waste processing especially organics).
- Typically housed in covered structures to keep materials dry and to avoid leachate runoff.
2- Sorting Line
- Consist of bucket loader and in-feed conveyors (manual and mechanical processes).
- Materials should be fed at a consistent flow rate.
3- Presort
- Consist of presort conveyor line.
- Large contaminants, bulky recyclables, and items that could damage downstream sorting
equipment or pose a threat to personnel are removed.
- Recyclables that might be removed at this stage include cardboard, large stacks of paper,
wood logs, etc.
4- Separation
5- Final Sorting Lines
- Employ a combination of positive and negative sorting to recover specific types of
recyclable commodities.
- The lines might utilize some automated equipment, but almost always include manual
sorting from conveyor belts.
6- Interim Storage
- Located directly below or near the sorting line.
- The materials are stored in the bunkers until sufficient quantities have accumulated to be
prepared for shipment.
7- Material Preparation
- Compaction and bailing of recyclables is the final step in MRF processing before materials
are loaded and transported for shipment to market/processing plants.
- Increases onsite storage capacity and improves transportation efficiency.
B-7
Process flow diagram:
Figure B.5: Process flow diagram of Material Recovery Facility
End products: The end product of MRF activities are recycleable materials, and residue that
requires disposalat the landfill (or processed in other treatment technology).
Waste reduction rate:Waste reduction rate at MRF is mostly related to segregation of the
recycleable materials. Accordingly the waste reduction percentage depends primarily on
percentage of recyclables within the waste and collection and transportation technique followed
(separate verses mixed collection, and compactor verses dump trucks).
B. Financial Aspects
CAPEX:
MRF plant capital cost varies depending on capacity, manual, semi-automated or automated
processes/ratios. A typical MRF plant would be equipped with the following:
Pre-processed Material Handling Equipment

1- Separating Equipment
2- Size Reduction Equipment
3- Processed Material Handling Equipment
4- Environmental Equipment
OPEX:
Table B.6: Typical MRF unit OPEX cost (based on US experience)
Cost Item Units US$/Units
LABOR
Sorters Varies based on number of employees per ton 6/hour
Others Varies based on number of employees per ton 12/hour
2/ton (low)
MAINTENANCE
2.5/ton (high)
INSURANCE (includes workers
3/ton (low)
compensation, property and
4/ton (low)
liability)
B-8
Cost Item Units US$/Units
UTILITIES
15 KWH/ton (low) 0.04/KWH (low)
Power
20 KWH/ton (high) 0.07/KWH (high)
Water & Sewage 70 GPD/Person 2/1000 gal
Heating (range of use based 0 MBTU/ton (low) 4/MBTU (low)
on climate extremes) 0.05 MBTU/ton (high) 8/MBTU (high)
FUEL 0.2 gal.ton 1.2/gal
OUTSIDE SERVICES &
10% operating costs -
SUPPLIES
25/ton (low)
RESIDUAL DISPOSAL 0.1 ton/ton waste
100/ton (high)
C. Environmental Aspects
Air pollution:
1- Potential Source: traffic, processing equipment, digestion activities on the waste.
2- Mitigation Measurements: basic air pollution control; timely processing of waste.
Water pollution:
1- Potential Source: leachate stream from the waste.
2- Mitigation Measurements: avoidance or collection, treatment and discharge.
D. Occupational Health and Safety Aspects

Pollutants exposure:
1- Potentially exposed to the crew and nearby communities are dust, silica, gas, vapor, and
microorganisms.
2- Generated from the waste and activities carried out in the facility.
Noise exposure:
Noise sources include truck unloading activities, trommels, glass crushers, can flattener, and other
equipment operations.
Ergonomic stressors:
The most common ergonomic risk factors at the MRF are improper workstation designs that fail
to accommodate workers and that causes repetitive or awkward motions.
E. Social Aspects
Employment:
1- MRFs require high labor force.
2- Table B.7 below suggests the types and number of staff positions needed for small to large
facilities.
Table B.7:The typical types and number of staff positions needed for MRFs
Capacity (tons/day)
Employee Categories
10 100 500
Manager 1 1 1
Foreman/Operator 1 1-2 3-4
Sorters 1-2 13-25 60-80
Maintenance 0-1 1-2 4
Other (rolling stock operators), equipment monitors and cleanup
0 4-5 10-12
staff)
Administrative (scale monitors, bookkeepers, and electrical staff) 0 1-2 2-3
TOTAL 3-6 21-37 80-104
B-9
Public perception:
Since MRF provides good working environment and higher productivity compared to waste
picking activities at disposal sites, MRFs are attractive facilities for social inclusion of waste
pickers. Also provision of enclosed MRF plants is more attractive to public compared to waste
picking in open areas/disposal sites.
F. Advantages and Disadvantages

Advantages:
1- MRFs can be easily upgraded or expanded.
2- MRFs can be relocated, losing on the minimal civil work required, since its mostly steel
manufactured.
3- EHS friendly.
4- Attractive for residents and businesses since it eliminates illegal sorting in the streets /
containers / curbs.
5- Inclusion of waste pickers in a modern, EHS friendly facility.
6- Greater amounts of recyclables recovered in a consistent manner compared to waste picking
in public areas / final disposal site.
7- No specialized collection vehicles needed.
Disadvantages:
1- Higher capital and operating costs (although cost per ton is typically lower) compared to
waste picking from streets / disposal sites.
2- Lower per-ton revenue to the plant developer.
3- Potential for lower commodity value if quality control is not maintained.
4- Potential operational and cost impacts to end users if market specifications are not met.
B.3.2 Biological Process: In Vessel Composting

In-vessel composting refers to any type of composting that takes place inside a structure,
container, or vessel64. Each type of system relies upon mechanical aeration and turning to enhance
and decrease the duration of the composting process.
Treatment:
Compost is produced through the activity of aerobic microorganisms that require oxygen,
moisture, and food in order to grow in population. These microorganisms generate heat, water
vapor, and carbon dioxide as they transform raw material into a stable soil conditioner 65.
1- Raw Material (Feedstock) Mixing

- Optimize mixture for porosity, particle size (5-25 mm), moisture (60-65), C/N ratio (30-45),
substrate complexity and quality;
- Often done before placing in vessel.
2- Active Composting in the Vessel
- High temperatures (mostly thermophilic-about 55oC), rapid decomposition and high odor
potential;
64
Governo, Jason et al. 2003. The Compost White Paper: Large-Scale Composting in Georgia. College of Agricultural
and Environmental Sciences: The University of Georgia
65
Alexander, R. 1996. Field Guide to Compost Use. The Composting Council, Alexandria, VA
B-10
- Pathogens and weed seeds are killed
- Generally 2-3 weeks
3- Curing
- Ending stage after microbial activity begins to stabilize and pile cools (mesophilic);
- Can be inside the composting vessel, in a separate vessel, or outside in windrows or aerated
static piles;
- Odorous compounds are not usually produced;
- Generally cured for at least 30 days.
Figure B.6: Process flow diagram of In Vessel Composting
Land requirements:
1- The typical land requirements for an in-vessel composting plant are about 2 Ha per 200
tons/day capacity. This includes the paved area (~15%), hall (~70%), and greens area
(~15%)66.
2- The in-vessel composting reactors provided by HotRot Organic Solution have surface areas
between 10 m2 – 108 m2 .
End products:
The end products of in-vessel composting includes compost, leachate, and residue material.
Waste reduction rate:

The waste reduction rate for in-vessel composting technology comprise the elimination of
composted organic fraction from the total waste generation (for City of Tangerang is about 40-
60% of total waste generation).
66
Gruneklee, Eberhard. 1998. Comparing Open versus In-Vessel Composting. Asia-North American Waste
Management Conference: California
B-11
CAPEX:
Table B.8 below shows the in-vessel composting reactor from different vendors andrelated details
based on the manufacturers..
Table B.8: Cost of in-vessel composting reactor from differents vendor

Manufacturer Dimension Throughput Costs
Augspurger Komm 3 yd3, batch process
21-50‟ long,
Engineering “Mobile 10-100 yd3, $700,000.
6-8‟wide,8‟ high.
Mulchers”Scottsdale, AZ67 continuous process
Operate at 1/3 or ¼ Model 1050
of volume ratings on stationary, 96 yd3
Range from 3 – 6 a continuous daily capacity (handles 25
BW Organics “Green Drum” yd3for mobile and 12 production basis. yd3/day) costs
Sulpher Springs, TX68 – 96 yd3 for Takes 3-4 days $169,000 plus $8,500
stationary tostabilize and for auger screw
killpathogens, then loading conveyor and
cures for 2-3 weeks. electrical panel.
Model 824, largest
Environmental Products and At 72 hour retention model,
Three models:
Technologies time: 25 yd3 per day:
4‟ dia, 15‟ long;
Corporation (EPTC), “Aerobic 4.5 yd3 per day, $300,000
6‟ dia 18‟ long,
Bioreactor” 9.5 yd3 per day, including input and
8‟ dia., 24‟ long.
Thousand Oaks, CA69 25 yd3 per day output conveyors, O2
generator.
HotRot Organic Solutions. 12.80 m x 2.17 m x - 1.5 tons/day - $250,000
Christchurch, New Zealand70 2.33 m - 2.5 tons/day - $350,000
Table B.9: Typical CAPEX for in-vessel composting in different capacity71

Capacity CAPEX Range
100 tons/day 5-11 million US$
OPEX:
The operation and maintenance costs also vary between vendors, ranging from $8 to $10 per ton
processed for one vendor, and $23 to $48 per ton processed for the other. In both cases the higher
per ton costs were associated with the smaller facility14.
Ground contamination:
1- Potential Source: leaching losses from composting facilities.
2- Mitigation Measures: leachate collection, treatment, and disposal.
67
http://www.akeinc.com/composting.html
68
http://www.neto.com/bworgani/top.htm
69
http://www.eptcorp.com/index.html
70
http://www.hotrotsolutions.com
71
Clark II, Edwin H., et al.2006.Solid Waste Management Alternatives for Delaware.
B-12
Surface water contamination:
1- Potential Source: nutrient losses from composting operation, mostly ammonia-nitrogen.
2- Mitigation Measures: control of runoff leaching.
Air pollution:
1- Potential Source: releases of nitrogen and sulfur compounds, as well as dust and odor during
operation and composting process.
2- Mitigation Measures: basic air pollution treatment.
Noise pollution:
1- Potential Source: operation of in vessel composting and other activities.
2- Mitigation Measures: noise pollution control for machinery.

Public health risks:
1- Odor.
2- Waste pile heating up if the materials are stored too long before processing.
Bio aerosols:
1- Biological aerosols (bio aerosols) can be generated during composting.
2- Consisting of microorganisms.
3- Can remain suspended in the air for long periods of time, retaining viability or infectivity.
Potentially toxic chemicals:

Some volatile organic compounds (VOCs), such as benzene, chloroform, and trichloroethylene
can present potential risks to workers at MSW composting facilities.
E. Social Aspects
Social acceptability:
1- Correspond with the beneficial impact from the process.
2- Economic benefit from compost production.
3- Community often assuming that composting process is a green technology.
Footprint and land use:

1- High rate composting takes up less space with reactor versus non-reactor composting
technologies.
2- The size of a composting facility is impacted by factors including site turnover.
Nuisance impact:
1- Includes dust, noise, traffic, odor, vermin, and litter.
2- The most significant of these potential nuisances is odor.
Traffic:
The traffic impacts from municipal solid waste composting facilities are a function of the quantity
of material delivered to the facility and the size of the trucks employed.
B-13
Advantages;
1- Effects of weather are diminished;
2- Less manpower is required to operate the systems and staff is less exposed to composting
material
3- Less land requirements compare to other composting technologies
4- Can often be done onsite, saving collection and transportation costs;
5- Process air and leachate can be more easily collected and treated;
6- Public acceptance of facility much better
7- Can accommodate various types and amounts of organic waste.
Disadvantages:
1- Higher capital costs than conventional composting;
2- Greater expense and skill required for operation and maintenance;
3- Systems may need to be shut down due to odor problems, lack of available spare parts or for
routine maintenance such as emptying;
4- Capacity is limited by the size of the vessel, although many systems are now modular for
increased capacity.
B.3.3 Waste to Energy

Waste-to-energy technologies convert waste matter into variousforms of fuel that can be used to
supply energy. Energy can be derived from waste that has been treated and pressed into solid fuel,
waste that has been converted into biogas or syngas, or heat and steam from waste that has been
incinerated. Figure B.7 shows the waste technologies diagram.
Figure B.7:Waste to Energy technology diagram
B.3.3.1 Physical Process: Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF)

RDF is combustible since high calorific fraction is recovered from MSW. RDF production line
consists of several unit operations in series in order to separate unwanted components and
condition the combustible matter to obtain required RDF characteristics.
B-14
Treatment:
RDF production process has two subsystems called front end and back end. Front end or pre-
processing subsystem is to receive the MSW and separate it into combustible and noncombustible
fractions in order to produce feed stock for back end system. Back end system refers to the
conversion process which can be either thermal or biological system 72. Received materials
undergo the following processes:
1- Manual Separation
- Bulky item such as appliances, furniture, etc. and specified contaminants (e.g. hazardous
waste) can be removed manually by workers (sorters) before mechanical processing.
- Recycling process for paper, glass/plastic containers and aluminum cans.
- Equipment: sorting/conveyor belts.
2- Size Reduction
- Essential unit operation is mechanical processing of mixed wastes.
- Shredding of mixed waste to the size of about 10 cm
- Secondary or tertiary shredding to less than 10 cm is required for production of RDF.
3- Screening
- Size separation
- Divides the feed stock into oversize (retained on the screen) and undersize (passed through
the screen).
4- Air Classification
- Separation process by the differences in aerodynamic characteristics of waste.
- Interaction between moving stream of air, shredded wastes and gravitational force.
- The fraction which is suspended in the air stream referred to light fraction (paper, plastic,
etc.) and the settled materials are referred to heavy fraction (metals, glasses, etc.).
5- Magnetic Separation
- Segregate ferrous metals from mixed MSW.
- Configurations: magnetic head pulley, drum and magnetic belt.
6- Drying and Densification
- Improve the quality of RDF
- Densification is used for production of densified RDF by the way of briquetting, pelletizing
or cube formation.
72
UNEP, 2005
B-15
Figure B.8: Process flow diagram for RDF technology
Land requirements:
The typical land requirement for RDF plant instalation is 0,8 Ha for every 300 tons/day
capacity73.
End products:
The main end product of the RDF technology is pellets. Pellets can be sold to third party (factory)
that uses high temperature furnace for their operation or to use as fuel in the steam turbine to
produce energy.

Most types of solid waste can be processed in RDFsystem, the waste reduction rate depends of the
presence of organic waste treatment system and also the amount of bulk material that can‟t be
processed in RDF. In average upto 60% waste reduction is achieved.
CAPEX:
The estimated CAPEX and OPEX for 350 t/day capacity is given in Table B.10 and B.11.The
presented CAPEX and OPEX are based on a preliminary technical and financial proposal by
Holcim, which is one of the cement factories that can utilize RDF pellet as fuel in their kiln. The
costs presented are based on local costs, which is accurate as possible, given that all local
conditions, taxes, customs, O&M related costs, etc. are take into consideration. It is important to
note that the O&M costs do not include any profits for the operator.
73
Energy Recovery from Municipal Solid Waste.(http://urbanindia.nic.in/publicinfo/swm/chap15.pdf)‎
B-16
Table B.10: Estimated CAPEX of RDF process for 350 tons/day capacity
US$ US$
Bio–drying process system 2,400,000
Pre- and post-treatment equipment 4,600,000
Fixed processing Equipment 4,000,000
Mobile equipment 300,000
Critical spares 300,000
Civil works, C&S + M&E 8,000,000
Biodrying bays etc 900,000
Processing and storage buildings (Holcim’s fire safety and
6,100,000
OHS standards for high risk zones)
Service buildings 500,000
Power substation 500,000
Other facilities 2,000,000
Weigh-bridges, roads etc 900,000
Landscape, drainage fence etc 900,000
Lab, IT etc 200,000
Detailed engineering 2,000,000
Contingency 1,000,000
Total 20,000,000
OPEX:
Table B.11: Estimated OPEX of RDF process for 350 tons/day capacity
US$/t fresh waste
RDF processing 8.7
Maintenance of buildings, drains, roads etc. 0.4
Hazardous waste disposal 0.2
Administration 2.0
Transfer of RDF to kiln 4.7
Total 16.0
Project literature:
Table B.12 below shows the project literature for RDF plants including power generation, which
could be found in the region.
Table B.12: Project literatures for RDF plant development

Parameter Project I Project II Project III
Location Vijayawada & Guntur, RDF : Dadu Majra Site Karimnagar &
Krishna District, Andhra Village, Sector 25-Western Ramagundam &
Pradesh, India Side, Chandigarh, India Nizamabad, Andhra
Power Plant : Baghery Pradesh, India
Village, Solan District, India
Date February 13th 2007 March 7th 2006 August 24th 2012
Capacity 505 tons/day 500 tons/day Total capacity of 1400
tons/day
Energy Travelling grate boiler (6 Multi-fuel traveling grate power generation unit
Recovery MW) boiler (12 MW)
B-17
Location Vijayawada & Guntur, RDF : Dadu Majra Site Karimnagar &
Krishna District, Andhra Village, Sector 25-Western Ramagundam &
Pradesh, India Side, Chandigarh, India Nizamabad, Andhra
Power Plant : Baghery Pradesh, India
Village, Solan District, India
Financial  Project costs : 7.76  Project costs : 3.94 Million  Total project costs :
Aspect Million US$ US$ 5.05 Million US$
 O&M Expenses of power
plant : 4% of project costs
with 5% annual escalation
Air pollution:
1- Potential Source: particulate matter from mechanical treatments, gas vapors from drying or
pressing processes, and odors.
2- Mitigation measures: basic air pollution control.
Water pollution:
1- Potential Source: some pollutants in the case of aqueous processes like washing or skimming
are being conducted in the process.
2- Mitigation measures: avoid and minimize the wet process.
Noise pollution:
1- Potential Source: machine activities.
2- Mitigation measures: noise control.

Air pollutants and other hygiene issues (microbiological problems).
Worker safety issue:

1- Odor and hygiene problems (microbiological pollutants.
2- The impact is a function of the ratio of native organic substances which are subjected to rapid
biodegradation.
E. Social Aspects
Public perception:
1- People who do not know about RDF may think that RDF combustion is the same as waste
incineration and have resistance
2- The major concern is emission from RDF combustion especially dioxin and acid gas.
Nuisance impact:
1- Mainly odor, noise, traffic, and dust
2- Significant to community that live near the facility
Traffic:
Based on the number and frequency of transport vehicle that goes to and from the facility.
B-18
Advantages:
1- The process can handle most of municipal solid waste
2- Minimize landfill requirement
3- Utilize the waste into useful product (pellet as fuel)
Disadvantages:
1- High capital costs
2- Still require organic waste treatment system
B.3.3.2 Biological Process: Anaerobic Digestion

Anaerobic digestion is a natural biological decomposition process that occurs in oxygen-free
conditions. It involves the conversion of organic matter by microorganisms to generate a gaseous
product, known as “biogas”, leaving a stabilized solid product, known as “digestate”74.
Treatment:
In an oxygen free environment, microorganisms convert most organic material to biogas, carbon
dioxide and methane mixture, containing 55-70% methane. Bacteria conduct the majority of the
biochemical processes in anaerobic digesters. Four successive phases can be identified:
hydrolysis, acidogenesis, acetogenesis, and methanogenesis, each being generally conducted by
different group of bacteria.
1- Waste composition
Waste characterized by high volatile solid and low non-biodegradable matter is best suited to
anaerobic digestion treatment.
2- pH level
It has been determined that an optimum pH value for AD lies between 5.5 and 8.575.
3- Temperature
Optimum digestion conditions for the production of methane is the mesophilic (20-40oC -
optimum condition at 30-35oC) and thermophilic ranges (50-66oC)6.
4- Retention time
The retention time for wastes treated in mesophilic digester range from 10 to 40 days. Lower
retention times are required in digesters operated in the thermophilic range. A high solids
reactor operating in the thermophilic range has a retention time of 14 days 76.
5- Mixing
Mixing prevents scum formation and avoids temperature gradients within the digester.
However excessive mixing can disrupt the microbes so slow mixing is preferred.
74
Potts, Lee G.A. & Martin, Duncan J.2002. Waste Management and Minimization: Anaerobic Digestion, Gasification
and Pyrolisis.EOLSS: UK
75
Regional Information Service Centre for South East Asia on Appropriate Technology (RISE-AT).1998. Review of
current status of Anaerobic Digestion Technology form treatment of MSW.Chiang-Mai University: Thailand
76
Verma, Shefali.2002.Anaerobic Digestion of Biodegradable Organics in Municipal Solid Wastes.Department of Earth
& Environmental Engineering, Columbia University.
B-19
Figure B.9: Process flow diagram of anaerobic digestion technology
Land requirements:
The typical land requirements for anaerobic digestion facility is about 2 Ha for 225 tons/day
capacity77 or 1 Ha for 100-120 tons/day capacity. This data is also consistent with several
anaerobic digestion plants‟ manufacturer.

The waste reduction rate for anaerobic digestion technology comprises 25 to 35 % from compost
generated and 10% of inert / rejects. Accordingly if the compost will be used as organic fertilizer,
the waste reduction rate is estimated at 10%. If the compost will be landfilled, then the waste
reduction rate is estimated at 35 to 45%.
Project literature:
Table B.13 below shows the project literature for recent project:
Table B.13:Project literature for anaerobic digestion technology

Parameter Project Details
Location Jiaonan City waterfront industrial park, Qingdao City, Shandong Province, China
Date January 16th 2012
Capacity 600 tons/day
Biogas Production 70,488 m3/day
Energy Recovery 51,817 MWh/year
 Total Investment : 26.35 Million USD
Financial Aspect
 Operational costs : 3.96 Million USD
Several manufacturers were contacted to provide recent CAPEX and OPEX estimates for
anaerobic digesters, and the results are as follows for dry, single stage and batch process:
77
RIS International Ltd. 2005.Feasibility of Generating Green Power through Anaerobic Digestion of Garden Refuse
from the Sacramento Area. Advanced Renewable and Distributed Generation Program: Sacramento
B-20
CAPEX – $200 to $250 / ton of raw MSW.
OPEX - $12 to $20 / ton of raw MSW.
Air pollution:
1- Potential Source: emission from digestion activities (GHG, acid gases, smog precursors,
heavy metals, others) and transportation activities (dust, TSP)
2- Mitigation measures: basic and medium air pollution control
Water pollution:
1- Potential Source : leachate and other wastewater from the operation
2- Mitigation measures: collection, treatment, disposal
Noise pollution:
1- Potential Source : machinery, transportation activities
2- Mitigation measures: equipping silencers, sound insulation

1- Odor is the only issue that can be considered a risks from anaerobic digestion plant to public
health
2- Odors can result at the input side if the refuse isn‟t expeditiously fed into the process
3- The residuals at the end of the process can also generate odors if not thoroughly digested
Worker safety issue:

1- The workers have little exposure to the wastes or the process, minimizing worker safety
concerns
2- If there is a pre-processing step involving hand picking of undesirable and recyclable
materials from the waste stream, there would be some risks
E. Social Aspects
Social acceptability:
1- The fact that anaerobic digestion facilities produce “green power” is likely to be a big selling
point for many communities on a go-forward basis.
2- Anaerobic digestion is likely to be more acceptable than a greenfield landfill site or a thermal
treatment facility.
Footprints and land use:

One of the big advantages of anaerobic digestion is the very small footprint required for the
primary digestion operation, which is an advantage for urban settings.
Employments:
The direct employment generated by anaerobic digestion facilities is relatively small as the
technology is highly automated.. The estimated employment rates based on manufacturer‟s data
are as follows:
- For 100 tons / day capacity requires 10 employees.
B-21
Nuisance impacts:
1- Includes dust, noise, odor, vermin and litter
2- These impacts are negligible from a well run anaerobic digestion facility as unloading
operations are generally enclosed with the tipping area being operated under negative
pressure
Traffic:
The traffic impacts from the anaerobic digestion facility are a function of the quantity of material
delivered to the facility and the size of the trucks employed.

Advantages:
1- Lower emission of carbon dioxide (because some complex compounds are not digested)
2- Promotes carbon sequestration
3- Conservation of these complex organics as a potential soil conditioner
4- Easy treatment of the “wet” fraction of MSW (which is problematic in incineration)
5- Elimination of odors (AD plants are fully enclosed)
6- No production of such toxic products as dioxins
7- Captures nutrients for reuse and reduces use of inorganic fertilizers
8- Protects groundwater and surface water resources
Disadvantages:
1- It is slow, so it needs large, costly digesters (capital costs for other biological processes such
as composting are much lower)
2- Material handling and preparation problems can arise
3- Wastewater treatment can be costly
4- The need for separate treatment of the non - biodegradable materials imposes additional costs
5- The digestate is often of poor quality, unsuitable for sale as compost
B.3.3.3 Thermal Process: Incineration (Combustion)

Incineration process is one of the technology options for municipal solid waste treatment that use
thermal process to minimize the amount (volume and weight) of waste and converts it to produce
energy.
Treatment:
Incineration involves the combustion of typically unprepared (mixed or residual) MSW. To allow
the combustion to take place a sufficient quantity of oxygen is required to fully oxidize the fuel.
Incineration plant combustion temperatures are in excess of 850 oC and the waste is mostly
converted into carbon dioxide and water and any noncombustible materials (e.g. metals, glass,
stones) remain as a solid, known as Incinerator Bottom Ash (IBA) that always contains a small
amount of residual carbon.
1- Waste Reception and Handling

- Waste registration and control
- Size reduction, sorting, homogenization, and inspection of waste (optional)
- Unloading and hopper
- Feeding system
B-22
2- Combustion Process
- Temperature and retention time :
a. Temperatures > 650oC with retention time of 1-2 seconds  complete combustion of
most food and other common household waste.
b. Dual chamber incinerators, designed to burn complex mixtures of waste, hazardous
waste and biomedical waste, must provide a temperature > 1000oC and a retention time
of at least one second to ensure complete combustion and minimize dioxin and furan
emissions78.
- Turbulence: The turbulent mixing of burnable gases with sufficient oxygen is needed to
promote good contact between the burning waste and incoming air.
- Composition of the waste: The higher the burn temperature, retention time and turbulence
that are achieved, the less effect the composition of the waste has on completeness of the
burn.
3- Energy Recovery
The total available energy in the waste up to 80% can be retrieved in the boiler to produce
energy.
4- Emission and Air Pollution Control
A common approach for control of emissions is as follows:
- Ammonia injection into the hot flue gases for control of NOx emissions;
- Lime or Sodium Bicarbonate injection for control of SO2 and HCl emissions;
- Carbon injection for capture of heavy metals; and
- Filter system for removal of fly ash and other solids (lime or bicarbonate and carbon).
- The control of CO, VOCs, and dioxins, in terms of their concentration, is primarily though
correct combustion conditions being maintained.
5- Bottom Ash Handling
The bottom ash typically represents around 20%-30% of the original waste feed by weight,
and only about 10% by volume.
Figure B.10: Process flow diagram of incineration technology
78
Nunavut Department of Environment, 2012. Environmental Guideline for the Burning and Incineration of Solid
Waste. Department of Environment Government of Nunavut: Iqaluit, Canada
B-23
Land requirements:
According to data from various existing facilities, typical land requirements for incineration plant
given as follows 79:
1- From RIS et al. (2005): 0.10 to 0.25 m2 per ton input per year,
2- From DEFRA (2009) reports: 0.16-0.19 m2 per ton input per year for grate incinerators and
0.68 m2 per ton input per year for fluidized bed
3- From Golder Associates Ltd. (2009): 0.2 -0.3 m2 per ton input per year.
End products:
End products of the incinerator process is bottom ash that can be disposed at landfill or utilize as
construction material, and also fly ash that must be goes to fly ash processing before disposed it in
landfill.

Can handle all the type of waste with reduction rate by weight is reduced to 25% of the initial
value and by volume is reduced to almost 10% of the initial value.
B. Financial Aspects:
Project literature:
Table B.14 below shows the project literature for incineration development.
Table B.14: Project literature for incineration technology80

Mudu Town, Wuzhoung
Shijiazhuang City, Hebei Anqing City, Anhui
Location District, Suzhou City,
Province, China Province, China
Tiangsu Province, China
Date December 15th 2012 July 23th 2012 March 17th 2012
Capacity 1500 tons/day 1000 tons/day 800 tons/day
Incinerator
Mechanical Grate Mechanical Grate Circulating Fluidized Bed
Type
Steam turbine generator 15
Energy
MW (2 units), generate 89,600 MWh/year 133,225 MWh/year
Recovery
190,000 MWh/year
 Total Investment : 46.33
 Total Investment : 62.10
 Total Static Investment : Million USD (equivalent
Million USD (equivalent to
121.35 Million USD to $58,000 / ton for
$62,000 / ton for CAPEX)
(equivalent to $81,000 / ton CAPEX)
Financial  Static Investment : 59.66
for CAPEX)  Capital Investment : 43.60
Aspect Million USD
 Annual O&M costs : Million USD
 Average O&M cost : 7.07
9.62 Million USD  O&M cost : 7.12 Million
Million US$
 Project Lifetime : 20 years US$/year
 Project Lifetime : 25 years
Project Lifetime : 28 years
Air pollution:
1- Potential Source: flue gas from combustion process, odors, dust (TSP) from machine and
transportation activities
2- Mitigation Measurements: basic, medium, and advanced air pollution control
79
http://www.epem.gr/waste-c-control/database/html/WtE-00.htm
80
Recently developed incineration projects in East Asia Region
B-24
Water pollution:
1- Potential Source: generated from wet processes (high concentration of salts, mainly as
chloride and soluble heavy metals)
2- Mitigation Measurements: collection, treatment, disposal
Noise pollution:
1- Potential Source: originates from transportation of waste and treatment residues to and from
the plant, handling waste and residues within the plant premises, and noise emissions from the
installed equipment.
2- Mitigation Measurements: noise control installment
Residue handling:
1- Potential Source: the boiler and fly ash and other residues
2- Mitigation Measurements: disposed of in a controlled landfill

Airborne pollution:
1- Workers in the waste reception hall are exposed to exhaust fumes from the trucks delivering
the waste.
2- The air quality in the reception hall is also negatively influenced by odor, dust, and micro-
organisms released during unloading
3- Decomposition of waste in the pit/hopper further degrades the air quality
Heat:
1- The temperature in the furnace hall may be elevated considerably above ambient temperature
and even become uncomfortable
2- Working in this area induces a risk of dizziness, sickness, visual disturbance, and headaches
Vibration:
Vibration and sound pressure emitted from numerous machines and activities may reach a level of
concern to occupational health and safety
1- Vibration dampers should be applied whenever required
2- Noisy equipment such as turbines and compressors must be shielded or placed in special
rooms with sound-absorbing cladding on the walls
3- Large ventilators should be located where the noise level is of no concern or equipped with
noise-reducing intake and outlet units
Chemicals:
1- Safety Data Sheets of all the used chemicals must be provided by the suppliers of hazardous
chemicals
2- The employer should ensure that all necessary precautions are taken
Physiology:
1- Ergonomic strain caused by lifting, pulling, and pushing of heavy parts should be minimized
through lifts and cranes
2- The floors should be level, with sufficient slopes for drainage of cleaning water only
B-25
Risk of accidents:
The main risks of accidents at an incineration plant are:
1- Falls from great height (into the pit or down from the footbridges)
2- Collisions with trucks transporting waste or residues
3- Accidents at rotating equipment
4- Scalding by hot water or steam
5- Equipment failure
6- Explosions, and fire
E. Social Aspects
Employments:
1- May provide positive social impacts in the form of employment and educational opportunities
2- Typical employment for an incineration plant of 50,000 tpa capacity would be 2-6 workers
per shift
Public perception:
1- A significant challenge with regard to acceptance of waste management facilities.
2- Public perception of waste incineration tends to be linked to issues associated with older
facilities where the general site management requirements and pollution control measures
were not as exacting as they are today.

Advantages:
 Minimum of land is needed compared to the dimensions of waste disposal sites (landfill).
 The weight of the waste is reduced to 25% of the initial value.
 The waste volume is reduced to almost 10% of the initial value.
 Incineration plants can be located close to residential areas, which are the centres of the
production of waste, and this helps to reduce the volume of traffic, pollution, noise and of
course the costs for the waste transportation.
 By using the ashes for environmentally appropriate construction, low costs are provided and
furthermore the need for landfill capacity is reduced.
 The incineration of waste provides two possibilities of using the produced energy:
- First of all district heating can be produced with the help of hot water.
- Secondly current can be generated by means of steam turbines.
 By using district heating single heating systems in houses can be replaced which helps to
reduce the pollution of the environment and greenhouse gas emissions are diminished.
 The produced residues, ash and slag as well as the developed flue gases, are odour-free
compared to the offensive smells and partly offensive smells caused by dumps and sanitary
landfills, respectively.
9- As the raw material needed for waste incineration, which is municipal waste, is said to be
kind of renewable resources, it helps to reduce the use of fossil fuels or non-renewable
resources.
B-26
Disadvantages:
 High capital and operation and maintenance costs compared to other conventional solid waste
treatment/disposal technologies.
 The air pollution controls required in incineration plants are extremely expensive. Very often
up to one half of the costs of a plant are due to air pollution control facilities. As the laws can
change and maybe require updates in the air pollution controls this could lead to much higher
costs in the future.
 Energy produced by means of waste incineration is not likely to be practical for small
communities. Therefore incineration plants have to be situated in areas where the district
heating network can easily be connected to very many households.
 The extremely high technical standards of the plants require skilled workers, which leads to
the facts that rather high wages have to be paid.
 The residues from the flue gas cleaning can contaminate the environment if they aren‟t
handled appropriately and therefore they must be disposed of in controlled and well operated
landfill to prevent groundwater and surface pollution.
 People‟s efforts to avoid waste production are minimized when they know that their waste is
burnt in an incineration plant.
B-27
ANNEX C
DETAIL REVIEW OF ANAEROBIC DIGESTION
TECHNOLOGY
C.1 Anaerobic Digestion Processes

Anaerobic digestion is described as a series of processes involving microorganisms to break down
biodegradable material in the absence of oxygen. The overall result of anaerobic digestion is a
nearly complete conversion of the biodegradable organic material into methane, carbon dioxide,
hydrogen sulfide, ammonia and new bacterial biomass81. Anaerobic digestion can be used to
process any carbon-containing material, including food, paper, sewage, yard trimmings and solid
waste, with varying degrees of degradation. The organic fraction of municipal solid waste, for
example, is a complex substrate that requires an intricate series of metabolic reactions to be
degraded82. The degradation of complex polymeric substances found in solid waste includes
lingocellulose, proteins, lipids and starch. In general MSW contains 40-50% of cellulose, 12% of
hemicellulose and 10-15% of lignin by dry weight 83. Carbohydrates, on the other hand, are known
to be more rapidly converted via hydrolysis to simple sugars and subsequently fermented to
volatile fatty acids84.
C.2 Important Factors in Anaerobic Digestion of Solid Waste

C.2.1 Alkalinity and pH
The pH range for most anaerobic bacteria including methane-forming bacteria activities is from
5.5 to 8.585, but optimally at a pH of 6.8 to 7.6 and the rate of methane production may decrease if
the pH is lower than 6.3 or higher than 7.886.
Alkalinity and pH value in anaerobic digestion can be adjusted using several chemicals such as
sodium bicarbonate, potassium bicarbonate, calcium carbonate, calcium hydroxide, and sodium
nitrate. The addition of any chemical for pH adjustment should be done slowly to prevent any
adverse impact on the bacteria.
C.2.2 Temperature
Temperature is not only influenced by the metabolic activities of the microbial population but also
has a significant effect on some other factors such as gas transfer rates and settling characteristics
81
Veeken, 2000; Kelleher, 2002; Gallert and Winter, 2005 in Nayono, Satoto Eandar.2010.Anaerobic Digestion of
Organic Solid Waste for Energy Production. KIT Scientific Publishing: Germany
82
Ostrem, K. (2004). Greening Waste: Anaerobic Digestion for Treating the Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid
Wastes.‎Master’s‎thesis.‎Retrieved‎January‎28,‎2007.‎http://www.seas.columbia.edu
83
Wang, Y.S., Byrd, C.S., & Barlaz, M.A. (1994). anaerobic biodegradability of cellulose and hemicellulose in excavated
refuse samples using a biochemical methane potential assay. Journal of Industrial Microbiology, 13, 147-153
84
Mata-Alvarez, J. (2003). Biomethanization of the Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid Waste. IWA Publishing. ISBN: 1-
900222-14-0.
85
RISE-AT. (1998). Review of Current Status of Anaerobic Digestion Technology for Treatment of Municipal Solid
Waste. Retrieved June 28, 2006. , from Chiang Mai University Institute of Science and Technology Research and
Development, Website: http://www.ist.cmu.ac.th/riseat/documents/adreview.pdf
86
Stronach et al.,1986; Lay et al., 1998 in Nayono, Satoto Eandar.2010.Anaerobic Digestion of Organic Solid Waste for
Energy Production. KIT Scientific Publishing: Germany
C-1
of bio-solids (Stronach et al., 1986 and Metcalf & Eddy Inc., 2003). The optimal temperature for
anaerobic digestion commonly applies in two ranges, which are87:
Table C.1: Operationtemperature ranges for anaerobic digestion processes

Temperature Ranges Advantages88 Disadvantages89
Mesophilic, optimum - More robust and can tolerate - Requires longer retention
temperature around 35oC greater changes in the time
environmental parameters
- Minimum risk of system crashing
Thermophilic, optimum - Higher methane production rates - More sensitive to toxic
temperature around 55oC and pathogen removal substances and changes in
- Better volatile solid elimination operational parameters
- Requires more energy for
heating
Figure C.1: Schematic diagram of complete anaerobic digestion of complex polymers.

1. Fermentative bacteria
2. Hydrogen-producing acetogenic bacteria
3. Hydrogen-consuming acetogenic bacteria
4. Aceticlastic methanogenic bacteria
5. Carbon dioxide-reducing methanogenic bacteria
87
Mata, Alvarez, J.2002.Fundamentals of the anaerobic digestion process. Amsterdam: IWA publishing company
88
Mata, Alvarez, J.2002.Fundamentals of the anaerobic digestion process. Amsterdam: IWA publishing company
89
Zaher, U., Li, R., Jeppsson, U., Steyer, J.P. and Chen, S., 2009. GISCOD: General integrated solid waste codigestion
model. Water Research. Vol. 43: 2717-2727.
C-2
The influence of temperature on the rate of anaerobic digestion process is presented on Figure
C.2.
Figure C.2: Influence of temperature on the rate of anaerobic digestion process
C.2.3 Substrate Characteristics

1- Composition
The degradability of municipal solid waste in anaerobic digestion depend on the amount of
main components, which are lipids, proteins, as well as carbohydrates including cellulose,
hemicelluloses, and lignin90. The methane yield from lipids is the most significant number
than the other components, since the digestion of lipids generate more methane. The
composition of wastes also affects the yield and quality of biogas as well as the compost
quality91.
2- Volatile Solids (VS)

Solid waste characterized by high volatile solids (VS) and low non-biodegradable matter is
best suited to anaerobic digestion treatment 92.
3- C/N Ratio
Solid waste with high C/N ratio is not suitable for bacterial growth due to deficiency of
nitrogen. Since the gas production rate and solids degradability will be low. On the other
hand, if the C/N ratio is too low, the degradation process leads to ammonia accumulation
which is toxic to the bacteria93. The optimum range of C/N ratio for an anaerobic digestion is
from 25-3094. The typical C/N ratio for municipal solid waste is around 40 95. To maintain the
90
Hartmann, H. and B. K. Ahring, 2006. Strategies for the anaerobic digestion of the organic fraction of municipal solid
waste: an overview. Water Science and Technology. Vol. 53 (8): 7-22.
91
USA
92
Eliyan, Chea.2007. Anaerobic Digestion of Municipal Solid Waste in Thermophilic Continuous Operation
93
waste: an overview. Water Science and Technology. Vol. 53 (8): 7-22
94
Kayhanian, M. and Hardy, S., 1994. The impact of four design parameters on the performance of a high solids
anaerobic digestion of municipal solid waste for fuel gas production. Environmental Technology. Vol. 15: 557_567
95
C-3
C/N ratio on anaerobic digestion, the process can be co-digested with other substrates that can
adjust the number of C/N ratio, such as animal manure or food waste.
4- Particle Size: The particle size has a significant influence on anaerobic digestion during
hydrolysis phase, since a smaller particle size provides a larger area for enzymatic contact and
reaction96.
C.2.4 Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT)

The HRT of anaerobic digestion for solid waste varied from 3 to 55 days, depend on the type of
waste, temperature of operation, process stage, and digesters configuration 97. For dry anaerobic
digesters the HRT ranges between 14 and 30 days and for wet anaerobic digestion it can be
as low as 3 days. The retention time for mesophilic digesters range from 10 to 40 days, lower
retention times are required in thermophilic digesters 98.
C.2.5 Organic Loading Rate (OLR)

The OLR value is often coupled with the HRT value. If the concentration of organic matter in the
feedstock is relatively constant, the shorter HRT will give the higher value of OLR. On the other
hand, the value of the OLR will be varied on the same HRT if the organic matter in the feedstock
is not relatively constant. The OLR of anaerobic digestion should be relatively constant to prevent
the failure on the methanogenic process 99.
C.2.1 Mixing Condition

Mixing provides an adequate contact between the incoming fresh substrate and the viable
bacterial population and also prevents the thermal stratification and the formation of a surface
crust/scum buildup in an anaerobic digestion reactor 100. Furthermore, mixing ensures that solids
remain in suspension avoiding the formation of dead zones by sedimentation of sand or heavy
solid particles. Mixing also enables the particle size reduction as digestion progresses and the
release of produced biogas from the digester contents 101.
C.2.6 Inhibitory Substances

1- Ammonia
Ammonia formed during the degradation of nitrogenous matter in the form of proteins,
phospholipids, nitrogenous lipids and nucleic acid102. Ammonia inhibits the process on the
anaerobic digestion by changing the intracellular pH, resulting in the increase of the
96
Palmowski and Muller; Hartmann and Ahring, 2006 in Nayono, Satoto Eandar.2010.Anaerobic Digestion of Organic
Solid Waste for Energy Production. KIT Scientific Publishing: Germany
97
waste: an overview. Water Science and Technology. Vol. 53 (8): 7-22
98
USA
99
Nayono, Satoto Eandar.2010.Anaerobic Digestion of Organic Solid Waste for Energy Production. KIT Scientific
Publishing: Germany
100
Karim et al., 2005; Meroney and Colorado, 2009 in Nayono, Satoto Eandar.2010.Anaerobic Digestion of
Organic Solid Waste for Energy Production. KIT Scientific Publishing: Germany
101
Kaparaju, P., Buendia, I., Ellegaard, L., and Angelidaki, I., 2007. Effects of mixing on methane production during
thermophilic anaerobic digestion of manure: Lab_ scale and pilot_scale studies. Bioresource Technology. Vol. 99:
4919–4928
102
Kayhanian, 1999; Sung and Liu, 2003 in Nayono, Satoto Eandar.2010.Anaerobic Digestion of Organic Solid
Waste for Energy Production. KIT Scientific Publishing: Germany
C-4
maintenance energy required to overcome the toxic condition and inhibition of specific
enzyme reactions103.
2- Sulfide
Formed as the result of the reduction of oxidized sulfur compound and the dissimilation of
sulfur-containing amino acids such as cysteine by sulfate reducing bacteria. Primary
inhibition is indicated by lower methane production and the secondary inhibition results from
the toxicity of sulfide to various anaerobic bacteria groups 104.
3- Light metal ions

Includes sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium. Produced by the degradation of
organic matter in the feeding substrate or by chemical addition for adjustment of pH.
Excessive amount of light metal ions can decrease the rate of bacterial growth. The higher the
concentration of light metal ions can cause severe inhibition or toxicity.
4- Heavy metals
Not biodegradable and can accumulate to potentially toxic concentrations. Heavy metal can
inactivate most of enzyme function and structures by binding of the metals with thiol
(sulfhydryl) and other groups on protein molecules 105.
5- Organic substances
Including chlorophenols, halogenated aliphatic, nitrogen-subtituted aromatic, long-chain fatty
acids and lignins or lignin related compounds.
Several strategies to minimize the effect of inhibitory substances 106:

1) Removal of potential inhibitory/toxic substances from the feeding substrate.
2) Dilution of the feeding substrate in order to reduce the concentration of inhibitory substances
below the threshold.
3) Addition of chemicals to precipitate or insolubilize the inhibitory substances.
4) Change of the chemical form of inhibitory substances through pH control.
5) Addition of material that is antagonistic to the inhibitory substances in order to counteract the
inhibitory effect.
C.3 Anaerobic Digestion Plant Component

An anaerobic digestion plant is a complex installation, consisting of a variety of elements. The
layout of such a plant depends to a large extent on the types and amount of feedstock supplied.
Furthermore, depending on the type, size and operational conditions of each biogas plant, various
technologies for conditioning, storage and utilization of biogas are possible to implement.
103
Wittmann, C. , Zeng, A.P., Deckwer, W.D., 1995. Growth inhibition by ammonia and use of pH_controlled
feeding strategy for the effective cultivation of Mycobacterium chlorophenolicum. Applied microbiology and
biotechnology Vol. 44: 519-525
104
Chen, Y., Cheng; J.J. and Creamer, K.S., 2008. Inhibition of anaerobic digestion process: A review. Bioresource
Technology. Vol. 99: 4044 _ 4064
105
Sanchez et al., 1996; Chen et al., 2008 in Nayono, Satoto Eandar.2010.Anaerobic Digestion of Organic Solid
106
Angelidaki and Ahring, 1993; Wittmann et al., 1995; Kayhanian, 1999; Bashir and Matin, 2004; Angelidaki et al,
2006; Zaher et al., 2007 in Sanchez et al., 1996; Chen et al., 2008 in Nayono, Satoto Eandar.2010.Anaerobic
Digestion of Organic Solid Waste for Energy Production. KIT Scientific Publishing: Germany
C-5
C.3.1 Feedstock Receiving Unit
The main functions of feedstock receiving unit at the anaerobic digestion plant, includes:
 Ensuring a stable and continuous supply of feedstock;
 Visual control of each feedstock load; and
 Recording the delivery weight and all feedstock data (source, date, quantity, etc.).
C.3.2 Feedstock Storage

Storage facilities that are most suitable for solid waste feedstock are bunker silos. Usually, bunker
silos have the capacity to stir feedstock several days. In the case of organic fraction of solid waste,
the type of bunker silos that are most appropriate is covered cylinder or square silos to avoid the
spread of odor and the environmental breeding of flies and rodents.
C.3.3 Feedstock Conditioning

Feedstock conditioning intended to fulfill the demands of sanitation and to increase the feedstock
digestibility. There are several unit processes that can be used for feedstock conditioning, such as
feedstock sorting and separation. Organic fraction of municipal solid waste can contain various
impurities (packing and wrapping residues of plastic, metal, wood, glass, and other non-digestible
material. There impurities can be removed by mechanical, magnetic, and manual methods.
1- Sanitation
Handling, treatment and recycling of digestate must be done safely and avoid contamination
risks for humans, animals, or the environment. Sanitation is usually carried out in separate,
heated stainless steel tanks, connected to the digester feeding systems. Typical monitoring
parameters for sanitation include temperature, minimum guaranteed retention time, pressure,
and volume107.
2- Crushing
The crushing of the feedstock is to prepare the surfaces of the particles for biological contacts,
decomposition and the subsequent methane production. The decomposition process will
become faster as if the particle size is smaller. Particle size only influences the digestion time,
but not necessarily increase methane yields.
3- Mashing
Mashing of feedstock intended to increase the water content of feedstock. Liquid used for
mashing process depend on availability and are usually the liquid digestate in order to
minimize the fresh water consumption and decrease the cost for liquid digestate management.
C.3.4 Feeding System

After storage and conditioning, the feedstock will be fed in to the anaerobic digester. The feeding
technique depends on the feedstock type and its pumpability. In case of organic fraction from
municipal solid waste, which have a low pumpability, the feeding methods can be tipped/poured
by a loader into the feeding system and fed into the anaerobic digester (by a screw pipe system).
107
Seadi, Teodorita Al et al.2008.Biogas Handbook. University of Southern Denmark Esbjerg: Denmark
C-6
C.3.5 Armatures and Pipelines
Armatures and pipelines used in biogas installations must be corrosion proof and suitable to
handle specific types of materials (biogas and biomass). The materials used for pipelines depend
on the transported load and pressure level, which include PPV, HDPE, steel, and stainless steel.
C.3.6 Heating System-Digester Heating

One of the most important conditions for stable operation and high biogas yields on anaerobic
digestion is constant process temperature. The large fluctuations of temperature lead to unbalance
of the anaerobic digestion process, and in worst cases to complete process failure.
The cause of temperature fluctuations are as follows:

 Addition of new feedstock, with different temperature than the one of the process
 Formation of temperature layers or temperature zones due to insufficient insulation, ineffective
or incorrect dimensioning of heating system or insufficient stirring
 Inadequate placement of heating elements
 Extreme outdoor temperatures during summer or winter
 Failure of power trains
To achieve and maintain a constant process temperature and to compensate for eventual heat
losses, the anaerobic digesters must be insulated and heated by external heating sources. Heating
the feedstock can be done either during the feeding process (pre-heating), through heat
exchangers or it can be done inside the digester, by heating elements, hot steam etc.
C.3.7 Anaerobic Digesters

The core component of an anaerobic digestion plant is the digesters, which is an air proof reactor
tank, where the decomposition of feedstock takes place, in absence of oxygen, and where biogas
is produced. Table C.2 below show the two types of anaerobic digesters that are usually applied.
Table C.2: Types of anaerobic digesters used

Completely Mixed Digesters Plug Flow Digesters
 Round, simple tank construction, vertical  Elongated, horizontal tank
 Completely mixed  Vertically mixed
 Suitable for simple and wet feedstock  Suitable for difficult feedstock (organic
(liquid manure) solid waste)
 Fractions of the undigested feedstock can  Normally, no short cut between inflow
reach the outflow and outflow, secure sanitation
 Process temperature 20o-27o C  Process temperature 35o-55o C
 Retention time 30-90 days  Retention time 15-30 days
C.3.8 Maintenance of digesters

1- Removal of Sediments in the Digester
Sediment formation and the problems caused by it can be minimized by the following
measures108:
 Regularly emptying of pre-storage and storage tanks
 Establishing sufficient pre-storage capacity
 Applying adequate stirring method
108
C-7
 Adequate placement of the pumping pipes tubs, in order to avoid sand circulation
 Avoiding feedstock types with high sand content
 Utilization of specially developed methods of sand evacuation from the digesters
2- Measures against Foam Layers

The formation of foam and swimming layers is often caused by the type of feedstock supplied
and can cause clogging of gas lines. To prevent this, some effort could be the following:
 Installing the gas lines as high as possible inside the digester
 Application of foam traps
 Installing the foam sensor in the gas area of the digester to start automatically spraying
foam retardant inside the digester
C.3.9 Stirring Technologies

A minimum stirring of biomass inside the digester takes place by passive stirring. This occurs
by insertion of fresh feedstock and the subsequent thermal convection streams as well as by
the up-flow of gas bubbles. As passive stirring is not sufficient for optimal operation of the
digester, active stirring must be implemented, using mechanical, hydraulic or pneumatic
equipment. Up to 90% of biogas plants use mechanical stirring equipment. The type of
stirring technologies can be divided as follow:
 Mechanical stirring
 Pneumatic stirring
 Hydraulic stirring
C.3.10 Biogas Storage

In an anaerobic digestion process, biogas is formed in fluctuating quantities and with performance
peaks. To compensate this variation, the biogas needs to be stored temporarily in an appropriate
storage facility.
Biogas storage established on top of digesters is the simplest solution to store the biogas. Usually
using gas tight membrane, which also has the function as digester cover.
C.3.11 Biogas Cleaning and Conditioning

The gas cleaning and conditioning is needed to comply the minimum requirements for the
properties of the combustible gas that suitable with the gas engine generators. The combustion
properties must be guaranteed (Table C.3109), to prevent damage to the engines. The gas
conditioning process includes desulphurization (removal of H2S) and drying.
Table C.3: The minimum requirements of combustion properties for biogas

Heat value (lower heat value) Hu ≥ 4 kWh/m3
Sulphur content (total) S ≤ 2.2 g/m3 CH4
H2S content H2S ≤ 0.15 % vol
Chlorine content Cl ≤ 100 mg/m3 CH4
Fluoride content F ≤ 50 mg/m3 CH4
Sum of Chlorine and Fluoride CL+F ≤ 100 mg/m3 CH4
Dust (3-10 µm) ≤ 10 mg/m3 CH4
109
C-8
Relative humidity (at lowest intake air ᵠ < 90%
temperature)
Flow pressure before entry into the gas Pgas 20-100 mbar
control path
Gar pressure fluctuation < ± 10% of set value
Gas temperature T 10-50oC
Hydrocarbons (>C5) <0.4 mg/m3CH4
Silicon (at Si> 5 mg/m3CH4oil analysis of Si <10.0 mg/m3 CH4
metal content < 15 mg/kg oil observed)
Methane e count (Biogas MC approx. 135) MZ >135
1- Desulphurization
Removal of H2S from biogas (desulphurization) can be done by several methods, both
biological and chemical, taking place inside or outside the digester. Desulphurization
depends on the content of H2S and the throughput rate throughout the desulphurization
equipment.
2- Drying
The relative humidity of biogas inside the digester is 100%, so the gas is saturated with
water vapors. To protect the energy conversion equipment from wear and from eventual
damage, water must be removed from the produced biogas. Several methods for drying
the biogas are as follow:
 Condensed by cooling off the gas
 Cooling the gas in electrically powered gas coolers
C.3.12 Digestate Storage

The digested substrate is pumped out of the digester through pumping sequences and
transported through pipelines to storage facilities, in the vicinity of the digester, where
digestate can be temporarily stored (several days).
C.4 Types of Anaerobic Digestion

The type of anaerobic digestion can be divided based on the solids content of the feedstock, the
feeding modes, and the process stage(s).
C.4.1 Wet and Dry Anaerobic Digestion

Wet Anaerobic Digestion: The feedstock is slurred with a large amount of water to provide a
dilute feedstock of 10-15% dry solids 110. This method is suitable to treat the combination of
several waste streams like sewage sludge or manure and organic fraction of municipal solid
waste111. Reactors used generally are referred to as continuous stirred tank reactors (CSTR) 112.
110
111
Luning et al., Hartmann and Ahring, 2006 in Nayono, Satoto Endar.2010.Anaerobic Digestion of Organic Solid
112
Banks, C.J. and Stentiford, E. I., 2007. Biodegradable municipal solid waste: biotreatment options. Waste and
resource management. Vol. 160 (1): 11-18
C-9
Dry Anaerobic Digestion: The feedstock used has a dry solids content of 20-40%113. The
reactors used in dry anaerobic digestion generally do not use mechanical mixers and may use
biogas injection to perform mixing of the digester content 114.
C.4.2 Batch and Continuous Feeding Systems

Batch Feeding System: The digesters are filled once with fresh feedstock, with or without
addition of inocula, and sealed for the complete retention time, after which it is opened and the
effluent removed115.
Continuous Feeding System: Fresh feedstock continuously enters the digester and an almost
equal amount of digested material is removed116.
C.4.3 Single and Multi Stage Processes

Single Stage: All digestion occurs in one reactor vessel, both acidogenic phase and methanogenic
phase. These processes could be dry or wet depending on the solid contents of the municipal solid
waste.
Multi Stage: Typically, two reactors are used, intended to improve digestion by having separate
reactors for the different stages of anaerobic digestion by providing the flexibility to optimize
each of these reactions. The first reactor will be used for hydrolysis/liquefaction-acidogenesis
process and the second reactor will be used for methanogenesis.
Table C.4: Type of anaerobic digestion

Type of Advantages Disadvantages
Technology
 Can remove plastic from incoming  Higher water requirements
waste stream  Higher energy needs to heat and pump
 More suited for co-digestion with water
animal manures or biosolids  Higher energy needs to dewater digester
Wet
 Significant operating experience contents
Anaerobic
 Dilution of inhibitors with fresh  Loss of volatile solids and potentially
Digestion
water lower gas yields
 High reactor volume
 Expensive post treatment
 Less energy requirements  Cannot handle high plastic content in

 More energy available for export incoming waste
 Smaller reactor volume  Little possibility to dilute inhibitors with
Dry
Anaerobic  Higher organic loading rate fresh water
Digestion  Higher methane production  More robust and expensive handling
equipment (compensated by smaller and
simpler reactor)
113
Lissens, G., Vandevivere, P., De Baere, L., Biey, E.M. and Verstraete, W., 2001. Solid waste digesters: process
performance and practice for municipal solid waste digestion. Water science and technology. Vol 44 (8): 91-102.
114
Luning, L., van Zundert, E.H.M., and Brinkmann, A.J.F., 2003. Comparison of dry and wet digestion for solid
waste. Water science and technology. Vol 48 (4): 15_20
115
Nayono, Satoto Endar.2010.Anaerobic Digestion of Organic Solid Waste for Energy Production. KIT Scientific
Publishing: Germany
116
Nayono, Satoto Endar.2010.Anaerobic Digestion of Organic Solid Waste for Energy Production. KIT Scientific
Publishing: Germany
C-10
 Easier and cheaper to build  Produce less gas
Batch
 More robust against inhibitor  Lower loading rate
Feeding
 Suitable for developing countries  Carries a risk of explosion during
Systems
 Lower investment cost emptying the reactor
Continuous  Suited for large scale operations  Not tolerant to the drastic change of
Feeding  Optimize the digestion process input material
Systems  Produce higher yield of gas
 Lower capital cost  Conditions for two stages are not
Single  Easier to operate optimized
Stage  Less technical failures  May lead to somewhat lower biogas
Process  Requires minimum retention time yields
to complete
Multi  Potentially higher gas yields  Higher cost
Stages  More breakdown of biodegradable  More technical complexity
Process material under optimal conditions  More technical failures
C.5 Products and By Products of Anaerobic Digestion Processes

C.5.1 Biogas
The gas obtained during anaerobic digestion including methane, carbon dioxide, some inert gases
and sulfur compounds (Table C.5).
Table C.5: Biogas production from anaerobic digestion processes

Parameter Unit Source 1117 Source 2118 Source 3119
3
Total biogas produced m /ton organic waste 100-200 112-144 85-95
Methane % by vol. 55-75 65-80 65-70
Energy Content of biogas MJ/m3 20-25 - -
Energy content of CH4 MJ/ton organic waste 167-373 - -
C.5.2 Digestate
The quality and composition of the digestate from anaerobic digestion process depends on the
feedstock for the digestion process. Table C.6 below show the typical characteristics of digestate
from dry anaerobic digestion of municipal solid waste.
Table C.6: Typical characteristics of digestate from dry anaerobic digestion of MSW
Parameter Unit Source 1120 Source 2121
Moisture content % 92.77 73.00
Total Solid (TS) % 7.23 27.00
Volatile Solid %TS 76.26 40.95
Total Nitrogen %TS 1.06 1.09
C/N - 12.07 20.87
Phosphorus %TS - 0.65
Kalium %TS - 0.65
117
118
RIS International Ltd.2005.Feasibility of Generating Green Power through Anaerobic Digestion of Garden
Refuse from the Sacramento Area. SMUD.
119
Cant, Michael et al.2006.Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Options: Integrating Organics Management and
Residual Treatment/Disposal. MWIN: Canada
120
Rao, M.S., & Singh, S.P. (2004). Bioenergy conversion studies of organic fraction of MSW: kinetic studies and
gas yield–organic loading relationships for process optimization. Bioresource Technology, 95,173-185
121
C-11
Many anaerobic digestion facilities post-treat the digestate aerobically, in a process known as
curing, in order to produce high quality compost. Anaerobic digestion does not reduce Nitrogen,
Phosphorus and Potassium (NPK) content, making the digestate more valuable as a fertilizer
(Ostrem, 2004). Nevertheless, it has been reported that the low C/N weight ratio (15:1) in digested
substrate indicates that it can be used as a bio-fertilizer or soil conditioner from the earlier
statements122.
The key factor that has to be controlled is the quality of the digestate. The main aspects that need
to be controlled are the chemical, physical and biological properties. These qualities are
controlled through controlling the feedstock, optimizing the process and finally management of
the final digestate123.
Compost can also reduce the need for artificial fertilizers, which are derived from natural gas,
result in water contamination, and deplete soil health. The quantifiable benefits of displacing
artificial fertilizer include reducing the significant CO2 emissions associated with their
manufacture, and reducing the N2O emissions released through their use.
C.5.3 Wastewater
The liquid fraction contains about two thirds of the nutrients in the wastes and can be used as a
fertilizer sprayed onto crops. The liquid remaining from the anaerobic digestion process can be
used in three ways 124. Least advantageously, it can be discharged as sewage to a wastewater
treatment plant, as it is too active to be discharged directly to fresh water. It can also be recycled
in the process for waste pretreatment or to adjust the moisture content in the digester. Finally, it
can be sold as a liquid fertilizer. Because nutrients are present in the liquid, this option is
attractive. The logistics of transporting high quantities of water, however, usually make this
option prohibitively expensive except if the anaerobic digestion site is near the farm area.
C.6 Biogas Utilization

Several ways of biogas utilization methods are presented in Figure C.3.
Figure C.3: Different ways for biogas utilization
122
Rao, M.S., & Singh, S.P. (2004). Bioenergy conversion studies of organic fraction of MSW: kinetic studies and gas
yield–organic loading relationships for process optimization. Bioresource Technology, 95,173-185
123
IEA (International Environmental Agency). (2001). Biogas and more: Systems and Markets Overview of
Anaerobic digestion Retrieved on 14 June, 2006. http://websrv5.sdu.dk/bio/pdf
124
RIS International. (2002). Generating Biogas from Source Separated Organic Waste for Energy Production.
Retrieved January 28, 2007. http://www.toronto.ca/eia
C-12
ANNEX D
COMMENTS FROM MID TERM PHASE
StakeholdersComments CDIA Response

Technical
Pak Benno Rahardyan (Reviewer)
1. Please be more specific in the recommended option. 1. Please refer to Sections 5.2 to 5.4. CDIA Team presented the
2. Inconsistency in the time frame of calculation, there is 10 years, another is recommended concepts in flow diagrams and description. However, more
30 years. elaboration will be included in the final report.
3. Discussion in the report was only concern about domestic waste, what 2. The Team will provide more clarifications in the report. However, the 10
about the percentage of non - domestic waste? to 15 years is the lifetime for the equipment, while the 30 years is for the
4. It would be better if the report displays Urban Spatial plan. civil works.
5. How is the mapping of the current situation related to plannedon MRF 3. The Team will address the non-residential waste. However the hazardous
offered? waste is not part of this study, since it is very specific type of waste and
6. Population data need to be taking into account. Do not just based on BPS, requires a separate study.
but it can be taken from another agency for comparison. 4. The specific siting of the facilities can not be included in this study (not
7. Will the percentage of low, medium and high income (50%, 45% and 5%) in the scope and time is limited). CDIA Team provides pre-FS / FS level
remain the same in subsequent years? of details for the recommended integrated SWM concept from collection
8. Is the calculation of waste generation according to the standard? Or, it is to final disposal, the conceptual design of the facilities and the total
only assumed? number of facilities / infrastructure to upgrade the whole sector.
9. Waste density data (200 kg/m3, 350 kg/m3) were taken from where? The 5. Please refer to CDIA response number 4 above.
truck? Or from the landfill? 6. CDIA Team will present the population according to BPS and other
10. Please clearly show what is the current collection service level? What methods for comparison, and will use the population leading to
about the one that is not addressed (25%)? conservative design capacity (higher capacity to deal with any
11. What is the calorific value of the offered technology (incinerator, etc.)? unexpected fluctuations / increase in waste generation).
Please clearly show as a reference. 7. CDIA Team assume this percentage will remain the same. There is no
12. Consultant is expected to convince the relevant parties concerning the available data to confirm otherwise.
recommendation of Anaerobic Digester (AD). Show its advantages over 8. The Team will present the different waste generation data from the
other technologies. Indonesian standards, master plan and other similar countries.
9. CDIA Team will clarify this in the report and will provide the
D-1
Recommendations for FS / DED improvements: comparison data available. The master plan presented 200kg/m3 based on
1. There is no specific concept for rehabilitation of the landfill in the FS / sampling program which was taken from handcarts at residential areas
DED and at the landfill. The CDIA team finds this density extremely low in the
2. Ideally the waste density 350 kg/m3, in the FS / DED it‟s said 200 kg/m3 context of Indonesia, and thus used 350kg/m3 which is based on data and
3. The financial calculations data do not include data on non-domestic, if it information gathered in Indonesia and the region. More clarifications will
is included it can increase revenue significantly. be provided.
10. Please refer to Section 2.5. CDIA Team took into consideration the
unmanaged waste to SWM system.
11. The Team is going to provide this additional data. However, the
anaerobic digestion is ranked first and RDF is ranked second (after
confirmation from PU that the RDF technology is acceptable, as well as
the interest in RDF by two large companies in the cement industry,
namely, Holcim and Indocement).
12. Please refer to Section 4.3.3.2. More information will be provided.
FS / DED:
1. The specific concept will be detailed in the final report.
2. FS and DED was carried out by different consulting firm and it came up
with 200kg/m3, which CDIA Team found very low (pls refer to response
9 above).
3. Non-residential will be included in the final report.
Ibu Endang (PU)
1. Please refer to PerMenPU No. 3 Year 2013 on Implementation of 1. Well noted.
Infrastructure and Facilities in Waste Handling and Waste Similar to 2. CDIA Team will note the acceptance of RDF and will address in the final
Household Waste. report. RDF will be ranked second based on this information and demand
2. Actually RDF can be considered as an option. from the cement factories (potential buyers).
3. Incinerator can be a good option, if the calorific value = 2500 kcal / ton of 3. Well noted. However given the high CAPEX and OPEX, and acceptance
waste. of RDF by Central Government, it is the third ranked treatment
4. More technology options needed to give more idea on the advantages of technology.
the Top Ranked technology. 4. CDIA Team will provide an additional column in Table 39, to clarify the
reasoning / justification of the evaluation criteria.
Ibu Nanda (PU)
1. What is the current map of waste management services in Tangerang? 1. CDIA Team will include it in the final report.
Please show it. 2. CDIA Team will try to find a reliable map to include in the final report.
D-2
2. The population classification map needs to be displayed, not only in the
form of table.
Pak Siong (World Bank)
1. Where are these all numbers (0.2, 0.35, 0.6) kg/m3 come from? Need to CDIA Team will put the proper references for the waste generation per capita
put clear reference. data.
Environmental
1. GHG emission has not been mentioned/included in the report. 1. CDIA Team has analyzed the impact of GHG emission from landfill
2. Regarding the hazardous waste treatment is there any preparation for it? activity (pls refer to Section 3.2.5) and not for all the SWM chain. The
reason being most of GHGs from solid waste sector are emitted at the
final disposal / treatment. Other GHGs emitted are negligible since
minimal to no decomposition happens as well as the waste volumes are
minimal, compared to a final treatment facility / disposal site.
2. Please refer to Technical sectioncomment Number 3, hazardous waste is
not included under this study as it requires a specific study.
Pak Ken Buttler (World Bank)
1. Need to put recommendation on utilization of methane. This comment will be included and elaborated in the final report.
Financial
1. Related to Table 20, how is the readiness of Tangerang City Government Funding aspects will be discussed in detail during the final phase with all the
in terms of funding? stakeholders. Final report will present the recommended funding mechanisms
for the different investment packages.
Institutional
Ibu Nanda (PU)
1. Concerning RDF, there is no statements from GOI (PU) that it is Well noted. Evaluation of the techology has been redone. RDF is the second
prohibited or not approved. ranked technology.
Social
1. Determination of the location of the proposed facilities related to the The specific siting of the facilities at the local / village level is out of the
planning has to adapt to local condition. Has it been considered? scope of this study and cannot be done during the limited time, budget and
team composition. This will be carried out at the DED stage.
D-3
ANNEX E
TERM OF REFFERENCES (TORs) OF THE
PROJECT
Title: Pre-Feasibility Study (PFS) in Municipal Solid Waste Management (SWM)
Location: Tangerang, Balikpapan - Indonesia
Duration: 1 June – 31 October 2013.
Inputs A multi-disciplinary team will be led by a full-time international SWM Expert (Team
Leader) and a full-time national SWM Expert (Deputy Team Leader) supported by
national short-term intermittent consultants.
International Consultant
1. Solid Waste Engineering Expert (Team Leader –95 days)
National Consultants
2. Waste Recycling Specialist/Market Analyst (Deputy Team Leader – 95 days)
3. Landfill & Leachate Specialist (45days)
4. SW Finance Specialist (30 days)
5. Solid Waste Treatment Specialist (45 days)
6. Collection and Transportation Specialist (45 days)
7. Graphic designer / editor (30 days)
Objectives  To validate existing SWM studies and appraisal of existing SWM systems in
Balikpapan & Tangerang from collection to final disposal, from technical, financial,
institutional and sustainability perspectives.
 To make detailed recommendations for specific projects to be funded by World
Bank, and the required pre-feasibility studies on market, management and
technology as and if required.
 To make generic recommendations on the specific projects to be funded by the cities
themselves.
 To link the pre-feasibility studies to related financial, institutional, environmental
and social studies undertaken by the WB.
 Ultimately, to help design SWM systems that are socially, environmentally,
technically, financially, and institutionally sustainable.
Background CDIA is a regional initiative established in 2007 by the Asian Development Bank and
the Government of Germany, with additional core funding support of the governments
of Sweden, Austria and Spain and the Shanghai Municipal Government. The Initiative
provides assistance to medium-sized Asian cities to bridge the gap between their
development plans and the implementation of their infrastructure investments. CDIA
uses a demand driven approach to support the identification and development of urban
investment projects in the framework of existing city development plans that
emphasize environmental sustainability, pro-poor development, good governance, and
climate change.
E-1
To facilitate these initiatives at city level, CDIA provides a range of international and
domestic expertise to cities that can include support for the preparation of pre-
feasibility studies for high priority infrastructure investment projects as one of several
elements.
The hallmark of CDIA is its focus on developing investments in urban infrastructure

and services through bridging the gap between city level urban strategies and
implementation of specific infrastructure projects with domestic-, international-, public
and/ or private financing. It does so through three mutually reinforcing action areas
which are:
 providing technical assistance in project structuring in order to bring priority

infrastructure projects to a stage where they could be financed, (including assisting
cities to structure their projects to attract market-based private investment), are
mutually supportive and are intended to be brought to bear in cohesion wherever
possible;
 strengthening local institutional prerequisites for development of capital investment
infrastructure projects and urban services; and
 promoting regional dialogue and cooperation on urban management in the Asia
region in order to enhance cross-learning from good local practices.
In so doing, CDIA contributes to:

 well-prioritized, structured and developed urban infrastructure and services
programs and projects that are potentially bankable;
 the long-term viability of these programs and projects by minimizing their ongoing
support on unsustainable public subsidies;
 enhanced institutional and managerial capacities of local governments and city
utilities for sustainable planning, implementation, operation and maintenance; and
 the development and strengthening of regional networks of urban management
practice.
References This assignment is based to a large extend on the documents prepared by government
of Indonesia, Ministry of Public Works including:
Indonesia SWM Improvement Support Project for Regional and Metropolitan

Cities
(Kota Balikpapan, Kota Bekasi, Kota Depok, Kartamantul, Kota Manado, Kota
Tangerang) which includes a TOR for Feasibility Study and Detailed Engineering
Designs. This TOR as prepared by Ministry of Public Works is divided into
components A, B, & C:
Component A: Improvements in Solid Waste Management Systems pertains to this

TOR and consists of the following sub-components:
Sub-Component A1 - Landfill Sites - the re-engineering and/or rehabilitation and/or

closure of existing landfill/disposal sites, construction of new state of the art sanitary
landfills (equipped with leachate treatment plants, access roads, heavy equipment such
as compactors and bulldozers, facilities for staff/operator) and all other necessary
facilities as required.
Sub-Component A2 - Intermediate Treatment Facilities – these could be on landfill

sites or at intermediate/transfer sites. Financing would be for waste treatment systems
(such as sorting and composting plants, landfill gas to energy/flaring plants, refuse
E-2
derived fuels (RDF) and or other treatment systems as appropriate) and transfer
stations.
Sub-Component A3 - 3R Systems - The 3R approach (reduce, reuse, recycle) will be

incorporated in the design and infrastructure works to minimize waste generation rates
at the household level and local markets, and subsequently lowering collection, transfer
and disposal costs, and extending the life of the landfills. This sub-component will
finance activities to further strengthen and increase coverage of this approach in
participating municipalities.
In addition, the following supplementary TORs are available which are outside the
scope of this TOR but will be implemented in parallel, and are likely to overlap to
some extent:
- TOR for Cost Recovery Study (Final, 2013)
- TOR for Institutional Development Study (Final, 2013)
- TOR for Social Survey as part of Component C: Social Development (Draft,
2013)
SoW Based on these complementary Terms of References and work carried out in other
cities, the general Scope of Work of the consultants team for this particular assignment
comprises:
1. Work directly with city government and other local stakeholders.

2. Agree on the geographical and administrative boundaries (coverage area) for
SWM.
3. Prepare an initial questionnaire for city implementing agencies to provide SW
data (from collection to final disposal), maps, Identify key issues and gaps in
existing studies and data sets,
4. Prepare summary of relevant studies and data into English for perusal by the
World Bank and CDIA.
5. Identify other relevant issues to further successful outcomes of the study, if any,
and propose solutions that the World Bank can support.
6. Work with key stakeholders throughout the assignment to strengthen the
coordination and ensure maximum ownership of outcomes.
7. Prepare and submit reports as required (see Deliverables).
8. Participate in CDIA and WB missions as required.
The team shall consider the following points when appraising existing SWM
infrastructure and plans/studies/data sets (not exhaustive, and linked to Components B
& C):
1. How well do the components fit into an integrated solid waste management
system, and what are the gaps?
2. Are all elements (collection, transportation, treatment, and disposal) considered?
Are the data sets and analyses for each of the components sufficient and credible
for a thorough qualitative and quantitative analysis?
3. Are transport systems and routes (including those for ITF) analyzed and
discussed?
4. What is required to rehabilitate and upgrade existing open dumps into controlled
landfills?
5. Is there a market for products such as compost (if a marketable quality can be
achieved) in order to maximize cost recovery?
6. Is sufficient information and engineering data available to finalize engineering
designs and proposals for the TPA and ITF?
E-3
7. What life span has been assumed for the TPA as a sanitary landfill?
8. What is the city‟s estimated O&M management capacity for the SWM system,
and what are the gaps?
Balikpapan Balikpapan is a seaport on the east coast of the province of East Kalimantan, a
resource-rich region known for its timber, coal mining, and petroleum export products.
Two harbors, Semayang and Kariangau (a ferry harbour), and the Airport are the main
transportation ports to the city. It has a population of approximately 650,000, making it
the second-largest city in East Kalimantan after Samarinda.
The city has a waste collection rate of approximately 80%, arguably has the best
sanitary landfill in Indonesia, but probably needs help on gas and leachate
management. The city has a Citywide Sanitation Strategy (SSK) approved by the
Ministry of Public Works in 2010 – both in English and Bahasa Indonesia.
In 2012, the city government prepared a city-wide Master Plan for SWM (Bahasa
Indonesia only). In addition, other studies, plans and data sets may be available.
To meet WB requirements for loan appraisal, existing studies will have to be

supplemented with the following component studies:
- Additional technical/engineering design evaluation of already prepared detailed
engineering design to meet the requirements of a landfill site (this TOR);
- Evaluate existing SWM system from collection to final disposal, and identify
potential projects, including possibility for ITF at sub-city level, composting plant
or waste to energy plant, collection infrastructure, transportation & transfer system,
and other treatment technologies suitable for the city. (this TOR);
- Evaluate the potential for 3R to reduce cost and increase sustainability of waste
management (this TOR);
- Financial & economic analysis (cost recovery study, market study) (supplementary
TOR);
- Institutional analysis (institutional development, management) (supplementary
TOR);
- Social Survey (sustainable employment and income-generating activities).
Tangerang Tangerang is located in the Province of Banten. It is located about 25 km west

of Jakarta. It is the third largest urban center in the Jabotabek region
after Jakarta and Bekasi. It has an area of 164.54 km² and a population of
approximately 1,800,000.The Soekarno-Hatta International Airport which serves
metropolitan Jakarta is located within the city.
The city has a waste collection rate of approximately 50%.
In 2012, city government prepared a number of SWM studies in Bahasa Indonesia:

- Citywide Master Plan for SWM covering 13 sub-districts;
- FS for the Final Disposal Site (TPA) of Rawa Kucing (existing site);
- DED for the same;
- EIA for the same.
After a quick scan by CDIA early 2013, these studies were found to have some
shortcomings:
- Anaerobic sanitary landfill is given, so the Master Plan does not discuss other
technology options; it also does not consider Intermediate Treatment Facilities
(ITF); it does, however, cover infrastructure development, policies, laws &
E-4
regulations, financial management, institutional development, and community
participation.
- The FS covers only on-site treatment & disposal.
- The DED covers only on-site engineering.
- The EIA (AMDAL) covers only on-site environmental impacts.
Apart from the work to be undertaken by consultants, the city still needs to prepare a
regulatory Citywide Sanitation Strategy (SSK) for approval by the Ministry of Public
Works. (progress to be monitored).
Inputs Individual consultants will be recruited in accordance with GIZprocurement guidelines.

The team will be composed of various experts and specialists as indicated on page 1,
and input may be continuous or intermittent as the situation requires.
In implementing the scope of work, the consultants will follow participatory planning
approaches throughout to ensure maximum stakeholder ownership of outcomes, and
enhance the coordination of all actors concerned. The consultants will work closely
together with the Project Working Team assigned by the city Mayors.
In the section below, main technical responsibilities of the team-members are provided
but it will be up to the team leader (TL) to ensure that all elements in the scope of work
mentioned above are covered. As a result, the team leader has to liberty in
collaboration with his team-members to adjust the technical responsibilities as
delegated to the team-members below.
Detailed Solid Waste Engineering Expert (International TL – 95 days)

Tasks
The Solid Waste Engineering Expert will have overall responsibility for managing the
consultant‟s team. He/she will be responsible for providing the strategic and technical
direction for the PFS, quality assurance for the inputs and for reporting to CDIA.
He/she will coordinate closely with the City Project Working Team and will ensure
that all key institutions, government, non-government, civil society and business sector
are engaged in the process of the PFS development as partners.
In both cities, he/she has the following technical responsibilities (as applicable):
 Validate existing studies, detailed engineering designs, and recommend any
amendments to complete the studies (actual detailed engineering design work is out
of the scope of this TORs).
 With the relevant team member support take the lead in preparing two pre-
feasibility studies (one for each city) as per the findings from the review of the
existing SWM systems, including sanitary landfill site based on Sub-Component
A1.
 Prepare Technical Note(s) as necessary on the requirements of a sustainable
sanitary landfill in support of investment & management decisions.
 Supervise the inputs of the consultants responsible for Sub-Components A2 and
A3.
 Provide strategic and technical direction as well as quality assurance for the PFS.
 Manage the LoE of the team of consultants by timing of inputs and appraising
quality and timeliness of outputs.
 Prepare agendas for periodical meetings with the cities’ Working Teams to discuss
progress.
 Manage preparation and submission of Reports and Technical Notes following a
E-5
standard acceptable to national and international financing institutions, with
particular reference to requirements for a sector strategy and a possible capital
investment project (including flagging potential issues requiring in-depth review in
accordance with the various safeguards guidelines at the subsequent feasibility
study stage, if any).
In both cities, take the lead in the following activities (as applicable):
 Review previous sector studies and programs undertaken and conduct (or
complete) a detailed analysis of the current development situation identifying the
constraints and issues;
 Conduct periodical meetings with the city’s Working Team, concerned agencies
and other stakeholders.
 Ensure acceptance, endorsement, and ownership of the study results by city
government and key stakeholders at regional and national level.
Work with other SWM consultants (notably for Components B and C) to:
 Help manage relationships and coordinate inputs with key partners;
 Help recommend preferred design options and financial structures for investment
projects;
 Help recommend preferred institutional & management structures for investment
projects;
 Help review and highlight major environmental, social and poverty impact issues
which need to be reviewed in- depth at the subsequent stage of feasibility work.
Experience required:
 Master Degree in Environmental Engineering with SWM specialization or related
discipline;
 Minimum of 10 years relevant international project experience, at least 2 years in
Asia;;
 Proven experience of leading multi-disciplinary teams (international and national),
working with government at all levels;
 Able to deliver high quality written outputs (academic level); and
 Fluency in written and spoken English; working knowledge of Bahasa Indonesia is
an advantage.
Waste Recycling Specialist/Market Analyst (Deputy team Leader – 95 days)
In both cities, he/she has the following technical responsibilities:

 Carry out market intelligence on prices, market demands and supply and
willingness to pay on by products from solid waste, locally and regionally. This
will include meeting with potential dealers, customers, and literature review.
 Prepare conceptual design for application of 3R based on Sub-Components A1,
A2 and A3.
 Provide technical inputs to periodical meetings with the cities’ Working Teams as
required.
 Prepare Technical Note(s) and inputs to deliverable Reports in English as required.
 Prepare and conduct discussions with concerned agencies and other stakeholders
to seek approval on principle on proposed system designs.
Assist the TL in implementing the following activities:

 Help supervise the inputs of the consultants responsible for Sub-Components A2
and A3.
E-6
 Help with formulating the strategic and technical direction for the PFS, quality
assurance for the inputs and for all key reporting to CDIA.
 Help manage the LOE of the team of consultants by timing of inputs and
appraising quality and timeliness of outputs.
 Help schedule periodical meetings with the cities’ Working Teams to discuss
progress.
 Help manage the preparation and submission of Reports and Technical Notes.
 Second the TL with simultaneous translation as required;
 Review previous sector studies and programs undertaken and conduct (or
complete) a detailed analysis of the current development situation identifying the
constraints and issues;
 Arrange for translation of (summarized) documents from Bahasa Indonesia into
English or vice versa as required;
 Prepare and conduct discussions with concerned agencies and other stakeholders;
 Help ensure acceptance and endorsement of the PFS by CDIA, WB, city
government and other stakeholders, as well as the cities’ ownership of its results.
Assist the TL in working with other SWM consultants (notably for Components B and
C) to:
 Help manage relationships with key partners bringing them together and
recommending new innovative institutional structures to implement the subsequent
investment projects (including possible PPP options);
 Help identify financial institutions, particularly from the local/national private
sector or climate change mitigation funds, who might be prepared to finance
subsequent feasibility work and investment projects, if any;
projects;
projects;
which need to be reviewed in- depth at the subsequent stage of feasibility work, if
any.
projects;
projects;
any.
 BSc in engineering discipline related to solid waste management (environment,
construction, mechanical, chemical engineering, etc.), with preferably MSc in
Environmental Engineering or waste recycling or related discipline;
 Minimum of 10 years relevant SWM experience in Indonesia with at least 5 yrs
working experience in waste recycling;
 Minimum of 5 years relevant national project experience in Indonesia;
 Able to deliver high quality written outputs (academic level) in Bahasa Indonesia;
 Fluency in written and spoken English.
E-7
Landfill & Leachate Specialist (45 days)
For both cities, he/she has the following technical responsibilities (as applicable):
 Prepare SW sanitary landfill and leachate treatment conceptual design to meet the
requirements of a sustainable sanitary landfill site based on Sub-Component A1.
required.
 Prepare Technical Note(s) and inputs to the deliverable Reports that will support
investment & management decisions.
 Master Degree in Environmental Engineering with SWM specialization or related
discipline;
 Minimum of 10 years relevant SWM experience in Indonesia;
 Minimum 5 years’ experience with sanitary landfill and leachate treatment;
 Fluency in spoken and written English.
SW Finance Specialist (National – 40 days)

 Review all the cash flow data and financial data (costs and revenues) for the SWM
system for both cities, and prepare related financial review and assessment.
 Provide technical inputs related to financial aspects during periodical meetings
with the cities’ Working Teams as required.
 Carry out the financial analysis required for the pre-feasibility studies.
to seek approval on principle on proposed system costs and financial aspects.
Work with other SWM consultants (notably for Components B and C) on the financial
aspects to:
projects;
projects;
any.
 Preferably Master Degree in Environmental Engineering with SWM financing
expertise;
E-8
Solid Waste Treatment Specialist (National – 45 days)

 Prepare conceptual designs for ITF (which may include composting – in vessel,
windrow, etc.; anaerobic digestion) based on Sub-Component A1 & A2.
 Identify required supporting infrastructure such as access roads & drainage, power
supply, and water supply, and seek approval in principle.
required.
 Collect local data on costs for the civil and electromechanical works / materials
required for the projects to be prepared at the pre- feasibility studies stage.
 Prepare and conduct discussions with concerned agencies and other stakeholders to
seek approval on principle on proposed system designs.
projects;
projects;
any.
 BSc in engineering field related to solid waste sector (construction, mechanical,
etc.), and preferably Master Degree in Environmental Engineering with ITF
specialization or related discipline;
 Minimum of 5 years relevant national project experience in waste sector in
treatment technologies in Indonesia and / or other Asian countries;
Collection and Transportation Specialist (National – 45 days)

 Prepare conceptual designs for transportation and fleet management based on Sub-
Components A1 & A2.
required.
projects;
projects;
any.
E-9
 Master Degree in transport infrastructure with fleet management specialization or
related discipline;
Graphic designer / editor (National – 30 days)
In both cities, he/she has the following responsibilities:

 Prepare graphic designs for the various plants, treatment systems, layout, etc. of
the conceptual designs that will be provided by the Team.
 Review, edit and finalize the reports in both Bahasa and English, taking into
consideration the following but not limited to language, layout, presentation, etc.
 Minimum of 5 years relevant experience in graphic design and editing professional
reports, documents;
 Fluency in written and spoken English and Bahasa.
Deliverables The consultants team will submit reports for review and approval by the city
government‟s Working Team and CDIA at the following periods of the assignment:
 Inception Report – within 3 to 4 weeks after mobilization (end of June 2013). The
Inception Report shall contain the detailed approach to the study and its
implementation.
 Interim Report – within 10 weeks after contract mobilization (end of July / first
week of August 2013). The Interim Report shall contain an indicative strategy and
investment program, as well as suggestions for one or more high priority projects
to be taken to FS level as needed.
 Draft Final Report - within 14 weeks after contract mobilization (2 nd to 3rd week
of September 2013). The Draft Final Report shall contain draft prioritized
investment proposals and draft ToR for follow-up FS as needed.
 Final Report submitted within 16 weeks after contract mobilization (end of
September / early October 2013).
 Technical Notes -In addition to the above reports, the consultants are strongly
advised to prepare occasional brief Technical Notes on particular issues for which
agreement is required by the Working Team, and possibly endorsement by the
city leadership. These notes will become annexes to the Reports.
CDIA reserves the right to establish any other reporting mechanisms deemed necessary
to ensure high quality is maintained and delivered at all times during the study.
Reports are to be prepared in English with summaries in Bahasa Indonesian.
The cities of Balikpapan and Tangerang and CDIA will be the owners of the reports
and data collected.
E-10
Time Table
Personnel W Input Schedule
M
18. June July Augu Sept
0 st
1 Solid Waste Engineering & Collection 4.0
System Expert (TL)
2 Waste Recycling Specialist/Market 4.0
Analyst
(DTL)
3 SW Finance Specialist 2.0
4 Solid Waste Treatment Specialist 3.0
6 Collection and Transportation 3.0
Management Specialist
7 Sanitary landfill & leachate specialist 2.0
8 Graphic designer / editor 1.5
SOP The consultants will report to the City Working Groups and the GIZ CDIA Program
Coordinator based in Manila. The GIZ CDIA Program Coordinator who will nominate
a CDIA Core Management Team (CMT) member to handle the day-to-day contractual
and operational relationship with the consultant team.
The CDIA Resident Consultant will provide Intermittent coordination support as

needed, while the WB Consultant on Carbon Credits will provide technical support as
needed. Both are based in Indonesia.
The distribution and timing of inputs can be adjusted to emerging needs in the field as
long as agreed by the CDIA Program Coordinator.
For the purpose of overseeing PFS implementation, Balikpapan and Tangerang will
establish a Working Team to work together with the PFS team, and sign a Technical
Assistance Agreement with CDIA.
The objectives of the Working Team are to:

 Provide guidance and oversight to all activities under the PFS;
 Participate as day-to-day counterparts of the consultants;
 Periodically review and monitor progress and performance of the activities;
 Provide the PFS consultants with relevant data and information (on request);
 Suggest ways and means, if any, to optimize the PFS for the benefit of the
stakeholders and participating organizations;
 Liaise with other important actors dealing with related studies and projects to
achieve a coordinated outcome.
The first joint meeting will be held at the inception report meeting one month from the
start of the assignment.
The Municipal Governments of Balikpapan and Tangerang will contribute their own
resources to cover the expenses of:
 Support staff and related costs;

 Local transport to SWM site(s) and between government agency offices;
 Furnished office space;
 Office facilities (computers, printers, fax machine, internet);
E-11
 Utilities (electricity, gas, fuel).
As Balikpapan is more advanced on good SWM practices than Tangerang, the PFS
team will start its field work in Balikpapan, and most probably Balikpapan will require
only one-half to two-thirds of the work required for Tangerang.
It is left to the discretion of the Team Leader and Deputy Team Leader of the PFS team
to determine how and when the total Level of Effort (LoE) is going to be distributed
between the two cities.
All team members are required to visit both cities together at least three times, once for
kick-off after mobilization, and once for wrap-up to present the final report to city
government.
Annexes a) Annex 1:Letter from National Planning Ministry (Bappenas) endorsing CDIA
cooperation with cities in Indonesia to prepare PFS (to follow)
b) Annex 2: City Technical Assistance Agreements with CDIA (2x) (to follow)
c) Annex 3: Letter from City Government to establish Working Team (2x) (to follow)
d) Annex 4: ToR Feasibility Study and Detailed Engineering Design (Ministry of
Public Works)
e) Annex 5: ToR Institutional Development Study (Final, 2013)
f) Annex 6: TOR for Cost Recovery Study (Final, 2013)
g) Annex 7: ToR Social Survey as part of Component C: Social Development (Draft,
2013)
h) Annex 8: Result of Quick Scan Tangerang SWM studies
E-12
ANNEX F
INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND COST
RECOVERY ON INDONESIA SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR
REGIONAL AND METROPOLITAN CITIES
(WORLD BANK STUDY)
F-1

FINAL Report City of Tangerang

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

FINAL Report City of Tangerang

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................... xvii

RINGKASAN EKSEKUTIF ....................................................................................................xl

CHAPTER 2 PROJECT AREA ............................................................................................... 5

CHAPTER 3 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK...................................................................... 8

CHAPTER 4 INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS ....................................................................... 21

CHAPTER 5 TECHNICAL AND OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING SOLID

CHAPTER 6 SOLID WASTE GENERATION ..................................................................... 48

CHAPTER 7 RECOMMENDED INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ....... 53

CHAPTER 8 RECOMMENDED TREATMENT AND RECYCLING FOR SOLID WASTE

CHAPTER 9 RECOMMENDATION FOR FINAL DISPOSAL AT RAWA KUCING

CHAPTER 10 FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ............................................... 98

CHAPTER 11 INVESTMENT PACKAGES FOR RECOMMENDED INTEGRATED

CHAPTER 12 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR RECOMMENDED INTEGRATED

CHAPTER 13 CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND NEXT STEPS .............. 144

ANNEX B REVIEW OF TECHNICAL OPTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF SOLID

ANNEX C DETAIL REVIEW OF ANAEROBIC DIGESTION TECHNOLOGY............ C-1

ANNEX D COMMENTS FROM MID TERM PHASE ....................................................... D-1

ANNEX E TERM OF REFFERENCES (TORs) OF THE PROJECT................................ E-1

ANNEX F INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND COST RECOVERY ON

Figure 2.1: Division of districts in City of Tangerang............................................................. 5

Figure 5.1: Fraction of waste generation from different sources of waste.............................. 30

Figure 8.1: Flow diagram of MRF for City of Tangerang ..................................................... 68

Figure 9.1: Methodology used for landfill lifetime calculation ............................................. 91

Figure B.1: Direct individual system................................................................................... B-1

Table 3.1: Regulations Framework on Solid Waste Management by the Government of

Table 5.1: Percentage of waste composition in City of Tangerang ....................................... 30

Table 8.1: Advantages and disadvantages of material recovery facility................................ 70

Table 9.1: Total waste goes to landfill for 3 condition ......................................................... 93

Table B.1: Roads classification ......................................................................................... B-3

3R Reduce, Reuse and Recycle

OBJECTIVES OF CDIA STUDY

Solid waste collection and transportation:

Rawa Kucing Landfill site:

The commercial chemical fertilizers prices in Indonesia are as follows:

Refuse Derive Fuel:

Waste disposal:Rawa Kucing is operated as a dumpsite, which represents a major environment,

Non-residential areas: non-residential areas include commercial, offices, institutions, non-

RECOMMENDED INTERMEDIATE TREATMENT FACILITY

RECOMMENDATION FOR RAWA KUCING LANDFILL

LANDFILL LIFETIME ANALYSIS

Initial Land Additional Land Requirement (Ha)

SWM revenues and SWM service tariffs:

Identified Gaps on financial aspects:

INVESTMENT PACKAGE 1 – collection and transportation:

Total 2015 2016 2017 2018

INVESTMENT PACKAGE 2 – Material recovery facilities:

Total 2015 2016 2017

Initial CAPEX (at 2015 - at current prices) 18,487

INVESTMENT PACKAGE 3 – Intermediate Treatment Facility (ITF – Anaerobic digestion

Total 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Financial analysis for the conservative scenario:

Financial analysis for the realistic scenario:

Required capacity if Same capacity as

INVESTMENT PACKAGE 4 – Landfill rehabilitation and re-engineering Development:

IMPLEMENTATION & OPERATIONAL ARRANGEMENTS

Identified Risk Recommended mitigation measures

INVESTMENT PACKAGE 2 – MRFs:

Identified Risk Recommended mitigation measures

INVESTMENT PACKAGE 3 –Anaerobic digestion to electricity generation plant (ITF):

Identified Risk Recommended mitigation measures

INVESTMENT PACKAGE 4 – Rehabilitation and re-engineering of RawaKucing landfill

Identified Risk Recommended mitigation measures