Upload
lamdat
View
221
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
STUDY ON PRIVATE-INITIATIVE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES IN FY2011
STUDY ON THE WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY
BOT PROJECT IN DKI JAKARTA,
THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA
FINAL REPORT
February 2012
Prepared for:
The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry
Prepared by:
EX Research Institute Ltd. ARAX Corporation
Reproduction Prohibited
Preface
This report has been compiled by EX Research Institute Ltd. and ARAX Corporation, contracted by the
Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, under the Study on Private-Initiative Infrastructure Projects in
Developing Countries in Fiscal Year 2011.
The Study on the Waste Treatment Facility BOT Project in DKI Jakarta, the Republic of Indonesia aims to
identify the feasibility of securing land in Tangerang Regency in order to construct and operate
intermediate treatment facilities and a final disposal site at the cost of 29,569,251,000 yen, in order to
resolve the issue of ensuring appropriate treatment and disposal for the increasing municipal solid waste in
DKI Jakarta.
We hope that this report will support the realization of the said project and will prove useful for all relevant
parties in Japan.
February 2012
EX Research Institute Ltd.
ARAX Corporation
Abbreviations Abbreviation Description
3R Reduce, Reuse, Recycle AMDAL Analisis Mengenai Dampak Lingkungan (Environment Impact Assessment) ANDAL Analisis Dampak Lingkungan
(Environmental Impact Assessment Study) ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations B3 waste Limbah Bahan Berbahaya Dan Beracun
(Hazardous and Toxic Waste) BAPEDAL Badan Pengendalian Dampak Lingkungan
(Environmental Impact Management Agency) BAPPEDA Badan Perencana Pembangunan Daerah
(Regional body for planning and development)) BAPPENAS Badan Perenchanaan Pembanguan Nasional
(National Development Planning Agency) B/C Benefit/cost BH Bohrium BHC Benzene Hexachloride BKPM Badan Koordinasi Penanaman Modal
(Investment Coordinating Board)) BOD Biological Oxygen Demand BOT Build Own Transfer
BPPT Badan Pengkajian Dan Penerapan Teknologi (Agency For. Assessment And Application Of Technology)
CB Consensus Building CD Cost Down CDM Clean Development Mechanism CER Certified Emission Reduction COD Chemical Oxygen Demand C/N Carbon to Nitrogen Ratio CSR Corporate Social Responsibility DB Decibel DKI Jakarta Propinsi Daerah Khusus Ibukota Jakarta
(Special Provincial District of Capital of Jakarta) DO Dissolved Oxygen DDT Dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane EIA Environment Impact Assessment EIRR Economic Internal Rate Of Return EIS Environmental Impact Statement FDI Foreign Direct Investment FID Flame Ionization Detector FIRR Financial Internal Rate Of Return F/S Feasibility Study GDP Gross Domestic Products GHG Greenhouse Gas HDPE High Density Polyethylene
Abbreviation Description
Hz Hertz IMF International Monetary Fund IPP Independent Power Producer ITF Intermediate Treatment Facility JBIC Japan Bank For International Cooperation JI Joint Implementation JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency JPY Japanese Yen KA-ANDAL Kerangka Acuan ANDAL
(Terms of Reference for ANDAL) KLH Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup
(Ministry Of The Environment) KLHS Kajian Lingkungan Hidup Strategis
(Strategic Environmental Assessment) KPU Kementerian Pekerjaan Umum
(Ministry of Public Works) KSNP-SPP Kebijakan dan Strategi Nasional Pengembangan Sistem Pengelolaan Persampahan
(National Policy And Strategy For Waste Management System Development) LNG Liquedified Natural Gas MBAS Methylene Blue Active Substance MBT Mechanical Biological Treatment M/D Minutes of Discussion M/P Master Plan MJ Megajoule MOU Memorandum Of Understanding MSW Municipal Solid Waste MPA Master Plan Study for Establishing Metropolitan Priority Area for Investment and
Industry MPL Maximum Permissible Level MPN Most Probable Number NDIR Non Dispersive Infra Red NEXI Nippon Export And Investment Insurance NGO Non Government Organization NIMBY Not In My Back Yard NPC-WMSD National Policy And Strategy For Waste Management System Development NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units O&M Operation And Maintenance PDCA Plan-Do-Check-Action PE Polyethylene pH Potential Hydrogen, Power Of Hydrogen PP Polypropylene ppm Parts Per Million PPP Public Private Partnership Pre-F/S Pre-Feasibility Study PU Departmen Pekerjaan Umum
(Ministry Of Public Works) RDF Refuse Derived Fuel
Abbreviation Description
RKL Environmental Management Plan Rp Rupiah RPL Environmental Monitoring Plan SAPROF Special Assistance For Project Formulation SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment SNI Indonesian National Standard SOP Standard Operating Procedures SPA Transfer Station SPC Special Purpose Company SS Suspended Solids TCU True Colour Units TDS Total Dissolved Solids T-N Total Nitrogen T-P Total Phosphorus TPA Final Disposal Site TPS Temporary Disposal Site NIMBY Not In My Back Yard SAPROF Special Assistance For Project Formulation TDS Total Dissolved Solids TPST Tempat Pengolahan Sampah Terpadu TSP Total Suspended Particles US United States USD United States Dollars VAT Value-Added Tax VE Value Engineering WJEMP Western Java Environment Management Project
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 Overview of the Host Country and Sector. .................................................................................... 1
1.1 Economic and Financial Status of Indonesia ..................................................................................... 3
1.2 Outline of the Target Sector ............................................................................................................... 6
1.3 Situation of the Target Area .............................................................................................................. 18
Chapter 2 Study Methodology ................................................................................................................... 21
2.1 Contents of the Study ....................................................................................................................... 23
2.2 Methodology and Organization ........................................................................................................ 24
2.3 Schedule of the Survey ..................................................................................................................... 28
Chapter 3 Justification, Objectives and Technical Feasibility of the Project ............................................. 33
3.1 Background and Necessity of the Project ......................................................................................... 35
3.2 Examinations Necessary for Determining the Project Contents, etc. ............................................... 53
3.3 Outline of the Project Planning ........................................................................................................ 66
Chapter 4 Evaluation of Environmental and Social Impacts .......................................................................129
4.1 Analysis of the Present Environmental and Social Conditions .......................................................131
4.2 Environmental Improvement Effects of the Project ........................................................................143
4.3 Environmental and Social Impacts of the Implementation of the Project .......................................144
4.4 Summary of Regulations regarding Environmental and Social Considerations in the Partner Country.
.................................................................................................................................................................151
4.5 Items to be borne by the Recipient Country (Implementing Agency and other Related Agencies) for
Realizing the Project .............................................................................................................................158
Chapter 5 Financial and Economic Evaluation .........................................................................................161
5.1 Cost Estimation for Project Expense ...............................................................................................163
5.2 Outline of Preliminary Financial and Economic Evaluation of the project ..................................173
Chapter 6 Planned Project Schedule ...........................................................................................................185
6.1 Assumptions ....................................................................................................................................187
6.2 Implementation schedule of the project ..........................................................................................188
Chapter 7 Implementing Organizations ......................................................................................................189
7.1 Implementing Organizations in Jakarta ...........................................................................................191
7.2 Organizations concerned of Central Government ...........................................................................195
Chapter 8 Technical Advantages of Japanese companies ..........................................................................199
8.1 Opportunities of participation for Japanese companies (investment, supply of material, operation
management of facility) ..........................................................................................................................201
8.2 Superiority of Japanese companies during the implementation of the project (technological side,
economic side) ........................................................................................................................................202
8.3 Measures required to promote order intakes by Japanese companies .............................................204
Chapter 9 Financial Outlook .......................................................................................................................205
9.1 Fund source and funding procurement plan ....................................................................................207
9.2 Feasibility of fund procurement ......................................................................................................207
9.3 Cash flow analysis. ............................................................................................................................208
Chapter 10 Action Plan and Issues ............................................................................................................ 211
10.1 Activities towards realization of the project ..................................................................................213
10.2 Activities of Indonesian governmental agencies and implementing bodies towards the realization of
the project ..............................................................................................................................................214
10.3 State of presence of legal and financial restrictions in Indonesia ..................................................215
10.4 Requirement to carry out further detailed analysis ........................................................................222
i
Executive Summary
ii
iii
(1) Background and Necessity of the Project 6,200 tons of municipal solid waste (MSW) is generated daily in Special Capital Territory of Jakarta
(hereinafter Jakarta) which is mostly landfilled at Bantar Gebang final disposal site located in Becasi, West
Java Province, which is located to the East of Jakarta. Considering this situation, from the perspective of
efficient transport system, it would be more effective to have a final disposal site for the Western part of
Jakarta. This is the reason why Jakarta had planned to construct and operate waste treatment facilities in
Ciangir, Tangerang Regency, Banten Province. However, as the project site was designated as residential
area, it became impossible for Jakarta to construct waste related facilities in that area.
Meanwhile, Tangerang Regency has shown interest in providing land in Jati Waringin as an alternative
project site. The objective of the proposed project is to secure land in place of Jakarta and to operate waste
treatment facilities under the BOT scheme in Jati Waringin, Tangerang Regency. This project will construct
waste treatment facilities for the Western part of Jakarta and will contribute to environmentally sustainable
and economically efficient waste management.
/
(2) Basic Policy for Determining the Project Contents The basic principle for the determination of the content of the project is the realization of an
environmentally sustainable system for treatment and disposal system of MSW that can be achieved at low
cost. Therefore, this project aims to reduce environmental impact while realizing economic benefits.
(3) Project Outline The outline of the project is shown in Table-1
Table-1 Project scale and component facilities
Item Contents, Capacity and Component Equipment, etc.
Target wastes MSW (Municipal solid wastes) discharged in Jakarta
Capacity 1,500t/d
Facilities Managed final
disposal site
Semi-aerobic landfill structure with landfill area of 16 hectares and landfill
capacity of 2.5 million m3 (stable gradient earth-fill dam utilizing excavated
earth, sandwich building method, seepage control structure, gas extraction
pipes, leachate collection and drainage system, leachate treatment system)
MBT (mechanical
bio-treatment)
facilities
Daily treatment capacity 1,410 ton (1,185 + 225 ton), treatment method:
resources screening facilities, crushing facilities, belt conveyor, fermentation
tank, buildings, post-treatment screening facilities, storage facilities,
packaging facilities
iv
Item Contents, Capacity and Component Equipment, etc.
RDF
manufacturing
facilities
Treatment capacity: 480 t/d (quantity of product: 430 t/d)
Compost facilities Treatment capacity: 410 t/d (334 + 76 t/d) (quantity of product: 165 t/d)
Project period 20 years
Project ordering mode Build, Operate Transfer (BOT) project (ordering entity: Jakarta)
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
a. Total Project Cost
The total cost of the project (CASE 1) is 29.6 billion yens (3.4383 trillion Rp or 381.5 million USD) as
shown in Table-2.
Table 2 Total Project Cost
Item CASE 1
1,000Rp 1,000 yen
Land acquisition 60,000,000 516,000
Commercialize cost 2,325,000 20,000
Initial investment 1,061,537,000 9,129,000
Operation & maintenance 1,614,651,000 13,886,000
Financing cost 245,700,000 2,113,020
Contingency 186,035,000 1,599,902
Tax 268,061,000 2,305,329
Total 3,438,309,000 29,569,251
Total (thousand USD) 381,539
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
b. Results of Preliminary Financial and Economic Analysis
As a result of financial analysis, it was shown that FIRR of the project is 12.2%, net present value
(NPV) is 5.8 billion yens, and that benefit/cost (B/C) ratio is 1.24. It is evaluated that the project is
commercially feasible as the cash flow was maintained and FIRR was 12.2%, which exceeds the
interest rate of the long-term Indonesian government bonds. The values of NPV and B/C also
showed commercial feasibility of the project.
As a result of economic analysis, it was shown that when (1) the reduced pressure to existing
disposal sites, (2) reduced transportation cost to existing disposal sites, and (3) reduced green house
gas emissions are taken into consideration, EIRR is 6.68%. As this exceeds the interest rate of the
long term Indonesian government bonds, it is considered that this project is economically beneficial.
v
c. Examination of Environmental and Social Aspects
Table-3 and Table-4 summarize the present environmental and social conditions in addition to
expected environmental and social improvements and impacts by the implementation of the
project. These items were studied for both (1) areas near the Bantar Gebang final disposal site and
(2) project site.
Table-3 Present environmental and social conditions and expected environmental and social
improvements and impacts by the Project (in areas near the Bantar Gebang final disposal site) Item Current Conditions Improvement Effect Impact
Environment Waste is being concentrated into 1 final disposal site, causing overload, and there is concern over air pollution, etc. caused by transporting vehicles.
Construction of a new treatment facility will mitigate load, reduce the number of incoming vehicles and improve air pollution. Construction of a disposal site in the West side of the regency will resolve the issue of over-concentration on the east side.
-
Society Concentration of incoming vehicles is causing traffic congestion.
The number of incoming vehicles will fall, leading to improvement in traffic congestion.
Reduction in the amount of incoming waste will lead to reduced employment on the disposal site.
(Source: Compiled by the Study Team)
Table- 4 Present environmental and social conditions, environmental and social improvement
effects and likely impacts of the implementation of the Project (in areas near the Project site) Item Present Conditions Improvement Effects Impacts Environmental Aspect
Air There is air pollution caused by smoke from the autogenous ignition of waste at the existing disposal site. At one survey site, the TSP value of 414
g–Nm3 far exceeds the reference value (230
g-Nm3).
The Project will have the effect of improving the existing disposal site, preventing autogenous ignition to improve the air environment. For the new disposal site, the sanitary landfill method with no autogenous ignition will be adopted.
The increased number of vehicles transporting waste will increase the overall amount of emissions while the increased amount of waste will increase the amount of emissions from heavy machinery. Careful attention will be required to deal with dust, etc. associated with the landfill work.
Water Quality
The river water is polluted by the operation to wash recovered plastic bags, etc. and human sewage produced by waste pickers and others. For example, the BOD value increases from 21 mg/litter in the
The activities of waste pickers in the area should be guided to more environmentally sound activities to reduce the overall environmental load by the Project
Treated leachate is discharge from the project site and its environmental load should be taken into consideration.
vi
Item Present Conditions Improvement Effects Impacts upstream to 48 mg/litter in the downstream.
Waste At present, the Jati Waringin disposal site is operated by the Tangerang district authority but is marred by a number of problems as described in this table because of its open dumping method.
As the Project will take place at land adjacent to the existing disposal site, it does not directly aim at improving the existing disposal site. However, with the opening of a new disposal site, positive impacts, including improvement of the operation and management, are expected to be realised at the existing disposal site.
With the completion of the Project, the area will become a major destination for waste from Jakarta. While individual issues are described under the suitable headings in this table, it is essential to ensure an appropriate design, construction work and management of the new site to prevent an increase of the environmental load.
Soil Pollution
Groundwater is polluted by Cr6+, etc. released from a source located upstream of the project site (a Cr6+ level of 0.14 mg/litter which is well above the reference value of 0.05 mg/litter was detected at three boreholes, including one located in the upstream).
*It is inferred that there must be a groundwater pollution source which has nothing to do with the waste disposal site. This pollution should be carefully monitored as known pollution.
The pollution of groundwater by leachate from the final disposal site can be avoided by the introduction of an impermeable layer. The prevention of groundwater pollution also requires an appropriate design, construction work and management of the disposal site.
Noise and Vibration
While there are no private houses in the immediate vicinity, noise and vibration may occur at the disposal site due to the operation of heavy machinery. Noise and vibration will also occur at the roadside due to the passing of dump trucks.
With the introduction of low noise heavy machinery, the noise level at the new disposal site should be much lower than that of conventional disposal sites.
The increased number of dump trucks required to bring in a much greater volume of waste means a likely increase of noise and vibration. The introduction of appropriate measures (quiet operation, use of low noise machinery and others) will be important.
Ground Subsidence
No ground subsidence has been observed.
- As no component of the Project is likely to cause ground subsidence, this aspect can be disregarded.
Odour The impacts of the disposal site are observed, including
The introduction of the sanitary landfill
It is important to regularly cover the
vii
Item Present Conditions Improvement Effects Impacts an ammonia concentration level of 2.6 mg/litter on the leeward side compared to a reference value of 2.0 mg/litter.
method should curtail the bad odour.
dumped waste with soil to prevent the occurrence of bad odour.
Sediment
Although the bottom material at the riverbed has not been analysed, there can be an accumulation of pollutants in the material in view of the state of river water pollution.
Improvement of the treated water to be discharged to the river should reduce the burden on the river, etc.
As an increased amount of waste transported to the disposal site means a likely increase of the leachate load, it is essential to conduct the proper management of leachate.
Natural Environment
There is a mangrove forest some 7 km from the site. Even though this is not an official reserve, mangrove trees are subject to protection under a government policy.
There are no likely impacts on the natural environment in need of protection but the project design should take harmony with the surrounding natural environment into consideration.
No adverse impacts on the natural environment in need of protection will occur.
Social Aspect Relocation of Residents
There are some 10 temporary buildings used for storage of valuables or for resting.
-
These temporary buildings will require relocation.
Local Livelihood
843 waste pickers earn an average of 22,450 Rp per day from the recovery of valuables.
Employment will be created for the recovery of valuables and the operation and management of the disposal site and the income of local residents will increase.
There will be some shifts of the local production and industrial activities due to the reduction of farmland.
Cultural Assets
There are no cultural assets designated by the government
- -
Landscape
There are rice fields in the project site - -
Indigenous People and Ethnic Minorities
There are no communities of indigenous people or ethnic minorities locally.
- -
Work Environment
The work environment is not quite safe because of the piled up waste and autogenous ignition of the waste.
The construction of a safe disposal site will improve the work environment.
-
Transport
The access road is used by some 115 dump trucks
The overall traffic volume will increase
viii
Item Present Conditions Improvement Effects Impacts transporting waste and 145 other vehicles a day.
- due to a large number of dump trucks and other vehicles connected to the operation at the new disposal site.
(Source: Compiled by the Study Team)
In implementation of the project, environmental impact assessment (or “AMDAL: Analisis Menganai
Dampak Lingkungan” in Indonesian) will be conducted in accordance with Indonesian laws and
regulations indicated in Table 5. Because this project will involve construction of a final disposal site
which will cover area larger than 10ha, conducting of AMDAL will be essential, based on Decree of the
Minister of State for Environment No. 11/2006 about Types of Business or Activity Compulsory
Equipped with Environmental Impact Analysis
Table-5 Laws and regulations on EIA in Indonesia Law
・ Government Regulation No.27/1999: Process of the conduct of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA/AMDAL)
・ Law No.32/2009 concerning Environmental Protection and Management Decree of the Minister of State for Environment
・ Decree of the Minister of State for Environment No. 11/2006 about Types of Business or Activity Compulsory Equipped with Environmental Impact
Analysis
・ Decree of the Minister of State for Environment No.2/2000 on Guidance on the Evaluation of the EIA (AMDAL) Document
・ Decree of the Minister of State for Environment No.8/2000 on Guidance on Public Participation and Information Disclosure of the EIA Process.
・ Decree of the Minister of State for Environment No.9/2000 on Guidelines for Preparation of Environmental Impacts
・ Decree of the Minister of State for Environment No.40/2000 on Guidance on the Working Procedure of the EIA Commission.
・ Decree of the Minister of State for Environment No.41/2000 on Guidance on the Establishment of Commission for the EIA Evaluation in Regency/City.
(Source: Ministry of the Environment, Indonesia)
(4) Implementation Schedule If this project is to be implemented as solicited PPP project and if the contract with Jakarta is to be signed
in May 2014, bidding will start from January to February 2014 and detailed designing will start from
February 2014 if it is to start right after winning the bid. Construction of facilities will start from May
2014.
ix
(5) Feasibility of Implementation The results of the financial analysis showed that this project will be successful as a private business
operation. In addition, it was confirmed that transportation will be reduced compared to the current
transportation system. The results of studies on environmental and social aspects also showed that the
expected positive effects exceed the expected negative impacts. Therefore, it can be concluded that the
implementation of this project is feasible. The private companies which are to be the investors for this
project is currently preparing for this project through actions such as preparing to purchase the land.
(6) Advantage of Japanese Corporations from Technological and
Other Perspectives
a. Technological superiority
The technological standard of Japan regarding landfills and intermediate treatment facilities is of a very
high level. Japan`s capability of system design and workmanship of landfill construction and general
engineering capabilities, design and workmanship technology of intermediate treatment facilities is very
superior. Japan`s general construction companies and environmental engineering firms have the know-how
in these areas. This fact is well known among developed countries and also the developing ones. From the
technological perspective, Japan outstands other countries in operating facilities in high quality and a
stable manner.
b. Economic superiority
Economic superiority is achieved with the ability to supply treatment facility that is cost competitive. As
this project will be carried out with a private operating body, it will be necessary to reduce the initial
investment to the lowest amount possible. Hence, even if the supply of equipments is done from Japanese
companies, it will be important to cut down cost from the viewpoint of business feasibility.
.
The second economic superiority lies in the procurement of fund. By using the fund schemes of Japan to
the maximum, it will be possible to get a long term-low interest investment which makes it economically
superior.
In a way, this project has nonprice competition characteristics. It seems nearly impossible that Jakarta
provincial government will be able to secure a landfill within the province. It also seems nearly impossible
to secure a landfill through competitive tendering. In such a scenario, it is possible to secure a landfill
project through the proposal-based PPP project. Setting of an appropriate rate for waste intake is a
prerequisite which will also impact the stability and economic characteristics of the project.
x
(7) Detailed Schedule to Realize the Projects and Possible Risks a) Detailed Schedule to Realize the Projects
Detailed Schedule to Realize the Projects is as follows.
Table-6 Work Schedule
(Source: Prepared by the Authors of this report)
b) Risks that May Hinder the Realization of the Project
Risks associated with the project implementation are shown below.
Table-7 Risk Associated with Infrastructure Projects
Type of Risks Details of the Risk and Measures to Minimize the Risk
Risk related to
construction
Risk that the project does not achieve the expected capacity or function
Conduct an extensive feasibility study to evaluate the associated risks
Risk associated
with procurement
of raw materials
Risk that raw materials and equipments that satisfies the required standards
cannot be procured
Procure raw materials and equipments from Japanese companies
present in Indonesia
Risk related to
providing of
Risk that there would be unexpected stagnation of transaction volume;
Risk that products would not circulate in the market.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2
Pre Feasibility Study
Discussions with DKI Jakartaon Project ImplementationEstablishment of the ProjectDevelopment Company forLand AcquisitionStarting Land Acquisition inTangerangRevision of MOU on WasteReception Between Kab.Tangerang and DKI JakartaRecommendation to JICA onProject Preparation Study forPPP ProjectImplementation of thePreparation Study for PPPProjectFinal Recommendation to DKIJakartaOfficial Authorization/Approvalof the Project by DKI JakartaEIA and Application forDevelopment Permits of theProjectWaste ManagementConcession Agreement withDKI Jakarta
Establishment of SPC
Approval of JICA Loan andInvestment
Facility Construction
Completion of Construction
20162012 2013 2014 2015
xi
Type of Risks Details of the Risk and Measures to Minimize the Risk
service and
bargaining
Conduct adequate waste management planning
Environmental
risk
Risk that the project results adverse environmental and social impacts in the
host country
Study carefully the required countermeasures in the feasibility study
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
(8) Map of the Project Site in Indonesia Project site is at Jati Waringin, Tangerang Regency, as shown in Figure-1.
Figure-1 Project site
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23) (Source: Prepared by the Authors of this report based on Google Map)
Jati Waringin
xii
1
Chapter 1
Overview of the Host Country and Sector
2
3
1.1 Economic and Financial Status of Indonesia In the aftermath of the Asian Currency Crisis of 1997, Indonesia was for a short period of time was in a
debt crisis. However, factors like subsequent policies towards financial stabilization, economic stimulus
measures and favorable domestic consumption has managed to pull Indonesia back to a state of stable
economic growth. The main industrial sectors of Indonesia are mining (Petroleum, LNG, Coal, Aluminum,
tin), Agriculture (Rice, Rubber, Palm oil) and other Industries (Wood products, Cement, Fertilizer).
1.1.1 GDP
According to World Bank Statistics, the GDP of Indonesia is 706.5 billion US dollars (USD) in 2010 which
ranks 18th in the world. The GDP growth rate for 2010 is 6% and the per capita GDP is 2,945 dollars.
Indonesia has experienced a period of rapid economic growth and the trend of per capita GDP after 1998 is
similar to the period of high economic growth experienced by Japan in the 1960s.
Figure 1.1.1 Trend of GDP of Indonesia
(Source: World Bank, World Development Indicators 2011)
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1967
1969
1971
1973
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
(Millions) GDP of Indonesia (current USD)
4
Figure 1.1.2 Comparison of trend of per capita GDP of Japan and Indonesia (Current USD)
NOTE: The figures for Japan after 1992 has been excluded (Source: Prepared by the authors this report using data from World Bank, World Development Indicators
2011)
1.1.2 Population
Population of Indonesia shows a trend of growth with the figure for 2010 being 232 million. The
population of Indonesia is the 4th largest in the world behind China, India and the U.S (Japan holds the
10th position).
Figure 1.1.3 Trend of population growth in Indonesia
(Source : World Bank, World Development Indicators 2011)
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
インドネシア
日本
0
50,000,000
100,000,000
150,000,000
200,000,000
250,000,000
300,000,000
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
Total Population of Indonesia
Indonesia
Japan
5
Figure 1.1.4 Population of various countries (top 10)
(Source : World Bank、World Development Indicators 2011)
1.1.3 Finance
Due to the impact from the Asian currency crisis that started in Thailand in 1997, a sharp devaluation of
Indonesia Rupiah (Rp) was seen that ended up increasing the country’s debt which had a very adverse
impact in the country`s economy. After that, with support from IMF, the country carried out a major
economic structural reform, introduced economic stimulus measures and with support from increased
domestic consumption, the financial status of Indonesia showed improvement. At present, the GDP ratio of
general government gross debt shows a trend towards declining.
Figure 1.1.5 General government net lending/borrowing of Indonesia
NOTE: Figures for 2011 onwards are estimates
(Source : IMF、World Economic Outlook Database)
1,338,300
1,170,938
309,712232,517 194,946
173,383164,425
158,259141,750
127,380
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
0102030405060708090
100
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
General government gross debt (% of GDP)%
6
Table 1.1.1 Major financial indicators of Indonesia (2010) Item Unit
General government revenue 1,000,291.44 Rp (Billions)
15.85 Percent of GDP
General government total expenditure 1,091,838.94 Rp (Billions)
17.3 Percent of GDP
General government net
lending/borrowing -91,547.50 Rp (Billions)
-1.451 Percent of GDP
General government gross debt 1,685,990.70 Rp (Billions)
26.714 Percent of GDP
Current account balance 6.404 USD (Billions)
(Source: IMF, World Economic Outlook Database)
1.2 Outline of the Target Sector 1.2.1 State of waste management in Indonesia
Due to the increase in population and purchasing power, the amount of waste generation is increasing in
Indonesia. According to a report published by the Ministry of Environment of Indonesia, increase in
generation of municipal waste during 2005 - 2008 was 3.76%. According to information from the same
source for 2008, 65% of the total Municipal solid waste generated in Indonesia is organic waste (source:
Ministry of Environment of Indonesia, State of Environment Report 2009).
7
Figure 1.2.1Composition of municipal solid waste in Indonesia
(Source: Ministry of Environment of Indonesia, State of Environment Report 2009)
NOTE: Prepared using data obtained from the Ministry of Environment of Indonesia
The majority of waste generated in Indonesia is being landfilled. In 2008, 69% of the total waste generated
was landfilled, 7% was treated or recycled, 5% was burnt, 10% was buried and the remaining 6% was
dumped into parks, rivers, ports/harbours, market areas etc. A comparison with 2001 data shows that ratio
of waste being incinerated in decreasing while the ratio of waste being landfilled is on the rise.
Figure 1.2.2 Method of treatment and disposal of municipal waste in Indonesia
(Source: Ministry of Environment of Indonesia, State of Environment Report 2010)
1.2.2 Waste Management Policy in Indonesia
(1) National Policy of Waste (January 2006)
Indonesian waste policy is outlined in the National Policy and Strategy for Waste Management System
8
Development (NPC-WMSD), which is based on the following three core principles:
(i) Reduction of waste quantities from generation sources
(ii) Utilization of private sector corporations as management partners
(iii) Expansion of service scope and improvement in quality of management system
(2) Policy and Strategy about National System Development of Management of Waste (KSNP-SPP)
21/PRT/M/2006
Ministry of Public Works Order 21/PRT/M/2006 states provisions concerning waste-related infrastructure
and facilities development. This has the following composition.
Table 1.2.1 Composition of the Policy and Strategy about National System Development of
Management of Waste (KSNP-SPP) Chapter Contents Chapter 1 Introduction Chapter 2 Vision and mission of waste treatment Chapter 3 Issues and solutions in waste treatment Chapter 4 Waste treatment policy and deployment of a strategic
system Chapter 5 Conclusion
(Source: Policy and Strategy about National System Development of
Management of Waste (KSNP-SPP))
(3) National Medium-Term Development Plan (2010~2014)
One of the 11 National Priorities stated in the National Medium-Term Development Plan (2010~2014)
concerns environment and disaster management. Under this heading, the following four items are raised:
(1) climate change, (2) prevention of environmental destruction, (3) early warning system, and (4) disaster
mitigation. Responding to the contents of this National Medium-Term Development Plan, the Ministry of
Environment has incorporated the following policies into its strategic plans:
i. Promotion of measures for prevention of pollution and destruction of water, ground, air and
biodiversity
ii. Promotion of environmental controls based on environmental capacity
iii. Improvement of consistent environmental law enforcement capability
iv. Promotion of community empowerment and participation
v. Strengthening of human resources and environmental management capacity of related
agencies
vi. Improvement in quality and access of environmental data
vii. Development of alternative environmental fund sources
As priority activities for implementing these policies, the following are prescribed in relation to waste.
a. Management of hazardous substances and hazardous wastes in the mining, energy, petroleum
9
and gas sectors
b. Management of hazardous substances and hazardous wastes in manufacturing, agro industries
and the service sector
c. Administrative work for management of hazardous substances and hazardous wastes
1.2.3 Legislation related to Waste Management in Indonesia
Waste in Indonesia is stipulated as the “residues that are generated by businesses and activities” according
to environmental management legislation, etc. Wastes in Indonesia are broadly divided into two categories,
namely domestic wastes (Limbah Domestik) and hazardous and toxic wastes (Limbah Bahan Berbahaya
dan Beracun) otherwise called B3 wastes for short in Indonesian.
Following ratification of the Basel Convention, waste-related legislation in Indonesia primarily focused on
hazardous wastes, whereas there was no legislation linked to the treatment and disposal of non-hazardous
wastes such as household waste and so on (according to “Business Report for Provision of Industrial Waste
and Recycling Policy Information in Asia,” the Institute of Developing Economies, Japan External Trade
Organization, consigned by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, 2007). However, due to the
critical worsening of waste problems, the government enacted the Waste Management Law (Act Number
18 Year 2008 regarding Waste Management) as the basic legislation on waste in 2008. The salient features
of this are as indicated below. However, the provisions concerning rights and obligations of each entity are
not specific.
It prescribes about the roles and authority of local governments and rights and obligations of each
entity concerning municipal waste, promotion of waste (household waste) quantity reduction through
reuse, the roles of communities, and so on.
In addition to the management of wastes that have already been generated, it prescribes the roles of
related parties concerning limiting the generation of waste and recycling.
Concerning existing open dumping disposal sites, it is compulsory for local governments to compile
plans for the closure of such sites within 1 year from enactment of this law, and to close such sites
within 5 years from enactment.
Therefore, it would be impossible to conduct open-dumping after the year 2013.
Furthermore, the Ministry of Environment in Indonesia commenced 3R programs in 2005 prior to the
establishment of legislation regarding the reduction of waste quantities. So far, the compost subsidy
program constituting part of the West Java Environmental Management Project (WJEMP) and the waste
separation and composting program in Bandung, which had declared a state of emergency in response to its
streets overflowing with waste, have been implemented.
1.2.4 Environmental Legislation in Indonesia
(1) Laws and Ordinances
10
The basic legislation concerning the environment is the Environmental Management Law that was revised
in 2009 (Act No. 32, 2009). This legislation includes provisions concerning the strengthening of
environmental controls in business activities, strengthening of penalties for environmental pollution,
resolution of environmental disputes, rights of citizens concerning environmental information and so on.
Environmental standards and discharge standards concerning environmental impact assessment (AMDAL),
air and water pollution and odor, etc. are prescribed under the government ordinances and ministerial
decrees indicated below.
Table 1.2.2 Major Environmental Laws and Ordinances in Indonesia Law Environmental Management Law (Act No. 32, 2009) Government ordinance
Government Ordinance on Prevention of Air Pollution (Government Ordinance No. 41, 1999)
Government Ordinance on Water Pollution Prevention and Water Quality Management (No. 82, 2001)
Ministerial decree (standard-related)
Decree of the State Minister in Charge of Environment concerning Discharge Standards in Industrial Activities (No. 51, 1995)
Decree of the State Minister in Charge of Environment concerning Wastewater Standards from Fixed Generation Sources (No. 13, 1995)
Decree of the State Minister in Charge of Environment concerning Noise Standard (No. 48, 1996)
Decree of the State Minister in Charge of Environment concerning Vibration Standards (No. 49, 1996)
Decree of the State Minister in Charge of Environment concerning Odor Standards (No. 50, 1996)
(Source: Compiled by the Study Team)
(2) Regulatory Standards, etc.
A) Environmental standards
a) Air environmental standards
National unified air environmental standards were prescribed under Decree No. 2 of the State Minister in
Charge of Environment in 1988. The standards are reviewed once every five years. Air environmental
standards have been revised as shown below based on the government ordinance on prevention of air
pollution (government ordinance No. 41, 1999).
Table 1.2.3 Air Environmental Standard Values in Indonesia -
No Item Time Environmental Standard Analysis Method Test Method
1 Sulfur dioxide (SO2)
1 hour 24 hours 1 year
900 μg/Nm3 365 μg/Nm3 60 μg/Nm3
Parafuchsin colorimetric analysis
Absorptiometer
2 Carbon monoxide (CO)
1 hour 24 hours
30,000 μg/Nm3 10,000 μg/Nm3
NDIR (nondispersive infrared method)
NDIR (nondispersive infrared sensor)
11
No Item Time Environmental Standard Analysis Method Test Method
3 Nitogen dioxide (NO2)
1 hour 24 hours 1 year
400 μg/Nm3 150 μg/Nm3 100 μg/Nm3
Salzmann suction
Absorptiometer
4 Ozone (O3) 1 hour 1 year
235 μg/Nm3 50 μg/Nm3
Chemiluminescence method
Absorptiometer
5 Hydrocarbons (HC)
3 hours 160 μg/Nm3 FID (flam ionization detection) method
Gas chromatography
6 Particulate (PM10)(Particle size <10μm)
24 hours 150 μg/Nm3 Gravimetric procedure
High volume sampler
Particulate (PM2.5) (Particle size <2.5μm)
24 hours 1 year
65 μg/Nm3 15 μg/Nm3
Gravimetric procedure
High volume sampler
7 TSP 24 hours 1 year
230 μg/Nm3 90 μg/Nm3
Gravimetric procedure
High volume sampler
8 Lead (Pb) 24 hours 1 year
2 μg/Nm3 1 μg/Nm3
Gravimetric procedure Extraction procedure
High volume sampler Atomic absorption spectrophotometer
9 Dustfall 30 days 10 t/km2/Bulan
Gravimetric procedure
Cannister
10 Total fluorine (as F)
24 hours 3 μg/Nm3 Specific ion Electrode
Impinger atau continuous analyzer
11 Fluor Indeks
30 days
40μg/100cm2
Colorimetric Limed Filter Paper filter
12 Khlorine&Khlorine Dioksida
24 hours
150 μg/Nm3 Specific ion Electrode
Impinger atau continuous analyzer
13 Sulphat Indeks
30 days
1mgSO3/100cm3 dari kertas limed Perksida
Colourimetric Lead Peroxida Candle
(Source: Government Ordinance on Prevention of Air Pollution (Government Ordinance 41 of 1999)
Peraturan Pemerintah Republik Indonesia Nomor 41 Tahun 1999)
b) Water quality environmental standards
Water quality environmental standards are prescribed in the Government Ordinance on Water Pollution
Prevention and Water Quality Management (Ordinance No. 82, 2001) concerning freshwater, and in the
Government Ordinance concerning Quality Standards of Seawater (Ordinance No. 51 and 179, 2004)
concerning seawater.
12
Water quality environmental standards for freshwater are prescribed for the following four categories
according to purpose of use of water body, and a total of 68 standard values are stipulated. Some of these
are indicated below.
I: Water that can be directly used for drinking without undergoing any treatment
II: Water that can be used as raw water intended for drinking
III: Water that can be used in fisheries and livestock farming
IV: Water that can be used in agriculture, small-scale business, industry and hydropower
Table 1.2.4 Water Quality Environmental Standards in Indonesia
Parameter Unit Class
I II III IV Physics
Temperature Celsius ±3 ±3 ±3 ±5Solved residue mg/liter 1,000 1,000 1,000 2,000Suspended residue mg/liter 50 50 400 400Inorganic chemistry
pH 6-9 6-9 6-9 5-9BOD mg/liter 2 3 6 12COD mg/liter 10 25 50 100DO mg/liter 6 4 3 0Total phosphate as P mg/liter 0.2 0.2 1 5NO3-N mg/liter 10 10 20 20NO3-N mg/liter 0.5 - - -
Arsenic mg/liter 0.05 1 1 1Cobalt mg/liter 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2Barium mg/liter 1 - - -
Boron mg/liter 1 1 1 1Selenium mg/liter 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.05Cadmium mg/liter 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01Chrome (VI) mg/liter 0.05 0.05 0.05 1Copper mg/liter 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.2Iron mg/liter 0.3 - - -
Lead mg/liter 0.03 0.03 0.03 -
Manganese mg/liter 0.1 - - -
Mercury mg/liter 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.005Zinc mg/liter 0.05 0.05 0.05 2Chloride mg/liter 600 - - -
Cyanide mg/liter 0.02 0.02 0.02 -
Fluoride mg/liter 0.5 1.5 1.5 -
Nitrite as N mg/liter 0.06 0.06 0.06 -
Sulfate 400 400 - -
Free Chlorice mg/liter 0.03 0.03 0.03 -
Sulfur as H2S mg/liter 0.002 0.002 0.002 -
Microbiology Fecal coliform MPN/100ml 100 1,000 2,000 2,000Total coliform MPN/100ml 1,000 5,000 10,000 10,000
13
Parameter Unit Class
I II III IV Radio activity
Gross A Bq/liter 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1Gross B Bq/liter 1 1 1 1
Organic Chemistry Oil & fat mg/liter 1 1 1 -
Detergent as Methylene Blue Active Substance (MBAS)
mg/liter 0.2 0.2 0.2 -
Phenol compound as phenol
μg /liter 1 1 1 -
BHC μg /liter 210 210 210 -
Aldrin/dieldrin μg /liter 17 - - -
Chlordane μg /liter 3 - - -
DDT μg /liter 2 2 2 2Heptachlor and heptachlor epoxide
μg /liter 18 - - -
Lindane μg /liter 35 - - -
Methoxyclor μg /liter 35 - - -
Endrin μg /liter 1 4 4 -
Toxaphan μg /liter 5 - - -
(Source: About the Management of Water Quality and Water Pollution Control No. 82 of 2001)
B) Discharge Standards, etc.
a) Exhaust gas
Decree No. 13 of the State Minister in Charge of Environment, 1995 prescribes exhaust gas standards for
four business sectors, i.e. iron and steel industry, paper and pulp manufacturing, cement plants, and
coal-fired thermal power stations.
Table 1.2.5 Exhaust Gas Standards in Indonesia
Item Upper limit (mg/m3)
Particulate 150
Sulfur dioxide 750
Nitrogen oxide 850
Opacity 20% Note: Exhaust gas amounts are for dry exhaust gas at 25 , 1atm.
(Source: Decree of the State Minister for Environment concerning Emission Standards for Stationary Sources No.13 of 1995)
b) Wastewater
General plant wastewater standards on the national level are as indicated in Table 1.2.6. In addition to plant
wastewater, wastewater standards on the national level are prescribed as shown below.
Wastewater standards for high class hotels of 3-stars or higher (Decree of the State Minister for
14
Environment, No. 52 of 1995)
Wastewater standards for hospital wastewater (Decree of the State Minister for Environment, No.
58 of 1995)
Table 1.2.6 Wastewater Standard Values in Indonesia
Item
Standard Value (Unit: mg/litter) Group 1
Plants that have high-level wastewater treatment
Group 2 Plants that have basic wastewater
treatment 1 Temperature 38 40 2 PH 6-9 6-9 3 SS 200 400 4 DSS 2000 4,000 5 BOD 50 150 6 COD 100 300 7 Cu 2 3 8 Zn 5 10 9 Fe 5 10 10 T-Cr 0.5 1 11 Cr+6 0.1 0.5 12 Mn 2 5 13 Ni 0.2 0.5 14 T-CN 0.05 0.5 15 Cd 0.05 0.1 16 Pb 0.1 1 17 T-Hg 0.002 0.005 18 Sn 2 3 19 As 0.1 0.5 20 Se 0.05 0.5 21 Co 0.4 0.6 22 S 0.05 0.1 23 F 2 3 24 Cl2 1 2 25 Hex (paraffinum
liquidum content)5 10
26 Hex (animal and vegetable oil
content)
10 50
27 Phenol 0.5 1 28 NH3-N 1 3
(Source: Decree of the State Minister for Environment concerning Quality Standards of Liquid Waste for Industry Activity, No.51 of 1995)
Local administrative organizations in Indonesia generally comprise provincial governments, regencies and
cities, and below them the districts and villages. Environmental departments on the provincial government
level prescribe wastewater standards via governor transmittals. Such standards are applicable to
wastewater across all industries regardless of sector.
d) Noise
Environmental standards concerning noise in Indonesia are prescribed according to Decree of the State
Minister for Environment No. 48 of 1996.
15
Table 1.2.7 Noise Standards in Indonesia Mode of land use/ Mode of activity Noise level (DB) a. Mode of land use 1. Residential 55 2. Commercial 70 3. Offices 65 4. Green tract 50 5. Industrial 70 6. Government offices and public
facilities 60
7. Recreational facilities 70 8. Others
・Airport * ・Station * ・Port 70 ・Cultural asset 60
b. Mode of activities 1. Hospital 55 2. School 55 3. Place of prayer 55
(Source: Decree of the State Minister for Environment No. 48 of 1996)
e) Vibration
Environmental standards concerning noise in Indonesia are prescribed according to Decree of the State
Minister for Environment No. 49 of 1996.
Table 1.2.8 Vibration Standards in Indonesia Frequency(Hz) Vibration Level (x10-6m)
No impact Slight impact Unpleasant Hazardous 4 <100 100-500 500-1000 >1000 5 <80 80-350 350-1000 >1000
6.3 <70 70-275 275-1000 >1000 8 <50 50-160 160-500 >500
10 <47 37-120 120-300 >300 12.5 <32 32-90 90-220 >200 16 <25 25-60 60-120 >120 20 <20 20-40 40-85 >85 25 <17 17-30 30-50 >50
31.5 <12 12-20 20-30 >30 40 <9 9-13 15-20 >20 50 <8 8-12 12-15 >15 63 <6 6-9 9-12 >12
(Source: Decree of the State Minister for Environment No. 49 of 1996)
f) Odor
Environmental standards concerning odor in Indonesia are prescribed according to Decree of the State
Minister for Environment No. 50 of 1996.
16
Table 1.2.9 Odor Standards in Indonesia Item Unit Threshold
value Measurement method Spectroscope
Ammonia NH4 ppm 2.0 Indophenol method Absorption photometry
Methyl mercaptan CH3SH ppm 0.002 Gas adsorption Gas chromatography
Hydrogen sulfide H2S ppm 0.02 a.Mercuric sulfocyanide method b.Gas adsorption
Absorptiometer Gas chromatography
Methyl sulfide (CH3)2 S ppm 0.01 Gas adsorption Gas chromatography
Styrene (C6H5CHCH2) ppm 0.1 Gas adsorption Gas chromatography
(Source: Decree of the State Minister for Environment No. 50 of 1996)
g) Compost
Compost standards are prescribed as follows under SNI 19-7030-2004 General Principles Specification for
Compost of Domestic Organic Rubbish. It is necessary to take these standards into account when turning
wastes into compost.
Table 1.2.10 Compost Standards in Indonesia No Parameter Unit Minimum Maximum 1 Water content % 502 Temperature Celsius Ground water temp.3 Color Blackness4 Odor Oil odor5 Particle Size Mm 0.55 256 Water binding ability % 58 7 pH 6.80 7.498 Strange particle % * 1.5Macro Element 9 Organic material % 27 5810 Nitrogen 0.40 11 Carbon 9.8 3212 Phosphor (P2O5) % 0.10 13 C/N-ratio 10 2014 Potassium (K2O) 0.20 * Micro Element 15 Arsenic mg/kg * 1316 Cadmium (Cd) mg/kg * 317 Cobalt (Co) mg/kg * 3418 Chromium (Cr) mg/kg * 21019 Copper (Cu) mg/kg * 10020 Mercury (Hg) mg/kg * 0.821 Nickel (Ni) mg/kg * 6222 Lead (Pd) mg/kg * 150
17
No Parameter Unit Minimum Maximum 23 Selenium (Se) mg/kg * 224 Zinc (Zn) mg/kg * 500Other Element 25 Calcium % * 25.526 2 Magnesium (Mg) % * 0.627 Iron (Fe) % * 228 Aluminum (Al) % * 2.229 Manganese (Mn) % * 0.1Bacterial 30 Fecal Coli MPN/g 1,00031 Salmonella sp. MPN/g 3
*=Based on the Articles of the Ministry of Communications
(Source: SNI 19-7030-2004 General Principles Specification for Compost of Domestic Organic
Rubbish)
1.2.5 Administrative Agencies concerned with Environmental Management and Waste Management in
Indonesia
A) Administrative Agencies concerned with Environmental Management
A total of 16 ministries including ministries such as the Ministry of Industry and the Ministry of Health
have jurisdiction over environmental measures in Indonesia. However, the central agency in charge of
environmental administration is the Ministry of Environment (Kementrian Lingkungan Hidup: KLH).
Before, the Ministry of the Enviornment and the Environment Management Agency (Badan Pengendalian
Dampak Lingkungan: BAPEDAL) coexisted, but BAPRDAL was consolidated with the Ministry of the
Environment based on Presidential Decree of 2002. The mission of Ministry of Environment is “to
formulate and coordinate policies regarding environmental management and prevention of environmental
impacts”. Its functions and jurisdictions include the followings:
Formulation of policies regarding environmental management and environmental pollution prevention
Planning, monitoring, analysis and evaluation regarding environmental management and
environmental pollution prevention
Formulation of guidelines which will serve as minimal standards for local governments
Formulation of guidelines necessary for protection and management of natural environment
B) Administrative agencies concerned with wastes and recycling
The primary government agency concerned with wastes and recycling is the Ministry of Environment
(KLH: Kementrian Lingkungan Hidup). Within the Ministry of Environment, the Environmental Pollution
Assessment Department is in charge of household wastes, and the B3 Management and Regulation
Department is in charge of hazardous industrial waste. Concerning household waste, authority is being
transferred to local governments under the policy of decentralization, while concerning B3 wastes,
authorization powers are concentrated in the Ministry of Environment, and the local governments
(provinces and regencies) only have supervisory authority. In addition to the Ministry of Environment, the
18
following ministries and agencies are concerned with the environment (Source: “Business Report for
Provision of Industrial Waste and Recycling Policy Information in Asia,” the Institute of Developing
Economies, Japan External Trade Organization, consigned by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and
Industry,2007).
Ministry of Public Works (KPU)
This formulates technical and structural requirements for local governments concerning waste
management facilities and technical guidance pertaining to sanitary management.
Agency for the Assessment and Application of Technology (BPPT)
This conducts research and study of recycling of waste in environmental technology research
laboratories, etc.
1.2.6 Challenges regarding waste management in Indonesia
Currently, waste management in Indonesia heavily depends on landfills. However, there are concerns
regarding environmental, sanitary, and health risks to local communities. According to a study conducted
at Bantar Gebang, where wastes from Jakarta and surrounding areas are landfilled, the following results
were found although specific study methods and clear correlation with the landfill is unknown (Ministry of
the Environment, Indonesia, State of Environment Report 2009).
1.3 Situation of the Target Area Jakarta is the capital city of Indonesia and one of the biggest cities in South East Asia. It lies in the
northwestern part of Java Island and has an area of 661km2. The population of Indonesia and its economic
activities are centred on Jakarta and the surrounding areas of Java. The population of Java is 136.56 million
which is larger than the total population of Japan and corresponds to about 60% of the total population of
Indonesia. (2010 Government Statistics). The population of Jakarta exceeds the population of the 23 wards
of Tokyo (8.95 millions, Tokyo prefecture data) and is reported to be 9.6 millions (2010 Government
Statistics). The Gross Regional Product of Java is reported to be 1,262 trillion Rp and corresponds to 60%
of gross production of Indonesia (2010 Government Statistics).
19
Figure 1.3.1 Trend of population of Jakarta
(Source: Statistical data for 2000 -2006 obtained from SAPROF for Jakarta Solid Waste Management
Project in Indonesia Final Report 2008, Statistical data for 2007-2009 obtained from Indonesian
government sources, 2010 statistical data prepared by the authors of this report from information obtained
from outline of Jakarta cleaning operations)
Figure1.3.2 Population density of Indonesia
(Source: Statistical Yearbook of Indonesia 2010)
8,360 8,430
8,500 8,570
8,640 8,700 8,760
9,060 9,140
9,220
9,590
7,600
7,800
8,000
8,200
8,400
8,600
8,800
9,000
9,200
9,400
9,600
9,800
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Population in Jakarta (in thousands)
20
Figure 1.3.3 Ratio of production value of various regions of Indonesia
(Source: Statistical Yearbook of Indonesia 2010)
Population centralization in regions around Jakarta and the economic development of the region is
contributing to the increase of waste generation in this region and adequate treatment and disposal of
municipal waste is becoming a challenging issue.
Sumatra23%
Java58%
Lesser Sunda Islands
3% Borneo9%
Sulawesi5%
Island New Guinea Maluku Islands
2%
21
Chapter 2
Study Methodology
22
23
2.1 Contents of the Study 2.1.1 Background and Purpose of the Survey
Urbanization in Jakarta has been accelerating: Jakarta has already become a metropolitan city with the
population of about 9.6 millions as of 2010, and about 6,200 t/d of MSW is generated in Jakarta. By the
year 2030, the amount of waste generated is estimated to reach 9,200 t/d. Currently, most of the waste
is being disposed at Bantar Gebang Landfill in Bekasi City, West Java, located to the East of Jakarta. The
landfill is the only existing final disposal site for Jakarta. However, as the amount of waste from Jakarta is
exceeding the site’s capacity, efforts are being made to prolong the life of the site. Meanwhile, taking into
consideration transportation efficiency, it is believed to be more effective to establish a final disposal site at
a location to the West of Jakarta. For these reasons, Jakarta purchased 96 ha of land located at Ciangir
in Tangerang Regency, Banten, located to the West of Jakarta, and planned to construct and operate a waste
treatment facility as a build, operate and transfer (BOT) project, and signed Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) regarding the project with Tangerang Regency in 2009. However, because the
Tangerang Regency changed its land use plan and designating the site as a residential area, it became
impossible to implement the project.
In response to this situation, Tangerang Regency expressed that land in Jatiwaringin area, which has been
designated in land use plan as the area for waste treatment facilities, could be provided as the alternative
site. At the same time, Tangerang Regency has expressed that the provision of land would be under
condition that waste intermediate treatment facilities would be included in the final disposal site.
The objectives of this study are (1) to examine the most suitable treatment system for the final disposal site
for wastes from Jakarta to be constructed under BOT scheme in the Jatiwaringin area and (2) to evaluate
the feasibility of the project by estimating cost of construction, operation and maintenance.
2.1.2 Outline of the Survey
In order to implement this project, it is necessary to propose a waste treatment system that would be
acceptable by the Tangerang Regency which would cost less than 21 USD/t as requested by Jakarta. In
addition, the proposed system needs to be feasible taking into account the consensus building process with
the local residents and environmental and social impacts.
In order to identify the conditions that influence the project cost, conceptual designing with the objective to
reduce cost was conducted based on results on boring and topographical surveys, and costs were estimated
for construction, civil work, operation and maintenance (O&M) of the facilities was conducted in order to
establish conditions regarding elements influencing the cost, and c.
Additionally, for environmental and social considerations regarding this project, environmental sampling
and analysis in addition to interviews with local residents were implemented, and it evaluated expecting
24
improvement effects and influences over environment and society.
The survey items are as below.
a) Scope of this project
b) Confirmation of preconditions (planned treatment amount, approval process for environmental
impact, limited conditions under environmental concerns, roads accessing the implementing
site, waste composition, conditions for outsourcing of the survey)
c) Outline of Jakarta and Cleansing Department of Municipality
d) Current condition of waste treatment and waste composition, etc.
e) Current survey of the project’s implementation site (measurement and boring surveys)
f) Establishment of the treatment systems' alternative plan(s) & Examination of its validity
g) Design Concept of the facilities (outline of standards)
h) Estimation of costs for construction and O&M(the project cost estimation)
i) Financial Analysis and Cash Flow Analysis
j) Examination of environmental and social considerations
k) Project evaluation
2.2 Methodology and Organization 2.2.1 Methodology of the Survey
In this survey, as showing Figure 2.2.1, current waste treatment condition and plan in Jakarta were
understood and analyzed. After clarifying this project position, the project scope and limited conditions
were clarified. In addition, implementations of boring and measurement surveys as well as examination
of treatment system plan were conducted. Based on these results, the conceptual design of facilities and
specification of equipments were examined. Furthermore, the cost estimation and financial analysis of the
project were conducted. The environmental and social considerations associated with the project were also
examined. Finally, the project was evaluated taking into account the economic cost and the environmental
and social considerations.
25
Figure 2.2.1 Flow of the Study
(Resources: Prepared by the survey team)
2.2.2 Structure of the Survey
As showing Figure 2.2.2, this survey team is composed of corporations, including ARAX to be a
commissioning entity in future, which are capable to prepare and operate an urban waste treatment system
in order to propose a realistic treatment system under consideration of the local condition.
Furthermore, for an on-site study, Mr. Yasushi Sakai, a Manager of a liaison office in Jakarta from EX
Research Institute Ltd., will coordinate between the local and Japan during the survey team’s absence since
the period is limited. Also, Ryowa International, represented by Mr. Matsuzaki, an Advisor of ARAX,
will support to promote communication with stakeholders from the local government. JEF Engineering
will conduct the facility design and estimate costs for the construction and O&M, whereas Jakarta office of
Shimizu Corporation, will support to estimate the construction cost.
For outsourcing, according to cost estimation of the survey, the following companies are selected:
PT.INFRATAMA YAKTI, a research company, which conducted the Special Assistance for Project
Formation (SAPROF) study in 2008, and PT.TIGENCO GRAHA PERSADA, a boring company, which
Establishment of Treatment Systems'Alternative Plan(s) & Examiation of its Validity
Clarification of the Project Scope
Boring & Measuring Surveys
Organizing Survey Results
Examination for Design Concept of Facilities& Application of Equipment Standards
Estimation of the ProjectCost
CurrentTreatment Condition &Planning
(Current Status Analysis)
Clarification of this Project Position
Waste Composition
Future & Demand Forecasts
Examination for Side ofEnvironmental & Social
ConsiderationsFinancial Analysis ・CF Analysis
EnvironmentalSurveys
The Project Evaluation
Climate Data
26
has been received abundant orders from major Japanese construction companies.
Figure 2.2.2 Organization of the study team
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
Composed members and responsible fields for this survey are shown as below (see Table 2.2.1). Mr.
Ohno from EX Research Institute Ltd. will be Director General, and under him, Mr. Kazuhiro Nakaishi
will be in charge of planning the treatment facility as Deputy Director General. Also, Mr. Takashi
Sakamoto from ARAX will be a coordinator for the project.
EX Research Institute Ltd.Supervise, examination of treatment sytem, analysis of constraints of project implementation, analysis of environmental and social aspects,
ARAX CorporationIdentification of scope of project, project scheme and financing scheme
Arai Total Institution Co.,Ltd.Cost estimate of operation and
PT. INFRATAMA YAKTICollection of project cost, land survey, collection of information on social and environmental analysisDelegate
JFE Engineering CorporationConceptual design and cost estimate of plant, cost estimate of operation
PT.JFE-ENGINEERING INDONESIAInformation of local information
Local corporation
Shimizu Corporation Jakarta OfficeEstimate of local costs
Subcontract
Cooperation
PT. TIGENCO GRAHA PERSADABoring survey
Local team
Supervision
EX Research Institute Ltd. (Sakai)Collection of laws and regulations and analysis of capacity of implementing organization
Liaison office (based in Jakarta)
Ryowa InternationalCollection of laws and regulations and analysis of capacity of implementing organization
Subsidiary
Company directed by Mr Matsuzaki, advisor of ARAX Corporation
Subcontract
Cooperation
Delegate
27
Table 2.2.1 Members of the study team Name Post, Organization Issue in charge
Masato OHNO President and Head of International Consulting Division, EX Research Institute Ltd.
Project supervisor
Kazuhiro NAKAISHI
Senior Researcher, Environmental Engineering Division, EX Research Institute Ltd.
Project manager Planning of treatment
facility
Osamu NAHATASenior Researcher, Environmental Engineering Division, EX Research Institute Ltd.
Planning of landfill
Akira HASEYAMA
Senior Researcher, Environmental Engineering Division, EX Research Institute Ltd.
Identification of current status of waste management and analysis of environmental impact
Satoshi SUGIMOTO
Senior Researcher, International Consulting Division, EX Research Institute Ltd.
Economic and fiscal analysis
Sayako KIMURAResearcher, International Consulting Division, EX Research Institute Ltd.
Social and environmental considerations
Taiji TSURUTANI
Technical advisor, International Consulting Division, EX Research Institute Ltd.
Technical adviser
Yasushi SAKAI Representative of Indonesian liaison office, EX Research Institute Ltd.
Local coordination
Takashi SAKAMOTO
Chief, Public relations department, ARAX Corporation
Project coordination
Yasuo YAMAMOTO
Administrative manager, ARAX Corporation
Research in financial matters
Hironari YOSHIKURA
Technical division, Arai Total Institution Co.,Ltd.
Waste disposal technologies
Tsutomu NISHIWAKI
Adviser, ARAX Corporation
Overseas research
Horyu MATSUZAKI
Adviser, ARAX Corporation Director, PT. Ryowa International
Adviser of local operations
Tomoki UEMATSU
Manager, Sales & Marketing Dept., Overseas Business Sector, JFE Engineering Corporation
Cost estimate for plant engineering
Takao YAMAZAKI
Senior Manager, International Division, Jakarta Office, Shimizu Corporation
Local cost estimate
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
2.3 Schedule of the SurveSchedule of the survey is shown in Fi
from September 2011.
Aug Sep
Field Surveys in Indonesia
Preparation
Collection of information
Reporting of study results in Indonesia
Survey in Japan
Preparation Analysis of gained
information
Conceptual design, cost estimation,
financial analysis
Drafting of report
(Source:
Field surveys were performed 4 time
Tabl
Period
1st
visit
2011/9/7 Visit to J
facilities
2011/9/8
-2011/9/9
Discussio
informatio
2011/9/12 Discussio
visit to Ba
2011/9/13 Consultati
Cleansing
(Sep 7-13)
28
ey igure 2.3.1. Four times of the on-site studies are sch
Figure 2.3.1 Work Schedule Oct Nov Dec Jan 2012
Prepared by the authors of this report)
es. Outline of the field survey is shown below.
le 2.3.1 Outline of Field Surveys
Contents Peoples
JETRO, visit to waste related Mr. Kensuke
President Direct
Jakarta center
ns with Tangerang Regency,
on collection at Statistics Office
Mr. Agus, Director
Dept
Mr. Akip, Direc
Planning
ns with Tangerang Regency,
antar Geban final disposal site
Mr. Agus, Director
Dept
Mr. Akip, Direc
Planning
ion with vice Governor and the
g Department of Jakarta DKI
Mr. Sarwo
Vice-Governor an
(Oct 10-23) (Nov 27-Dec 13) (
heduled starting
Feb
met
Saito, Vice
tor, JETRO
r of Cleansing
ctor of Land
r of Cleansing
ctor of Land
Handhayani,
nd Head of
(Feb 7-11)
29
Period Contents Peoples met
Jakarta Regional Development
Planning Board
Mr. Iwan Henry Wardhana,
Director of Jakarta Cleansing
Department
2nd
visit
2011/10/10 Meeting within the study group ―
2011/10/11 Consultation with the Jakarta DKI
Cleansing Department
Mr. Iwan Henry Wardhana,
Director of Jakarta Cleansing
Department
Visit to the Sunter Temporary Facility Manager of the facility (name
unidentified)
2011/10/12 Visit to the Bantar Gebang Final Disposal
Site
Pt. Godang Tuajaya Jo Pt.
Navigat Organic Energy Ind
Mr. Sinaga, Manager in charge
of administrative matters
Mr. Toruan, in charge of
facilities
2011/10/13 Visit to Tangerang Regency and the
project site
Mr. Agus, Director of Cleansing
Dept
Mr. Akip, Director of Land
Planning
Mr. Yoyon, Deputy Director,
Cleansing Dept,
Mr. Youliy, in charge of final
disposal site
2011/10/14 Organization and analysis of information
collected
―
2011/10/17-
- 2011/10/18
Discussion with subcontractors and
preparation of contract
―
2011/10/19 Meeting within the study group ―
2011/10/20 Consultation with Tangerang Regency
Visit to the Duri Kosambi Wastewater
Treatment Facility
Mr. Akip, Director of Land
Planning
2011/10/21 Interview with the General Manager of
Cakung Cilncing
PT.WIRA GULFINDO
SARANA
Mr. Budhisentoso Kertadjaja
30
Period Contents Peoples met
General Manager
3rd visit 2011/11/27
-2011/11/28
Meeting within the study group and
organization of information collected
―
2011/11/29 Consultation with Tangerang Mr. Agus, Director of Cleansing
Dept
Mr. Akip, Director of Land
Planning
2011/11/30 Consultation with Ministry of Public
Works
Mr. Sjukrul Amien, Director of
Environmental hygiene, Mr.
Rudy Arifin, Deputy Director
Report to JETRO Mr. Kensuke Saito, Vice
President Director, JETRO
Jakarta center
Consultation with Jakarta DKI Cleansing
Department
Mr. Eko, and Mr. Iwan,
Cleansing Dept of Jakarta DKI
2011/12/1 Consultation with Governor of Tangerang
Regency
Tangerang Regency Governor
Consultation with Ministry of Public
Works
Mr. Mohammet
2011/12/2 Report to the Japanese Embassy Mr. Yasukawa, First Secretary
Mr. Yoshizawa, Councilor
Mr. Keino, Second Secretary.
Consultation with the Jakarta DKI
Cleansing Department
Mr. Iwan Henry Wardhana,
Director of Jakarta Cleansing
Department
Report to the JICA Jakarta office Ms. Kitamura, Adviser
2011/12/5
-2011/12/6
Meeting within the study group ―
2011/12/7 Consultation with Jakarta Cleansing
Department
Mr. Iwan Henry Wardhana,
Director of Jakarta Cleansing
Department
2011/12/8 Visit to plastic recycling facility in Jakarta Ms. Mei, owner of recycling
facility
Visit to the project site ―
2011/12/9 Organization and analysis of information
collected
―
2011/12/12 Visit to Tangerang Regency Mr. Yoyon, Director General of
31
Period Contents Peoples met
Land Planning
2011/12/13 Organization and analysis of information
collected
―
4th visit 2012/02/07-
- 2012/02/11
Report of the final report to relevant
parties in Indonesia and exchange of
information
(Prepared by the authors of this report)
32
33
Chapter 3
Justification, Objectives and Technical Feasibility of the
Project
34
35
3.1 Background and Necessity of the Project The Project is identified as a priority undertaking for infrastructure development to be achieved by DKI
Jakarta by 2020 within the Jakarta Metropolitan Priority Area for Investment and Industry (MPA) Master
Plan Study. Accordingly, this is designated as a high priority project for actualization.
Moreover, out of the three core principles of in the National Policy and Strategy for Waste Management
System Development (NPC-WMSD) that was described in Chapter 1 (1.2.2), the Project is deemed to be
applicable under “Utilization of private sector corporations as management partners” and ”Expansion of
service scope and improvement in quality of management system”.
3.1.1 Scope of the Project and Principal Demand for the Products and Services Provided by the Project
(1) Project Scope
The project will appropriately treat and dispose MSW from Jakarta including the recycling of recyclable
wastes keeping in mind the business structure shown in Figure 3.1.1. The Japanese investors will
establish a local company with local investors, and the company would purchase the land and agree on a
MOU with Jakarta regarding land lease. This is under the assumption that MOU between Jakarta and
Tangerang Regency regarding construction of s disposal site in Ciangir would be amended. Based on
this assumption, MSW under BOT scheme which would be ordered by Jakarta would be operated
through establishing SPC with local companies and the local joint company. The project scope covers
the design, construction and operation of treatment and disposal facilities, collection and recycling of
recyclable materials and monitoring. Table 3.1.1 shows the scale of component facilities, which
comprise a managed final disposal site (including leachate treatment facilities), MBT facilities, RDF
manufacturing facilities and composting facilities. Figure 3.1.2 shows the treatment flow in the project.
36
Figure 3.1.1 Business Scheme of the Project
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
Table 3.1.1 Project scale and component facilities Item Contents, Capacity and Component Equipment, etc.
Target wastes MSW (Municipal solid wastes) discharged in Jakarta Scale 1,500 t/d Facilities composi-tion
Managed final disposal site
Semi-aerobic landfill structure with landfill area of 16 hectares and landfill capacity of 2.5 million m3 (stable gradient earth-fill dam utilizing excavated earth, sandwich building method, seepage control structure, gas extraction pipes, leachate collection and drainage system, leachate treatment system)
MBT (mechanical bio-treatment) facilities
Daily treatment capacity 1,410 t (1,185t + 225 t), treatment method: resources screening facilities, crushing facilities, belt conveyor, fermentation tank, buildings, post-treatment screening facilities, storage facilities, packaging facilities
RDF manufacturing facilities
Treatment capacity: 480 t/d (quantity of product: 430 t/d)
Compost facilities
Treatment capacity: 410 t/d (334 t/d + 76 t/d) (quantity of product: 165 t/d)
Project period 20 years Project ordering mode BOT project (ordering entity: Jakarta)
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
Figure 3.1
(Source
Figure 3.1.2 Map of th
(Source: Prepared by the author
Ciangir
37
.1 Detailed treatment flow of the project
e: Prepared by the authors of this report)
he project site (Jati Waringing, Tangerang Regenc
rs of this report based on land use map for Tangerang
Jatiwaringin
Jakarta DKI(West Jakarta C
y)
g Regency)
ity)
38
Figure 3.1.4 Detailed map of the project site (Jati Waringing, Tangerang Regency)
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report based aerial photo)
(2) Services Provided in the Project
The services to be provided in the project entail the low cost recycling and appropriate treatment and
disposal of municipal wastes with a view to securing environmental conservation. In particular,
concerning recycling of recyclable wastes, it is intended to recover valuable resources such as plastics
and metals, etc. through utilizing the existing recovery and distribution system (see section 4.1.1 for
details) that includes the activities of waste pickers on the project site targeting municipal wastes
comprising mainly household wastes but not market wastes (hereafter referred to as “household wastes,
etc.”). After that, wastes will be separated into organic wastes, combustible wastes and other wastes in
MBT facilities (also combining appropriate treatment), with the organic wastes being used for
composting and the inorganic wastes being converted to RDF. The manufactured compost will be
retailed as fertilizer or soil improvement agent, as well as being used as a covering material on the final
disposal site. RDF will be supplied to cement plants. In addition, market wastes will undergo
fermentation and screening in MBT facilities, with the organic wastes again being used for composting
and the inorganic wastes being converted to RDF. Finally, other residues will undergo appropriate
disposal in a managed disposal site equipped with semi-aerobic landfill structure.
(3) Primary consumers
The main consumers of the project services can broadly be classified as follows:
a) Demand for the project services, i.e. the proper treatment and disposal of MSW (consisting of
household wastes and market wastes)
b) Demand for the compost that is manufactured in the project
Area considered forthe project site (100hawithin this area)
Land owned by Tangerang City for new disposal site
Existing disposal site of Tangerang Regency (includes planned area for expansion)
39
c) Demand for RDF that is manufactured in the project
First, concerning the consumers of a), the primary entity is the local governments starting with Jakarta
municipal government that manages the target municipal wastes. Since demand in Jakarta is described in
further detail including demand forecast in section 3.1.2, this section focuses on demand by other local
governments. Local governments with demand are Tangerang Regency, where the project site is located,
and the surrounding local governments. In Tangerang Regency, approximately 800 cubic meters of
waste was carried into Jati Waringin final disposal site on average every day in 2010. With respect to
this, the present final disposal site has remaining landfill area of 7.8 hectares, and assuming that the
whole area is landfilled to a height of 30 meters, capacity will reach 1.8 million cubic meters (assuming
an earth-fill dam with slope gradient of 1: 2.5). In this case, assuming that cover materials corresponding
to 35% of the landfill waste will be needed for sanitary landfill, the landfill service life will be 4.5 years
(= 1.8 million m3 ÷ (800 m3/d x 365 d/y x 1.35). Therefore, the present final disposal site will become
full by 2015, at which time a new final disposal site will become necessary. It is thus forecast that
demand for the project services will arise in Tangerang Regency at this time. Incidentally, it is assumed
that reduction of waste quantity due to collection of valuable resources by waste pickers and
improvement of unit volumetric weight due to landfilling will be offset by future increases arising from
larger quantities of waste and a higher collection rate (currently around 40%).
Concerning consumers for compost that is manufactured in the project, since compost derived from
waste is sold to farmers, etc., in the advance cases of Cakung Cilincing and Bantar Gebang, it is
anticipated that demand exists among ordinary citizens including farmers as well as managers of public
facilities that plant and maintain vegetation. Furthermore, there is expected to be demand for cover
materials. Concerning cover materials, demand in the project is expected to be 43 t per day, while the
demand on neighboring Tangerang final disposal site will be 140 t/d (=800m3/d x 0.35 ÷ 0.5t/m3). In
Tangerang Regency, economic merits can be obtained in averting the need to purchase cover materials.
Moreover, concerning demand for RDF manufactured in the project, cement plants currently accept this
as raw fuel. According to a cement plant in Bogor Province to the south of Jakarta, the annual amount of
coal consumption is 1 million tons. Under these circumstances, waste oil and industrial wastes are
purchased at 20USD/t and used as fuel, while RDF is purchased from communities at 150 Rp/kg as part
of CSR, and the ratio of fuel consumption other than coal is no more than 5%. At this plant, it is hoped
to increase this ratio to 20%. For this purpose, the plant is examining a plan to construct facilities for
manufacturing RDF from the waste materials of Bogor. For the immediate future, it aims to purchase
RDF at 150 Rp/kg to cover up to 20% of its fuel requirement (Approximately 547 t/d = (1 million ton x
0.2)/365). Meanwhile, acceptance as fuel is conditional on the product having a minimum heating value
of 14.6 MJ/kg.
There are four cement plants in Jakarta and these are expected to account for substantial demand.
40
3.1.2 Analysis of Current Conditions, Future Projection (including Demand Forecast) and Problems
Foreseen in Case of No Project Implementation
(1) Current waste treatment
A)Generated amount of waste
The cleansing administration in Jakarta is supervised by the DKI Jakarta Cleansing Bureau (Dinas
Kebersihan Provinsi Daerah Khusus Ibukota Jakarta).
Table 3.1.2 and Table 3.1.3 and Figure 3.1.5 and Figure 3.1.6 indicate the current situation regarding
waste generation based on the “Cleansing Summary 2010” that is issued every year by the Cleansing
Bureau.
The population of Jakarta in 2010 stood at approximately 9,567,000 people, the total generated amount
of waste was 6,139 t/d, and the per capita discharge amount was 640 kg per person per day.
Table 3.1.2 Waste Situation in the Jakarta
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report based on Outline of Cleansing Activities 2010)
Table 3.1.3 Waste Generation Ratio in Jakarta
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report based on Outline of Cleansing Activities 2010.
The household waste generation ratio is calculated with respect to the total value in each city).
Looking at past trends based on study findings from previous years, population has moved at a level in
excess of estimate values (8,981,000 in 2010). According to the figures for 2010, it appears as though
the amount of waste is less than forecast values (6,139t/d for that year), however, this may only be a
№ District Population Waste generatedWaste generation
ratioHousehold wastegeneration ratio
(t/d) (g/person/d) (g/person/d)1 Central Jakarta 898,883 1,173.33 1305.322 North Jakarta 1,645,312 1,113.78 676.943 West Jakarta 2,278,825 1,442.22 632.884 South Jakarta 2,057,080 1,003.11 487.645 East Jakarta 2,687,027 1,406.89 523.59
Total 9,567,127 6,139.33 3,560.81 641.71 372.19
Householdwaste
№ District Population Waste generatedWaste generation
ratioHousehold wastegeneration ratio
(t/d) (g/person/d) (g/person/d)1 Central Jakarta 898,883 1,173.33 1305.322 North Jakarta 1,645,312 1,113.78 676.943 West Jakarta 2,278,825 1,442.22 632.884 South Jakarta 2,057,080 1,003.11 487.645 East Jakarta 2,687,027 1,406.89 523.59
Total 9,567,127 6,139.33 3,560.81 641.71 372.19
Householdwaste
41
temporary phenomenon and it will be necessary to watch future movements.
Figure 3.1.5 Population and Generated Waste Amount Projection
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report based on the findings of the 2008 SAPROF Study)
83868756
8981 9169 9263 92589588
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
2000 2006 2010 2015 2020 2025
Population (thousands) Actual population in 2010
Projection (SAPROF 2008)
6400 65386894
74027845
8210
6139
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
2000 2006 2010 2015 2020 2025年
Waste generated (t/day)
Actual amount in 2010
Projection (SAPROF 2008)
42
The actual per capita discharged amount of waste (waste generation ratio) in 2010 calculated from these
population and waste generation figures is 640 g/person per day. Moreover, this value includes commercial
wastes such as market waste, office waste and business waste. When viewed in terms of household wastes
only (3,560.8 t, according to Cleansing Summary 2010), the amount discharged per person works out to be
371 g/person per day.
Figure 3.1.6 Waste Generation Ratio of Waste Generation Projection
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report based on the 2008 SAPROF study findings)
B)Waste quality
Table 3.1.4, Figure 3.1.7 and Figure 3.1.8 show the quality of waste in 2010. According to this, organic
wastes account for more than half the total.
Moreover, 58% of the overall waste is household waste, while market waste accounts for 10%,
commercial waste and industrial waste for 15% each, and cleansing waste from roads, parks and rivers,
etc. for 2%.
Table 3.1.4 Breakdown by Waste Quality and Generation Source in Jakarta (2010)
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report based on Outline of Cleansing Activities 2010)
763 747 768 807
847 887
640
500
600
700
800
900
1000
2000 2006 2010 2015 2020 2025年
Waste generated (g/d) per capita
Actual amount in 2010
Projection (SAPROF 2008)
№ Type of waste Volume m3 Percentage %1 Organic 15,451.58 55.372 Inorgnic 12,454.47 44.63
Total 27,906.05
№ Type of waste Volume m3 Percentage %1 House hold waste 16,185.51 582 Marcket waste 2,790.61 103 Commercial waste 4,185.91 154 Industrial waste 4,185.91 155 Waste from cleaning roads, parks, etc 558.12 2
計 27,906.06 100
43
Figure 3.1.7 Breakdown of Waste by Generation Source in Jakarta (2010)
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report based on Outline of Cleansing Activities 2010)
Looking at the composition of waste, organic waste (kitchen waste) accounts for 55.37%, and other
wastes for 44.63%. Since organic wastes are deemed to correspond to kitchen wastes according to the
Japanese composition inspection method, wastes in this report will be expressed as organic wastes and
non-organic wastes in this report.
Figure 3.1.8 Quality Breakdown of Waste in Jakarta (2010)
Ratio of inorganic wastes 1 Paper.. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .... 20.57% 2 Plastics ... ... ... ... ..... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . .13.25% 3 Wood. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . ... ... ... 0.07% 4 Cloth and fibers... ... ... ... ... ... . ... ... ... . 0.61% 5 Rubber and artificial leather, etc.. ... ... . .0.19% 6 Metals ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 1.06% 7 Glass ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . ... ... ... ... ... 1.91% 8 Bulky waste.. ... .. .... . . ... ......... ... ... ... 0.81% 9 B3 wastes (hazardous and toxic wastes)... 1.52% 10 Rocks, sand, etc.. ... ... ... ... . ... . ... . ... 4.65%
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report based on Outline of Cleansing Activities 2010)
58
10
1515 2
Share (%)
Household wasteMarket
waste
Commercial waste
Industrial waste Waste from cleaning
roads, parks, rivers
55.37%
44.63%
20.57
13.25
0.07
0.610.19
1.061.91
0.81
1:52
4.65単位:%
Organic (kitchenwaste) Inorganic
Paper Plastic Wood Cloth, fiber Rubber/artificial leather Metal Glass Bulky waste Hazardous waste Rock, sand, ETC
紙
ゴ
金
ガ
粗
44
C)Waste treatment flow
Table 3.1.5, Figure 3.1.9 and Figure 3.1.10 show the current conditions and plans of waste treatment
facilities in Jakarta. There are two key intermediate treatment facilities currently in operation, namely
the Cakung Cilincing intermediate treatment facility (mainly producing compost) and the Sunter
transfer treatment facility (compression treatment).
There is a final disposal site in Bantar Gebang (Bekasi), and this receives wastes that do not undergo
intermediate treatment and the residue from treatment at the intermediate facilities, etc.
Table 3.1.5 Waste Treatment Related Facilities in Jakarta
Cakung Cilincing Sunter Marunda Bantar Gebang (Future plan) Tangerang Regency
Location Jakarta Jakarta Jakarta Bekasi, West Java
Tangerang Regency
Area 7.5ha 3.5ha 12ha 110.3ha Approximately 100ha
Land ownership Privately owned Government owned Privately
owned Government owned ---
Current conditions
Intermediate treatment facilities
Accept 400~500 t/d
Sorting and composting
Tipping fee: 149,000 Rp/t
Transfer station with compacting equipment
Maximum capacity: 6,000m3/d,
1,500 t/d Volume compacting
effect: ½
Currently no activities are conducted onsite (the landowner is searching for investors)
Compost Final
disposal Methane gas
collection and power generation
None
Future plans and prospects
Upgrade by 2013 as follows: Accept
1,000~1,300 t/d Technology:
MBT (anaerobic digestion technology from Denmark)
The tipping fee is expected to rise to 189,000 Rp/t.
Currently undergoing actual design geared to expansion
Alter as follows: Accept 1,000 t/d Technology: Build
Waste-to-Energy (incineration) facilities
Project method: BOT The tipping fee is
expected to be 400,000 Rp/t.
As of January 2012, preparations are being made for national competitive bidding.
Capacity: 2,000 t/d
Technology: Waste-to-Energy (incineration)
Additional installation of MBT and methane fermentation facilities to the above facilities
Accept 3,000 t/d
Accept 1,500 t/d
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
45
Figure 3.1.9 Flow of Waste Treatment in Jakarta (Expression on a Top View Map)
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
46
Figure 3.1.10 Flow of Waste Treatment in Jakarta Household 58% 3,561
Sunter SPA605 t/d
Bantar Gebang TPA5,062 t/d
Market 10% 614 t/d
Office 15% 921 t/d
Plant 15% 921 t/d
Road, park and river, etc. cleansing 2% 123 t/d
(Private sector treatment company)
PPLI PT.WGI
RT Dong Woo
The amount of waste carried into Bantar Gebang final disposal site in 2010 was 5,062 t/d on average. In
terms of fluctuation, the largest is 1.10 and the smallest is 0.87 (see Figure 3.1.11).
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report based on Outline of Cleansing Activities 2010. Ratios and totals in the table are mean values from 2010).
Figure 3.1.11 Coefficient of Fluctuation in the Amount of Waste going into
Bantar Gebang Final Disposal Site
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report based on Outline of Cleansing Activities 2010)
1.10
0.97
1.05
0.96
1.02
0.97 0.99
1.03
0.87
1.05
1.01 1.00
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
1.05
1.10
1.15
1.20
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Fluctuation coefficient of waste brought to Bantar Gebang Final Disposal Site
Recycling
Temporary
storage yard
47
D)Organization chart of the Cleansing Bureau
The Cleansing Bureau employs 1,805 employees.
Table 3.1.6 Personnel Involved in Waste Treatment in Jakarta
Job Heavy
machine operator
Machine maintenance Security Driver Truck crew Other Total
Number of personnel 14 45 60 461 252 973 1,805
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report based on Outline of Cleansing Activities 2010)
The conclusion to the Cleansing Summary 2010 raises some issues concerning waste treatment in
Jakarta. The authorities realize that too much waste is being carried into Banter Gebang final disposal
site and that the environmental load is too great, and they are investigating alternative treatment methods
geared to mitigating the final disposal load. One of these is the expansion of intermediate treatment
technology, and this explains the expectations being placed on construction of a compost recycling
center.
(2) Future Forecast (including demand forecast)
According to the hearing conducted with Jakarta Cleansing Bureau, the design amount of waste
generated in 2030 in Jakarta is set at 9,200 t per year. The future forecast and demand forecast were
carried out with a view to assessing the validity of this value, and the assessment was performed
according to the following procedure.
The generated amount of waste is intrinsically linked to the economic condition and level of
development of a country. In other words, it correlates with the waste generation ratio and the GDP
economic indicator. This has been presented in research findings by Ikeguchi et al1. Based on the above
conditions, the following table shows a comparison of GDP between Japan and Indonesia and waste
generation ratio between Tokyo and Jakarta.
Table 3.1.7 GDP and Waste Generation Ratio in Japan in the Past Item Japan (Tokyo) Indonesia (Jakarta)
GDP USD/person 3,000 (1970s) 3,000 (2010) Waste generation ratio
(g/person/day) 700 (Tokyo, 1970s) 640 (2010 Jakarta)
Waste generation ratio (g/person/day) 1,000(Tokyo, 1990s)
910 (Refer to formula 3-1)
(2030 Jakarta)
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report based on World Bank, World Development
1 Current conditions, issues and solutions of waste treatment in developing countries (EN2 Plus Ltd., Ikeguchi Takashi)
48
Indicators 2011 and data for Tokyo Metropolitan Government)
As was shown in the aforementioned figure (page 2), Indonesia’s current GDP level of approximately
3,000USD is equivalent to Japan’s level in the 1970s, and it has been assumed that this will display
similar behavior to Japan’s GDP between 1970s-1990s from now on. Therefore, assuming that Indonesia
will achieve the same kind of economic development between now and 2030 that Japan experienced
between the 1970s and 1990s, the waste generation ratio in Jakarta in 2030 has been forecast as follows
based on the waste generation ratio in Jakarta in 2010 (640 g /person per day).
Waste generation ratio in Jakarta in 2030
= 640 × 1,000 ÷ 700
= 910 g /person per day
Figure 3.1.12 Projected Waste Generation Ratio based on the
Rate of Change in Japan over the Past 20 Years
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report based)
Next, in order to seek the generated amount of waste based on the waste generation ratio and population,
the population of Jakarta in 2030 will be forecast. Figure 3.1.13 shows the results of projections made
based on linear regression formula using past actual figures (Figure 1.1.3).
7001000
0
250
500
750
1000
1970 1990
Waste generated (g/day) per capita
Tokyo
20 years
142% increase700
0
250
500
750
1000
1970 1990
Jakarta
20 years
Assumed to experiencesimilar growth with Japan
Actual amountProjection
Waste generated (g/day) per capita
142% increase
= Waste generation ratio in Jakarta in 2010 ×
Waste generation ratio in Japan in 1990s Formula
3-1 Waste generation ratio in Japan in 1970s
49
Figure 3.1.13 Population Forecast in Jakarta Until 2030
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report based with actual figures taken from Figure 1.1.3)
According to the projection, the population in 2030 will be 11,620,000. Therefore, the generated amount
of waste can be obtained through multiplying the waste generation ratio by the forecast population.
910 g /person per day × 11,620,000 people = 10,570 t/d
This is about 1.15 times larger than the forecast of 9,200 t/d by the Cleansing Bureau, however, variance
of around 15% is deemed to be within the expected range when the uncertainty of future forecasting is
taken into account, and the projection of 9,200 t/d is deemed to be valid.
(3) Problems Foreseen in Case of No Project Implementation
The problems that will arise in the event where the project is not implemented will be examined
separately for Jakarta, which is the source of generation of the target municipal waste, and Tangerang
Regency, which is where the project site is located. If the project is not implemented, the following
current conditions will not be improved and the existing problems will persist or deteriorate.
A) Problems in Jakarta
Since waste will be concentrated into the city’s only final disposal site at Bantar Gebang , excessive load
will be imparted; moreover, concentration of garbage collection trucks to a single destination will cause
traffic congestion and further diminish transportation efficiency, which in turn will lead to higher
transportation costs. Moreover, this traffic congestion will contribute to air pollution caused by exhaust
gases from vehicles.
At Bantar Gebang disposal site, although conditions will improve compared to the previous open
dumping situation, the daily intake of large quantities of waste will make it impossible to carry out earth
covering on the same day. If incoming quantities increase even more, there is concern that the existing
8360
8430
8500
8570
8640
8700
8760
9060
9140
9220 95
90
9490
96
00
9710
98
20
9940
10
050
1016
0 10
270
1038
0 10
500
1061
0 10
720
1083
0 10
950
1106
0 11
170
1128
0 11
390
1151
0 11
620 y = 112.09x + 8142.9
R² = 0.9265
0
3000
6000
9000
12000
15000
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Regression formula
Population (thousands)
Actual value Projected value
50
landfilling work capacity will be exceeded, causing the site to revert to the state it was in prior to
rehabilitation. If waste continues to be carried in at this pace, the residual quantity will soon be run
down.
The issues facing waste treatment in Jakarta are described in the conclusion of Cleansing Summary 2010.
Realizing that too much waste is being carried to the existing final disposal site at Bantar Gebang and
that an environmental burden is being imparted, the authorities in Jakarta are searching for alternative
ways to mitigate the final disposal load.
B) Problems in Tangerang Regency
The final disposal site in Tangerang Regency conducts open dumping with hardly any earth covering,
and fermenting waste is left to combust spontaneously. Revision of pertinent legislation has made it
necessary to switch from open dumping to sanitary landfill by 2013, however, due to the difficulty of
acquiring covering materials and lack of experience in management technology, it will be very difficult
to effect improvement. Conversely, in Jati Waringin in Tangerang Regency, since there are no facilities
for receiving municipal wastes from Jakarta, no contribution can be expected with respect to the
rehabilitation of existing facilities through, for example, the economic effect and supply of covering
materials to existing final disposal sites described in the coming sections.
Incidentally, Chapter 4 discusses problems in terms of environmental and social consideration in greater
detail.
3.1.3 Effects and Impacts in Case of Project Implementation
The effects and impacts in the case where the project is implemented will be examined separately for
Jakarta, which is the source of generation of the target municipal waste, and Tangerang Regency, which is
where the project site is located.
(1) Effects and impacts in Jakarta
Project implementation will impart the following effect and impact factors in Jakarta.
a) The amount of waste landfilled in Bantar Gebang disposal site located in Bekasi to the east of
Jakarta will be decreased.
The effects and impacts of these factors will be as follows.
Not only will the amount of waste being landfilled at Bantar Gebang disposal site be decreased, but
since facilities will be constructed in the west of Jakarta as opposed to Bantar Gebang in the east, the
transportation efficiency of waste will be improved, waste transportation costs will be reduced, and
traffic congestion will be improved around Bantar Gebang. Moreover, this improvement in traffic
51
congestion will lead to improvement in air pollution arising from the exhaust gases of vehicles.
Furthermore, on Bantar Gebang disposal site, even though it is planned to switch from open dumping to
the more sanitary landfill approach, the site is unable to conduct earth covering on the same day due to
the large amounts of waste being carried in. However, since the amount of incoming waste will be
reduced as a result of the project, it will become possible to conduct same day earth cover, not to
mention the fact that a major effect can be expected in terms of extending the landfilling service life.
On the other hand, concern is raised over the negative impact of the project in that the reduction of
incoming municipal waste to Bantar Gebang disposal site will adversely affect the income of waste
pickers who make a living by collecting valuable wastes from the site and selling them. However, since
the waste pickers form an extensive organization, it is expected that the impact can be kept to a
minimum if the waste pickers move in line with the flow of waste.
(2) Effects and impacts in Tangerang Regency
Project implementation will impart the following effect and impact factors in Tangerang Regency.
a) Municipal wastes from not only Tangerang Regency but also Jakarta (1,500 t/d) will be carried into
Jati Waringin.
b) In Jati Waringin area, intermediate treatment facilities and a final disposal site for wastes from
Jakarta would be constructed next to a final disposal site next to the final disposal site owned by
Tangerang Regency. The new treatment and disposal site would be operated in an environmentally
sound manner.
The effects and impacts of these factors will be as follows.
Since Jati Waringinin Tangerang Regency will receive around 1,500 t/d of municipal waste from Jakarta,
the absolute quantity of valuable resources will increase and waste pickers will be able to earn greater
income. Here, it is necessary to consider that the waste pickers will lose their earnings from farming,
which accounts for 50% of their total income, due to the conversion of cultivated land to final disposal
site. Furthermore, since the facilities to be constructed will also serve to preserve the environment, they
will also contribute to limiting environmental impacts exerted by the existing final disposal site in
Tangerang Regency as far as their spare capacity goes. For example, through supplying manufactured
compost as cover material to the final disposal site in neighboring Tangerang Regency, this will help
facilitate the conversion of present open dumping to sanitary landfilling. In addition, it will become
possible to treated wastewater from plastic bag washing in the leachate treatment facilities and reuse the
treated water for washing plastics. Moreover, if compost products and RDF come to be locally utilized
with economic added value (improvement of cost effect of alternative materials), this will help generate
a social effect. Naturally, the creation of a new business in Tangerang Regency will impart economic
benefits. In the future, it is possible that the facility here will become a receptacle for the treatment and
52
disposal of municipal wastes in Tangerang Regency.
Meanwhile, in Jati Waringin in Tangerang Regency, concern is raised over the increase in municipal
waste transport vehicle traffic, resulting traffic congestion and environmental impact of exhaust gases,
etc. For this reason, it will be necessary to consider increase in transport efficiency, etc.
3.1.4 Comparison with Possible Options Other than the Proposed Project
Other possible options apart from the proposed system are as indicated in the next table. One option is to
not manufacture and sell combustibles (including plastics) after manual sorting as RDF and to landfill
them instead (herein after referred to as CASE 2. CASE 1 and CASE 2 are compared in order to evaluate
the impact of investments related to construction of RDF manufacturing facilities (Table 3.1.8).
below assuming inexpensive appropriate treatment and disposal in consideration of environmental
conservation. Comparison is carried out with the project.
In carrying out examination, general assessment will be carried out starting with the conceptual design
from section 3.3 onwards and entailing the environmental and social consideration examination in Chapter
4 and financial analysis in Chapter 5.
Table 3.1.8 Comparison between the Project and Other Options Transfer and secondary
transport Intermediate treatment Final disposal
Case 1 The Project Not included (primary
transportation by Jakarta)
MBT facilities, composting facilities, RDF manufacturing facilities
Semi-aerobic structure managed final disposal site Case 2 MBT facilities, composting
facilities (Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
53
3.2 Examinations Necessary for Determining the Project Contents,
etc. 3.2.1 Demand Forecast
Concerning demand forecast, as was mentioned in section 3.1.2(2), through assessing the validity of the
Jakarta Cleansing Bureau’s projected amount of waste generation of 9,200 t/d in 2030, the demand in 2030
as forecast. Meanwhile, according to Table 3.1.5, the scale of facilities according to the latest plan is a total
5,000 t/d, comprising 1,000 t/d at Cakung Cilincing, 1,000 t/d at Sunter and 3,000 t/d at Bantar Gebang,
while an additional 2,000 t/d at Marunda and 1,500 t/d Tangerang Regency can be secured to make a total
of 8,500 t/d. However, since there is still no prospect of acquiring the necessary site land at Marunda, the
plans here have little likelihood of coming to fruition. Therefore, in order to at least secure treatment
capacity of 6,200 t/d in the immediate future, it is important to implement the development plans at
Cakung Cilincing, Sunter and Bantar Gebang as well as the project plan in Tangerang Regency. Doing so
will make it possible to secure facilities with capacity of 6,500 t/d for the time being.
In short, it is clear that there are demands in Jakarta for the project .
3.2.2 Grasping and Analysis of the Necessary Issues for Examining and Deciding the Project Contents
The necessary issues for examining and deciding the project contents are as follows:
a) Tipping fees sought from Jakarta (Rp/t)
b) Demand for compost
c) Demand for RDF
d) Sales of electricity generated from RDF
e) Transportation efficiency improvement effect
f) Acquisition of land
These issues are grasped and analyzed in the manner described below.
(1) Tipping fees sought from Jakarta (Rp/t)
It is necessary to grasp the cost that can be borne by Jakarta for the project. According to the Jakarta
Cleansing Bureau, the tipping fee for Cakung Cilincing, where sorting and composting is carried out, is
149,000 Rp/t, and this is set to rise to 189,000 Rp/t following introduction of MBT, etc. Incidentally,
when incineration facilities are constructed in Sunter , the tipping fee will be 400,000 Rp/t (upper limit).
In the project system, since MBT is included, tipping fee of 189,000 Rp/t can be expected.
(2) Demand for compost
It is necessary to grasp the level of demand for compost manufactured in the project. The advance
54
facilities at Cakung Cilincing and Bantar Gebang sell the compost derived from waste to farmers, etc.
There is expected to be latent demand for compost providing that the necessary quality can be secured.
Demand is also expected for maintenance of vegetation in public facilities and maintenance of lawns
and vegetation on golf courses and so on. Moreover, in line with the prohibition of open dumping from
2013, there is expected to be demand as covering material for conducting sanitary landfill on final
disposal sites. It is estimated that the present final disposal site in Tangerang Regency adjoining the
project site will generate demand of 140 t/d (=800 m3/d x 0.35÷0.5 t/m3).
(3) Demand for RDF
It is necessary to grasp the level of demand for RDF manufactured in the project. The present municipal
waste treatment facilities at Cakung Cilincing and Bantar Gebang have expressed an interest in RDF
manufacture, but before that there is expected to be demand for RDF as raw fuel at cement plants. There
are four cement plants in Jakarta and these are expected to be promising sources of demand. The basis
for assuming this is described in section 3.1.1. According to a cement plant in Bogor Province to the
south of Jakarta, it intends to convert 20% of its coal requirement to non-coal fuel, while RDF is
purchased from communities at 150 Rp/kg as part of CSR, and this demand is expected to continue and
grow in future. Further, it has been identified that a cement factory in Jakarta is ready to purchase RDF
at 375 Rp/kg.
Moreover, a thermal power station is located on the coast 10 km northwest of the project site, and it is
expected that this will also utilize RDF due to higher demand for alternatives to fossil fuels against the
backdrop of global warming countermeasures and increased demand for energy.
(4) Sales of electricity generated from RDF
As demand for RDF has been identified, it is indispensable that the revenue from RDF power generation
exceeds the revenue from sales of RDF.
The balance of RDF power generation operation can be calculated as follows:
a. Generated electricity (per 1t of RDF): 20MJ/kg (equivalent to low-quality coal)×1,000 kg/t×
0.25 (power generation efficiency)÷3.6MJ/kWh = 1,042 kWh/t
b. Unit price of electricity: 1,000 Rp/kWh (8.6yen/khW, when 1Rp = 0.0086yen)
c. Depreciation related to RDF power generation plant construction cost: 30 million yen/t ÷
(365 days×20 years) = 4,100yen/t
d. Operation and maintenance cost: 1,500yen/t
e. Interest rate related to construction cost: 1,600yen/t (when 30 million yen is borrowed for
interest rate of 5% for 15 years and payment is equal monthly payment of principal)
f. Disposal cost of incineration reside: 1t×0.1 (ash generation ratio)×1,200yen/t = 120yen/t
g. Balance: (a-b)×c-(d+e+f+g) = deficit of 80yen/t
55
From the results above, 80 yen of deficit will occur per 1t of RDF. As demand has been identified for
RDF, for the moment, the scope of the project will include only up to manufacturing and sales of RDF.
However, in the future, RDF power generation may become economically feasible depending on the
following conditions:
i) Increase in selling price of electricity
ii) Improvement in power generation efficiency
iii) Reduction of cost for construction, operation and maintenance of RDF power generation
plant
iv) Provision of subsidies
v) Decline in interest rate
(5) Transportation efficiency improvement effect
It is necessary grasp the transportation improvement effect that will be realized as a result of project
implementation. In particular, since West Jakarta City is located furthest away from the present Bantar
Gebang final disposal site, transporting waste from here will incur a large cost and much time, even if it
passes through the facilities at Sunter (current transfer station being prepared for construction of
incineration facilities). Accordingly, since the project intends to locate treatment and disposal facilities
on the west side of Jakarta, its implementation can be expected to have the greatest improvement effect.
This effect is estimated in the following paragraphs.
A) Improvement effect due to Project implementation (no transfer station)
The transportation improvement effect in the case where the project is implemented without a transfer
station was estimated based on the unit cost (Rp/t) from transportation to disposal targeting the
municipal waste generated in West Jakarta. In specific terms, comparison was carried out between the
case where 1,500 t/d of municipal waste in West Jakarta is directly transported to the project site as
primary transport, and the case where the waste is transported to Bantar Gebang final disposal site after
passing through the planned incineration facility at Sunter (existing plan). Figure 3.2.1 shows the
comparative cases and conditions (required time and running distances).
56
Figure 3.2.1A Conditions for Comparison of Transportation Improvement Effect in Case of
Project Implementation without the Transfer Station
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
Table 3.2.1B Comparison of improvement in transport when this project is implemented without
transfer station
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report based on data from Google Map)
The various conditions are summarized in Table 3.2.1.
Jakarta Barat
ITF-Sunter
TPA-Bantar GebangTPA-Jati Waringin
Transport under this project(Without transfer station)
Existing plans for transport(Planned incinerration facility)
34km
20km
31km1hour
2hours2.1hours
JakartaBarat
Jati Waringin Sunter
Duri Kosambi
Bantar Gebang
57
Table 3.2.1 Conditions for Examining the Transportation Improvement Effect in the Case where
the Project is Implemented without the Base Station Item Unit Value
Primary transport
Loaded capacity m3 7Loaded unit volumetric capacity t/m3 0.25Vehicles purchase cost Million Rp/vehicle 550Depreciation period Years 10Light diesel oil cost Rp/liter 4,300Fuel consumotion km/ liter 3Number of personnel People 6Personnel expenses Rp/man-months 1,540,000
Secondary transport
Vehicle purchase cost Million Rp/vehicle 2,200Depreciation period Year 10Light diesel oil cost Rp/liter 4,300Fuel cost km/ liter 2Number of personnel Persons 1Personnel expenses Rp/man-month 2,002,000
Incineration cost Rp/t 360,000Ratio of maintenance cost compared to purchase cost - 0.2This project tipping fee Rp/t 189,000
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
The examination procedure is as indicated below, while Table 3.2.2 shows the examination process and
findings.
Unit cost (Rp/t) from transportation to disposal = Transportation unit cost + Treatment and Disposal
unit cost
Where,
Disposal unit cost: Incineration tipping fee (Including disposal cost) (360,000 Rp/t)
This project tipping fee (Rp/t) = 189,000 Rp/t
Transportation unit cost (Rp/t) = (vehicle depreciation cost + maintenance cost + fuel cost + personnel
expenses) ÷1,500
Vehicle depreciation cost (Rp/d) = Required number of vehicles x vehicle purchase cost ÷
depreciation years ÷ 365 x 1.2
Required number of vehicles = (Amount of waste ÷ Load per vehicle x 1-way travel time x 2) ÷
1 day operating hours
Maintenance cost (Rp/d) = Vehicle depreciation cost x ratio of maintenance cost to purchase
Fuel cost (Rp/d) = (waste amount ÷ loaded amount per vehicle x 1-way travel distance x 2) ÷
fuel cost x fuel unit cost
Personnel expenses (Rp/d) ÷ fuel cost ÷ depreciation years ÷ 365 x 1.2
58
Table 3.2.2 Results of Estimation of Transportation Improvement Effect Due to Project
Implementation (No transfer station)
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
According to the above table, the transportation cost will fall to 390,000 Rp/t compared to 465,000 Rp/t
in the case of passage through the planned incineration facilities at Sunter. Therefore, project
implementation will make it possible to reduce cost by approximately 16%.
B) Improvement effect due to project implementation (with transfer station)
The transportation improvement effect in the case where the project is implemented with a transfer
station was estimated based on the unit cost (Rp/t) from transportation to disposal targeting the
municipal waste generated in West Jakarta. In specific terms, based on the assumption that a transfer
station is constructed in Duri Kosambi, comparison was carried out between the case where 1,500 t/d of
municipal waste in West Jakarta is transported to the project site via this transfer station, and the case
where the waste is transported to Bantar Gebang final disposal site after passing through the planned
incineration facility at Sunter (existing plan). Figure 3.2.2 shows the comparative cases and conditions
(required time and running distances).
Project Existing plans Project Existing plans Project Existing plans
Waste (t/day) 1,500 1,500 150Loading capacity (t/vehicle) 1.75 1.75 20
(km) 34 20 31(hours) 2.1 1 2
Total time (hours) 3,600 1,714.30 30Total distance (km) 58,286 34,286 465Total vehicles (No.) 450 215 4
Cost of vehicles (Million Rp/day) 67.808 32.397 2.411Maintenance (Million Rp/day) 13.562 6.479 0.482
Fuel (Million Rp/day) 83.543 49.143 1Personnel (Million Rp/day) 136.701 65.313 0.263
Average dailytransport cost
(Million Rp/day) 301.614 153.332 4.156 301.614 157.488
Unit cost oftransport
(1,000Rp/t) 201 105
Loading ortreatment
(1,000Rp/t)
Cost for landfill (1,000Rp/t)
Unit cost (1,000Rp/t) 390 465
Primary transport
360
Item Total
189
Primary transport Secondary transport
59
Figure 3.2.2A Conditions for Comparison of Transportation Improvement Effect in Case of
Project Implementation with the Transfer Station
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
Figure 3.2.2A Comparison of improvement in transport when this project is implemented with
transfer station
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report based on data from Google Map)
The various conditions are summarized in Table 3.2.3.
Jakarta Barat
ITF -Sunter
TPA -Bantar
SPA -Duri Kosambi(Under study)
TPA -Jati Waringin
Transport under this project (with transfer station)
Existing plans for transport
20km
1hour
5km
0.25hour30km1.9hours
2hour
31km
(planned incineration facility)
Jati WaringinSunter
Duri Kosambi
Bantar Gebang
Jakarta Barat
60
Table 3.2.3 Conditions for Examining the Transportation Improvement Effect in the Case where
the Project is Implemented with the Base Station Item Unit Value
Primary transport
Loaded capacity m3 7Loaded unit volumetric capacity t/m3 0.25Vehicles purchase cost Million Rp/vehicle 550Depreciation period Years 10Light diesel oil cost Rp/liter 4,300Fuel cost km/L 3Number of personnel People 6Personnel expenses Rp/man-months 1,540,000
Secondary transport
Vehicle purchase cost Million Rp/vehicle 2,200Depreciation period Year 10Light diesel oil cost Rp/liter 4,300Fuel cost km/L 2Number of personnel Persons 1Personnel expenses Rp/man-month 2,002,000
Reloading cost Rp/t 90,000Incineration cost Rp/t 360,000Ratio of maintenance cost compared to purchase cost - 0.2
This project tipping fee Rp/t 189,000(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
The examination procedure is basically the same as was described above, but the items entailed in
having the transfer station are taken into account in the following formula. Table 3.2.4 shows the
examination process and results.
Unit cost (Rp/t) from transportation to disposal = Transportation unit cost + Reloading cost +
Treatment and Disposal unit cost
Where,
Reloading cost: 90,000 Rp/t
61
Table 3.2.4 Results of Estimation of Transportation Improvement Effect Due to Project
Implementation (With transfer station)
(Source: Prepared by authors of this report)
According to the above table, the transportation cost will fall to 330,000 Rp/t compared to 465,000 Rp/t
in the case of passage through the planned incineration facilities at Sunter. Therefore, Project
implementation will make it possible to reduce cost by approximately 30%.
Furthermore, in A) and B) above, when comparing the cases of project implementation with and without
the transfer station, whereas the unit cost in the case without the transfer station is 390,000 Rp/t, that in
the case with the transfer station is330,000 Rp/t. Therefore, it will be important to establish the transfer
station.
(6) Acquisition of land
The business scheme of this project includes acquisition of land. When acquiring land, it is planned that
an investment company would jointly be established with a local company. However, following issues
exist.
i) Consensus of the land owners
ii) Consensus of the land owners
In order to solve issue (i), as the purpose of the land acquisition is in accordance with the land use plan,
support of the local authorities will be sought, and the environmental and social considerations would be
explained to the landowners. In order to solve issue (ii), actual limitations would be identified through
legal experts. Regarding issue (ii), it has been already confirmed that it should not hinder the
implementation of the project itself.
3.2.3 Examination of Technical Methods
Alternative (competitive) technologies and systems for the project proposed technologies and systems are
Project Existing plans Project Existing plans Project Existing plans
Waste (t/day) 1500 1500 1500 150Loading capacity (t/vehicle) 1.75 1.75 20 20
(km) 5 20 30 31(hours) 0.25 1 1.9 2
Total time (hours) 428.6 1714.3 285 30Total distance (km) 8571 34286 4500 465Total vehicles (No.) 54 215 36 4
Cost of vehicles (Million Rp/day) 8.137 32.397 21.699 2.411Maintenance (Million Rp/day) 1.627 6.479 4.34 0.482
Fuel (Million Rp/day) 12.285 49.143 9.675 1Personnel (Million Rp/day) 16.404 65.313 2.369 0.263
Average dailytransport cost (Million Rp/day) 38.453 153.332 38.083 4.156 76.536 157.488Unit cost of
transport(1,000Rp/t) 51 105
Loading ortreatment
(1,000Rp/t) 90
Cost for landfill (1,000Rp/t) 189Unit cost (1,000Rp/t) 330 465
Primary transport
360
Item TotalPrimary transport Secondary transport
62
as follows. With respect to these, the following sections describe the superiority and validity of the
technologies and systems proposed in the project, and compatibility with related infrastructure and systems,
etc.
a) Incineration (waste power generation) + managed final disposal site: Comparison of superiority,
validity and compatibility of the MBT + composting + RDF with respect to incineration technology
b) Methane fermentation + RDF + managed disposal site: Comparison of superiority,
validity and compatibility of composting with respect to methane fermentation
(1) Comparison of superiority, validity and compatibility of the MBT + composting + RDF with respect to
incineration technology
A) Outline of incineration technology
Incineration technology entails incinerating organic wastes at high temperature and thereby converting
them into a large amount of stabilized gases and a small amount of stabilized inorganic matter. Within
various intermediate treatment technologies, incineration technology has the greatest volume reducing
effect, thereby contributing to extending the life of final disposal sites. Moreover, incineration prevents
the putrefaction of organic waste and has a sterilizing effect. The heat collected from incineration can be
used for power generation or be supplied to surrounding facilities, while substitution of fossil fuels
contributes to reduction of CO2.
Introduction of incineration technology is highly valid in cases where it is impossible to locate a final
disposal site for waste from the local area. However, concerning exhaust gases that have an adverse
environmental impact such as highly toxic dioxin, etc., it is necessary to establish appropriate exhaust
gas treatment facilities, conduct the incineration management of waste and implement appropriate
operation and maintenance. In many large cities of advanced countries, such facilities are used as core
intermediate treatment facilities in waste treatment.
B) Merits
The merits of incineration technology are as follows:
a) Volume reduction effect is large.
b) Strict separation and discharge are not needed.
c) Effects are large in terms of organic waste putrefaction prevention and sterilization
C) Demerits
The demerits of incineration technology are as follows.
a) Construction costs and operation
63
b) Operation and maintenance require technology and experience
c) Fly ash which include heavy metals would be generated, which cannot be directly landfilled
D) Comparison in terms of superiority, validity and compatibility in the project
In order to utilize the volume reduction effect, which is the advantage of incineration technology, it is
necessary to locate the facility as close to the place of waste generation as possible. In other words,
through reducing volume at the generation point and transporting residues to the final disposal site, it is
possible to reduce the transportation cost. Feasibility is assessed through considering how far the effects
in terms of transportation cost reduction and disposal site life extension can cover the demerits of high
construction costs and operation and maintenance costs.
In order to overcome the demerit of high construction costs and operation and maintenance costs, it is
necessary to reduce costs based on localized procurement of equipment and to raise the ability to bear
costs. When this is examined in terms of per capita GDP, in Tokyo, combustion technology was
introduced in the 1990s when the per capita GDP rose to 20,000 USD. In the case of Jakarta, since per
capita GDP currently stands at 7,000 USD per year, it may be still too early to entirely introduce
incineration technology. When predicting the timing for future introduction of incineration technology
based on cost bearing capacity, in the case where the per capita GDP of Jakarta indicates the same
behavior that it did in Tokyo in the 1980s and 1990s (approximately 8,000 USD in the 1970s, 14,000
USD in the 1980s and 20,000 USD in the 1990s), it is predicted that 20 years from now in 2030 will be
an appropriate time. Incidentally, the upper limit for the tipping fee in the incineration facility
construction project (1,500 t/d) that Jakarta is preparing for tender is 400,000 Rp/t (currently, the cost
bearing capacity of Jakarta goes no further than bearing the cost of incinerating 1,500 t/d out of 6,200 t/d
of generated waste; moreover, it is likely to be difficult to secure site land in the waste generation area).
Considering the characteristics of available expansive sites, the MBT + Compost + RDF system
proposed in the project utilizes simple and cheap technology over a wide area to recover and sell
recyclable resources and then to properly dispose of residues at a semi-aerobic structure managed final
disposal site. For this reason, upon considering the site location characteristics and the cost bearing
capacity of Jakarta municipal authorities (the manager of the target municipal waste), a feasible
technology and system are proposed. Moreover, the semi-aerobic structure final disposal site will realize
the early stabilization of waste due to adopting semi-aerobic rather than anaerobic landfill, and it will
enable the early utilization of the site. This structure has a similar effect regarding incineration ash too,
and it enables a bigger effect to be obtained in the landfill of non-combusted wastes.
The fly ash that will be generated from incineration would contain hazardous substances such as heaby
metals. Therefore, management techniques should be applied for proper treatment (e.g. chemical
treatment) before putting it into landfill.
64
(2) Comparison of superiority, validity and compatibility of composting with respect to methane
fermentation
A) Outline of methane fermentation technology
Methane fermentation entails fermenting organic wastes with high water content in an anaerobic
environment at constant temperature, and recovering biogases comprising mainly methane and carbon
dioxide. The recovered biogases are utilized as fuel for supplying heat and generating power.
Following recovery of biogas, digestion fluid that includes unfermented degradable solids and
non-degradable solids remains as residue. These substances require separate treatment. However, if the
conditions are right, there are cases where solids-liquid separation is conducted, wastes are adjusted or
composted for utilization on farmland, etc.
B) Merits
The merits of methane fermentation are as follows.
a) Methane fermentation is technically simple.
b) If the residual digestion fluid can be effectively used, the final disposal quantity is reduced to
the materials that are inappropriate for methane fermentation and it is relatively cheaper in
terms of construction cost and operation and maintenance cost too.
C) Demerits
The demerits of methane fermentation are as follows.
a) It is necessary to separately discharge organic wastes.
b) It is necessary to conduct pretreatment geared to screening inappropriate items that infiltrate
the organic wastes.
c) In cases where it is necessary to treat digestion fluids, the construction costs and operation and
maintenance costs become expensive.
D) Comparison in terms of superiority, validity and compatibility in the project
The assessment of methane fermentation technology greatly differs according to the way that digestion
fluid is handled. If it is necessary to treat the digestion fluid, costs arise in the construction, operation
and maintenance of treatment facilities. Meanwhile, there are cases where digestion fluid is utilized as
liquid fertilizer, however, these are extremely limited and risks arise out of quality fluctuations
compared to solid fertilizers.
Concerning this point, the compost proposed in the project will be retailed to farmers and so on in
Cakung Cilincing and Bantar Gebang. Such cases already exist. Moreover, it is anticipated that demand
will arise as cover material for sanitary landfill as a countermeasure to open dumping that will be
prohibited in 2013. Moreover, since wastes will undergo primary fermentation in the MBT process, the
65
subsequent composting of organic waste will become a maturation process (secondary fermentation),
thereby enabling rational system operation with mitigation of the operation load and so on.
Below is the comparison of material flow and cost of compost and methane fermentation of organic
wastes among MSW that the project will handle. According to the comparison, it can be said that the
composting process is more suitable for the wastes rather than the methane fermentation process,
because methane fermentation facilities will cost more than double the cost for composting facilities.
Figure 3.2.3 Material Flow of Composting and Methane Fermentation Process of Organic Wastes
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
625 t/d
790 t/d 165 t/d
75,537 Nm3/d 170 t/d
790 t/d 277 t/d 107 t/d
2,480 m3/d1,414 m3/d
1,066 m3/d
Composting
Organic wastes Product
Decomposition/evaporation
For sales andcover soil
Methane Fermentation
Organic wastes Fermentation residue
Biogas
Supernatant
Composting
Effluent
Returningdillution water
Decomposition/evaporation
Product
For sales andcover soil
66
Table 3.2.5 Cost Comparison of Composting and Methane Fermentation Process of Organic Wastes Item Composting Process Methane Fermentation Process *3
Revenue 0*1 1,000 yen/y 402,814*2 1,000 yen/y Expenditure Construction cost 3,950,000 1,000 yen 15,800,000 1,000 yen
Life of facility 20 years 20 years Annual depreciation 197,500 1,000 yen/y 790,000 1,000 yen/y Operation, maintenance, management cost 276,500 1,000 yen/y 790,000 1,000 yen/y Total expenditure 474,000 1,000 yen/y 1,580,000 1,000 yen/y
Balance -474,000 1,000 yen/y -1,177,186 1,000 yen/y NOTE:
*1 Considered to be zero for the sake of simplicity
*2 Revenue from selling excess power (8.9 yen/kWh) when power is generated from collected biogas
(25 % efficiency)
*3 Although composting process follows the methane fermentation process in Figure 3.2.3, its cost was not
included here for the sake of simplicity
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
67
3.3 Outline of the Project Planning
3.3.1 Basic Policies in Determining the Project Contents
(1)Basic principal and evaluation index
The basic principal for the determination of the content of the project is the realization of an environmental
friendly treatment and disposal systems of municipal waste that can be achieved at low cost. Hence, this
project aims to achieve a low environmental load as compared to the present while at the same time
preserving the economic merit. As concrete index for evaluation, emission amount of GHG and tipping fee
required for the establishment of the project are considered.
(2) Prerequisite for the determination of project content
The following are set as prerequisites,
A) Target waste amount
As indicated in Chapter 3 (3.1), the target waste amount is 1,500 t/d. It includes 1,300 t/d of household
waste and 200 t/d of market waste
B)Waste composition
Regarding the composition of waste, data from “Outline of Jakarta Cleaning Operations 2010” and
SAPROF data have been used to set the ratio of wet-weight composition and article wise
three-component data from “Design scheme of waste treatment facilities of Japan” has been used to set
the ratio of dry-weight composition.
Table 3.3.1 Waste composition ratio of household waste (wet-weight ratio) Composition
itemWet weight
ratioMoisture content
Ash component
Combustible content
Organic(kitchen waste) 50% 70.0% 10.0% 20.0%
Plastic 15% 20.0% 17.0% 63.0%Paper 23% 40.0% 6.1% 53.9%Wood 1% 35.0% 4.0% 61.0%Clothes and textile 1% 35.0% 5.0% 60.0%
Metal 1% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Glass 2% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Others 7% 30.0% 65.0% 5.0%Sum/Total 100.% 50.0% 16.6% 33.4%
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report using data obtained from “Outline of Jakarta Cleaning
Operations 2010”, “SAPROF” and “Design scheme of waste treatment facilities of Japan”)
68
Table 3.3.2 Planned waste composition ratio (dry weight ratio) of household waste Composition
itemPlanned
valueMoisture content Ash content Combustible
content Organic(kitchen waste) 15.0% 35.00% 5.00% 10.00%Plastic 12.0% 3.00% 2.55% 9.45%Paper 13.8% 9.20% 1.40% 12.40%Wood 0.7% 0.35% 0.04% 0.61%Clothes and textile 0.7% 0.35% 0.05% 0.60%Metal 1.0% 0.00% 1.00% 0.00%Glass 2.0% 0.00% 2.00% 0.00%Others 4.8% 2.10% 4.55% 0.35%Sum/Total 50.0% 50.00% 16.59% 33.41%Moisture content 50.0%
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report using data obtained from “Outline of Jakarta Cleaning
Operations 2010”, “SAPROF” and “Design scheme of waste treatment facilities of Japan”)
Table 3.3.3 Waste composition ratio (wet-weight ratio) of market waste
Composition
item
wet-weight
ratio Moisture content Ash content Combustible
content
Organic(kitchen waste) 70% 70.0% 10.0% 20.0%
Plastic 5% 20.0% 17.0% 63.0%
Paper 5% 40.0% 6.1% 53.9%
Wood 5% 35.0% 4.0% 61.0%Clothes and textile 5% 35.0% 5.0% 60.0%
Metal 5% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0%
Glass 2.5% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0%
Others 2.5% 30.0% 65.0% 5.0%
Sum/Total 100% 56.3% 17.7% 26.0%
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report using data obtained from “Outline of Jakarta Cleaning
Operations 2010”, “SAPROF” and “Design scheme of waste treatment facilities of Japan”)
69
Table 3.3.4 Planned waste composition ratio (dry-weight ratio) of market waste
Composition
item
Planned
value Moisture content Ash content Combustible
content
Organic(kitchen waste) 21.0% 49.00% 7.00% 14.00%
Plastic 4.0% 1.00% 0.85% 3.15%
Paper 3.0% 2.00% 0.31% 2.70%
Wood 3.3% 1.75% 0.20% 3.05%Clothes and textile 3.3% 1.75% 0.25% 3.00%
Metal 5.0% 0.00% 5.00% 0.00%
Glass 2.5% 0.00% 2.50% 0.00%
Others 1.6% 0.75% 1.63% 0.13%
Sum/Total 43.7% 56.25% 17.74% 26.03%
Moisture
content 56.3%
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report using data obtained from “Outline of Jakarta Cleaning
Operations 2010”, “SAPROF” and “Design scheme of waste treatment facilities of Japan”)
C) Treatment system flow and material balance
The treatment system flow of this project is shown in figure 3.3.1 and 3.3.2. In all the subject cases,
separate systems exist for the household waste and market waste for the steps of intake, shredding,
fermentation, segregation and composting. For the steps of RDF manufacture after segregation (only
case 1) and landfilling (case 1 and case 2 common), waste from both the systems are mixed.
70
Figure 3.3.1 Treatment system flow (case 1)
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
Figure 3.3.2 Treatment system flow (case 2)
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
D) Collection of valuables
In the landfill site located at Tangerang, which lies adjacent to the project site, as explained in 4.1.1,
collection of valuables like plastic bags is being carried out by waste pickers (the collection ratio of 14
t/d is roughly 10% of the total waste intake into the landfill (150 t/d). In this project, collection of
valuables will utilize these pre existing collection methods. The items to be collected, as indicated in
table 4.1.6, are plastics, iron products, aluminum products, cans, glasses, sandals and light bulbs.
Fermentation Composting(Productiion)
Recyclable Selling
Residue
Soil amelioration
household waste
MagneticSeparator
Mechanical sortingManual Sorting
Bag Breaker
Fermentationmarketwaste
MagneticSeparator
Mechanical sorting
Bag Breaker
Final Disposal
Composting(Productiion) Soil amelioration
MBT
MBT
Cement Factory
Fermentation Composting(Productiion)
Recyclable Selling
Residue
Soil amelioration
household waste
MagneticSeparator
Mechanical sortingManual Sorting
Bag Breaker
Fermentationmarketwaste
MagneticSeparator
Mechanical sorting
Bag Breaker
RDF Productiion
Final Disposal
Composting(Productiion) Soil amelioration
MBT
MBT
71
E) Product specification
In this project, municipal waste will be used for composting and manufacturing of RDF (case 1). The
product specification of compost will comply with the composting standard of Indonesia which has been
set by SNI 19-7030-2004 GPSCDOR as shown in 1.2.3. The compost manufactured from the market
waste will be manufactured using a separate line from the organic waste collected from households. It is
aimed that the compost will be sold in markets as in the case of the example of Tangerang.
F) Environmental measures
F1) Noise
In the boundary of the project premises, the sound level will satisfy the standard of 70dB, which is the
standard for commercial/industrial/recreational facilities land use category as specified in the 1996
Decree of the State Minister for Environment of Republic of Indonesia concerning Noise Level (refer
1.2.3).
F2) Vibration
In the boundary of the project premises, the vibration level will satisfy the “no impacts” standard as
specified in the Decree of the State Minister for Environment of Republic of Indonesia concerning
Vibration Level (refer 1.2.3).
F3) Odor
In the boundary of the project premises, the odor level will satisfy the standard as specified in the 1996
Decree of the State Minister for Environment of Republic of Indonesia concerning Offensive Odor.
F4) Water quality
The items to be landfilled include the residue after the segregation/collection of valuables, organic waste
and combustible case (case 1) or the residue after the segregation/collection of valuables and organics
(case 2). In this case it can be assumed that a portion of organic waste will be present in a mixed state
with the residue. Hence, the leachate quality from the landfill will be set, as a safety measure, under the
assumption that organic matter has been mixed with the residue. The quality of pre-treated leachate has
been set using data from landfills where organic waste have been directly landfilled, as shown in table
3.3.5. The water quality of treated leachate will meet the effluent standards which apply for leachate
from final disposal sites in Indonesia (set by the Guidelines on Sanitary Landfills).
72
Table 3.3.5 Standard of treated and pre-treatment leachate from landfills
Item Pre-treatment
leachate quality
Treated leachate quality
Stanadrd Planned under the
project pH 5.0~9.0 6.0~9.0 6.0~9.0
BOD 4,000mg/liter 150mg/liter 100mg/liter
COD 1,000mg/liter 300mg/liter 100mg/liter
SS 500mg/liter 400mg/liter 50mg/liter
T-N 350mg/liter 38mg/liter 35mg/liter
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report based on Guidelines on Sanitary Landfills)
3.3.2 Conceptual Design and Specifications of Applicable Equipment
(1) Intermediate treatment facility
A) Material balance and conceptual design
Taking into account the treatment system flow as shown in figures 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 and considering the
performance and treatment mechanism, material balance, as shown in figures 3.3.3 and 3.3.4 is proposed
and considered.
73
Figure 3.3.3 Material balance flow (CASE 1)
(Source: Prepared by the authors of the report)
Figure 3.3.4 Material balance flow (CASE 2)
(Source: Prepared by the authors of the report)
The conceptual design of the respective processes is shown below.
a) Manual segregation (household waste)
Manual segregation targeting household waste will be carried out by three groups of existing 400 waste
pickers. This will result in the collection of valuables like plastics, iron or aluminum products, cans,
glass etc present in household waste with a purity of 100% and a recovery rate of 35%.
74
b) Fermentation (household waste and market waste. Different systems)
During fermentation, breakdown of organic matter and the evaporation of water content due to
decomposition heat (exothermic reaction) will result in reduction of volume. The evaporation of the
water content due to decomposition heat will result also in the evaporation of water content that is
included in inorganic waste that does not decompose during the fermentation process.
Table 3.3.6 Decomposition rate and decomposition heat from the organic component
Item Decomposition ratio of
solid component
Decomposition heat of
solid component
Kitchen waste 30% 18.8MJ/kg
Other organic waste 20% 11.5MJ/kg
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
c) Compost (Household waste and market waste. Different systems)
As opposed to fermentation as explained in b) above which is considered as the primary fermentation
process where air is introduced to prepare an aerobic environment which promotes fermentation,
compost is prepared from the secondary fermentation process whereby the organic matter prepared as a
result of the primary fermentation process is matured to produce a compost product.
B) Specification of the major equipments.
Equipment specification of the intermediate treatment facility is shown in table 3.3.7.
Table 3.3.7 Equipment specification of the intermediate treatment facility
No Process Major equipments, devices Specification
1 Waste intake and storage
Building (Concrete floor)
Length 200m×Width 480m Total equipment inspection: 7days/inspection = Retention days: 7 days/inspection
2 Bag shredding Bag breaker Treatment capacity: 80m3/h
Treatment capacity: 3.7×5.5kW
3 Manual segregation Conveyer 3m Width×60m×8 rows
4 Magnetic segregation
Magnetic segregation
5
Fermentation Building (concrete floor)
Length 260m×Width 500m Space for 14 days storage: 14,760t
Wheel loader Volume of packet 1.5m3 compost turning capacity about 200m3 per hour, 30 in number
Conveyer No 1 200m×1m width×1 row Conveyer No 2 500m×1m width×1row
6 Mechanical segregation
Mechanical segregation
Treatment amount 261.88m3/h (16h treatment)
7 RDF manufacture (only for CASE 1)
Compacting and bailing
480 t/d
75
No Process Major equipments, devices Specification
8 Compost manufacture
Building (Concrete Floor not required)
Length 90m×Width 180m Space for 14 days worth storage : 2,310t
NOTE: (Conceptual design) if the time to pick up in packets, move it and unload it is considered to be
about 1 minute, the operating efficiency can be estimated from the volume of the packet. The average
efficiency of tractors and skid loaders for turning is from about 15 to 54m3/h. Wheel loaders have excellent
turning performance and have a large hydraulic lift that makes them preferable to tractors from the
viewpoint of ease of work. The compost turning efficiency for a wheel loader using packet volume of
1.5m3 is equal to 200m3/h.
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
The treatment system flow expressed above is shown in the figure below as reference.
Reference: Detailed Treatment System Flow of Principal Facilities
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
(2) Final Disposal Site Landfill
A. Landfill development plan
According to the geological survey, ground in the landfill site partially comprises a thin sandy surface
layer, while the majority comprises silt clay. In order to secure landfill above the groundwater layer,
the land will be excavated to 2.5 m, and banking of similar height will be built in order to make a
landfill that is 5 m deep. In consideration of seepage control works, the shape of site creation has been
configured based on the banking slope gradient geared to securing uniformity of the slope structure.
76
According to the following table, the banking slope gradient of landfill is prescribed as 1:1.8~1:2.0
for soft clay, although this applies to structures that are no more than 5 m high. In the Project, when
raised landfill slope is included, since the structure will be more than 15 m high, gradient of 1:2.5 has
been set. Also considering the possibility that compost will be utilized as covering material, the slope
gradient has been set at a gentle angle to further enhance safety.
Table 3.3.8 Banking Slope Gradient
Banking Material Banking Height Gradient Remarks
Good particle size sand (SW) Gravel or sand mixed with gravel (GM) (GC) (GW) (GP)
Less than 5m 1:1.5~1:1.8 Apply when the foundation ground has adequate bearing capacity and there is no risk of water infiltration of banking. The unified classifications in parentheses “( )” indicate representative types.
5~15m 1:1.8~1:2.0
Poor particle size sand (SP) Less than 10m 1:1.8~1:2.0
Rocks (including earth) Less than
10m 1:1.5~1:1.8
10~20m 1:1.8~1:2.0 Sandy soil (SM) (SC), hard clayey soil, hard clay (hard diluvial clayey soil, clay, Kanto loam, etc.)
Less than 5m 1:1.5~1:1.8
5~10m 1:1.6~1:2.0
Soft clayey soil Less than 5m 1:1.8~1:2.0
Note) Banking height refers to the height difference between top of slope and foot of slope. Source: “Guidelines on Planning, Design and Management of Waste Disposal Site Construction” (Japan Waste Management Association)
77
Table 3.3.9 Cutting Slope Gradient
Ground Soil Quality Cutting Height Gradient
Hard rock 1:0.3~1:0.8Soft rock 1:0.5~1:1.2
Sand Unconsolidated sand with poor particle size distribution 1:1.5~
Sandy soil Consolidated Less than 5m 1:0.8~1:1.0
5~10m 1:1.0~1:1.2
Unconsolidated Less than 5m 1:1.0~1:1.25~10m 1:1.2~1:1.5
Gravel or sandy soil mixed with rocks
Consolidated soil with good particle size distribution
Less than 10m 1:0.8~1:1.010~15m 1:1.0~1:1.2
Unconsolidated soil with poor particle size distribution
Less than 10m 1:1.0~1:1.2
10~15m 1:1.2~1:1.5
Clayey soil Less than 10m 1:0.8~1:1.2Note) Silt is classified as clayey soil. Source: “Guidelines on Planning, Design and Management of Waste Disposal Site Construction” (Japan Waste Management Association)
B. Design Landfill Capacity
Two scenarios will be considered for landfill activity in the Project: first is the case of 123 t/d of
noncombustible waste only (CASE 1), and second is the case of 438 t/d of both noncombustible and
combustible waste (CASE 2).
Table 3.3.10 Design Landfill Capacity Calculation Sheet Landfill Case Waste targeted for
landfillWeight (t/d) Landfill period (y) Design total weight
(t) CASE 1 Noncombustible
waste123
20
897,900
CASE 2
Noncombustible waste and combustible waste 438 3,197,400
Landfill Case Unit volume weight (t/m3)
Design waste capacity (m3)
Covering soil capacity (m3) Total capacity (m3)
CASE 1 0.5 1,795,800 628,530 2,424,330CASE 2 0.5 6,029,800 2,238,180 8,632,980
Landfill Case Model design
landfill capacity (m3)
Remarks
CASE 1 2,500,000 Basically adopt zonal landfill divided into 4 sections. CASE 2 8,780,000 Basically adopt zonal landfill over 3 terms (5 years per term)
and 4 sections. (Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
78
C. Landfill method
From the viewpoint of improving the properties of leachate and landfill gases as shown in Figure
3.3.5, a semi-aerobic landfill structure with open leachate collection pipes (vent pipes) will be
adopted.
Figure 3.3.5 Semi-aerobic Landfill Structure
Source: “Guidelines on Planning, Design and Management of Waste Disposal Site Construction” (Japan
Waste Management Association)
Moreover, as is shown in Figure 3.3.5, the waste will be landfilled by the sandwich approach
comprising an earth-fill dam, an intermediate soil covering and a final soil covering; moreover,
same-day soil covering will be conducted in order to prevent occurrence and spread of fires, fly-off of
waste, occurrence of odor and hygiene pests and so on.
D. Landfill work
As the Project site is on flatland, it will be necessary to conduct landfill to a height higher than the
holding dam and peripheral management road in order to secure the design landfill capacity. For this
reason, the sloped earth dam will be established in advance and the waste materials will be landfilled
to no higher than this.
The sloped earth-fill dam will be built no higher than 2.5 m and the gradient will be no greater than
1:25. Crest width of at least 4 m will be secured. The sloped earth-fill dam will be quickly planted
with vegetation to prevent the surface soil from being washed away.
Fully compacting the waste is important for stabilizing the landfill ground, thereby extending the life
of the landfill and enhancing the possibility to utilize the landfill site after it is closed. Waste will be
scattered to a thickness of 30~50 cm and compacted by pressing with a rolling compaction machine
going back and forth around five times. Thickness of a single landfill layer will be no greater than 3 m,
79
3000
5002500
2500
25001:2.5
1:2.51:2.5
4000
物棄廃
土覆
堤堰土
4000
2000
and intermediate cover soil of around 50 cm will be applied for each layer.
Through landfilling easily scattered wastes with other wastes and sediment, and also by sprinkling
water to prevent dust from rising at arid times, scattering of waste can be prevented and a major effect
can be obtained for rolling compaction too. However, water should not be sprinkled in excess of the
evapotranspiration volume since this would increase the amount of leachate generated.
a) Earth-fill dam
The landfill slope will be formed in stages by building the earth-fill dam in line with the progression
of landfill as shown in Figure 3.3.6. The inner side of the dam will be lined with impermeable liner.
Figure 3.3.6 Landfill Slope Structure
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
b) Cover soil
Intermediate cover soil: Apply 0.5 m of cover soil for every 3.0 m of waste.
Final cover soil: Apply 0.5~1.0 m of cover soil after completion of landfill
Cover soil material: Compost made from household waste would be applied
Cover soil volume: Necessary amount of cover soil: CASE 1: 630,000 m3,
CASE 2: 2,240,000 m3
Cover soil
Waste
Soil Embankment
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
80
c) Landfill work
Figure 3 shows the flow of landfill work.
Figure 3.3.7 Flow of Landfilling operation
【landfilling operation】
End of day`s work
Completion of a compartment
Source: “Guidelines on Planning, Design and Management of Waste Disposal Site Construction” (Japan
Waste Management Association)
d) Landfill site maintenance plan
d1) Facilities maintenance and management
Facilities such as the storage dam and seepage control works will be inspected every day, and
improvement steps will be immediately implemented when risk of damage is found in them.
Surrounding enclosures will be inspected and maintained at least once per month and the damaged
sections will be immediately repaired. Gates will be closed and locked at the end of work every day.
In order to maintain the functions of drainage facilities and regulating reservoir, etc. for preventing
rainwater from flowing into the landfill, inspections will be conducted, accumulated sediment will be
removed and facilities will be repaired on a regular basis.
The incoming road will be kept clean and repaired as the need arises. Also, the vehicle washing
Carry in
Measurement
Dumping
Placement Shredding Surface compaction
(Daily earth cover)
Intermediate cover
Final cover
End of landfilling
Installation of hauling road
Slope construction
81
equipment will be periodically inspected and sediment will be promptly removed when it
accumulates.
d2) Landfill management
Incoming waste will as a rule be compacted, covered with soil and leveled, etc. on the day it arrives.
The impermeable liner will be inspected periodically and, in cases where there is risk that the seepage
control effect declines, the necessary steps will be taken to restore effectiveness.
d3) Management after landfilling
After landfill disposal is completed on the landfill site, drainage facilities of sufficient structure and
scale to drain off rainwater without any problem will be installed.
The cover soil will be inspected for subsidence, runoff and cracking, etc. and repairs will be made as
the need arises.
E. Seepage Control Plan
a) Structure of seepage control works based on Indonesian guidelines
According to Technical Guidelines on Final Disposal Site (Ministry of Public Works, 2006), the basic
seepage control structure uses clay as shown in the figure below. This prescribes that two 25 cm thick
layers of clay with coefficient of permeability of 1 x 10―7cm/s are built with a compaction intensity of
95%, and that these be sandwiched between an upper cohesive soil layer of 1 x 10―7cm/s and a lower
soil layer of 1 x 10―5cm/s. In terms of the landfill ideal of returning waste to the ground, these are
ideal seepage control materials, however, it is extremely difficult to secure such a high degree of
quality over a wide area. Since the said guidelines also allow for the use of geo-membrane products,
etc. that have empirical technical specifications, it may be more realistic to use such products. In the
plan here, the seepage control structure that is prescribed under Japanese law will be applied.
82
Ordinary soil 30cm Solid waste Ordinary soil 30cm k=10―4cm/s Geotextile Gravel 15cm Original compactedsoil 15cm k=10―7cm/s Clay 25cm Clay 25cm
Original compactedsoil 15cm k=10―5cm/s
Figure 3.3.8 Basic Structure of Landfill
(Source: Ministry of Public Works, 2006, Technical Guidelines on Final Disposal Site)
b) Seepage control structure according to Japanese standard ministerial ordinance
In Japan, based on revision of the “Order to partially revise the order stipulating technical standards
for general waste final disposal sites and industrial waste final disposal sites, 1998, Prime Minister’s
Office and Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare Ordinance No. 2” (hereafter called the standard
ministerial ordinance), steps are taken to strengthen water seepage control functions through adopting
dual seepage control and installing protective layers based on combination of impermeable liner and
impervious soil, etc. The seepage control structure prescribed under the standard ministerial ordinance
is as indicated below.
b1) Ground conditions where seepage control is not needed (standard ministerial ordinance Article 1,
Section 1, paragraph 5, sub-paragraph (a))
The ground comprises at least 5 m of continuous strata with a coefficient of permeability of no greater
than 100 nm/s (1 x 10-5cm/s), or the surface seepage control structure comprises one of the following
three types or an equivalent or better structure.
b2) Surface seepage control structure (standard ministerial ordinance Article 1, Section 1, paragraph 5,
sub-paragraph (a), (1))
Cases where impermeable liner at least 50 cm thick is spread over surface comprising clay, etc. with
coefficient of permeability of no greater than 100 nm/s (1 x 10-5cm/s) and thickness of 50 cm or
greater.
Cases where impermeable liner is spread over watertight asphalt concrete, etc. with coefficient of
permeability of no greater than 1 nm/s (1 x 10-7cm/s) and thickness of 5 cm or greater.
83
Cases where double impermeable liner is laid over a surface comprising unwoven cloth, etc. Cases
where unwoven cloth, etc. is placed in between two layers of seepage control lining to ensure that
both layers are not simultaneously damaged.
(Exceptional provision) In cases of slopes with a gradient of 50% or greater and where there is no
risk that leachate will build up, structure comprising spray mortar lined with impermeable liner or
rubber asphalt is acceptable.
b3) Provisions for protection of surface seepage control works
Unwoven cloth, etc. will be laid on the surface of impermeable liner in order to prevent degradation
of the liner in places where there is risk of degradation caused by sunlight (standard ministerial
ordinance Article 1, Section 1, paragraph 5, sub-paragraph (a), (2)).
A protective covering of sand, etc. will be applied before the start of work (standard ministerial
ordinance Article 2, Section 1, paragraph 8).
b4) Structure of vertical seepage control works (standard ministerial ordinance Article 1, Section 1,
paragraph 5, sub-paragraph (b))
In cases where ground under the landfill site is entirely composed of impervious earth strata, the
following vertical seepage control works are permitted.
Cases where the Lugeon value of ground down to the impervious layer is fixed at no greater than 1
through injection of chemical additives, etc.
Cases where continuous wall with coefficient of permeability of no greater than 10 nm/s (1 x
10-6cm/s) and thickness of 50 cm or greater is constructed down to the impervious layer.
Cases where steel sheet pile is installed down to the impervious layer, or where surface seepage
control has been implemented.
Japanese surface seepage control standards are based on the principle of maintaining a constant ratio
between the coefficient of permeability and seepage control layer thickness, with respect to seepage
control structures other than impermeable liner. In other words, if the hydraulic grade is constant, the
quantity of pollutants leaking from the landfill every unit hour (= water leakage passage speed) will
be the same in all structures, and the risk of groundwater pollution will also be the same.
84
Figure 3.3.9 Provisions on Surface Seepage Control Structure based on Standard Ministerial
Ordinance
(Source: “Guidelines on Planning, Design and Management of Waste Disposal Site Construction” (Japan
Waste Management Association))
c) Seepage control structure in the Project
According to the findings of the geological survey on the Project site, the coefficient of permeability
of ground is as indicated in the following table.
85
Table 3.3.11 Permeability Test Results
Bor.No Depth (m) Coefficient of
Permeability (m/s)
Remarks
1 1.50~2.00 4.06×10-10
1 3.50~4.00 5.97×10-10
1 5.50~6.00 8.86×10-10
1 7.50~8.00 5.94×10-10
2 0.50~1.00 1.05×10-9
2 5.50~6.00 3.98×10-8
2 7.50~8.00 ―
2 10.50~11.00 ―
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
The test results indicate there to be a distributed layer with coefficient of permeability of no greater
than 10-8m/s. According to the abovementioned standard ministerial ordinance, the ground conditions
required for not implementing seepage control are given as “The ground comprises at least 5 m of
continuous strata with a coefficient of permeability of no greater than 100 nm/s (1 x 10-5cm/s).” Since
these results were obtained in laboratory testing, compliance with the standard ministerial ordinance
provisions can be amply expected even after discounting the coefficient order.
In Japan, not only limited to the double seepage control structures stipulated in legislation, double
structures are becoming the norm. In consideration of this trend, a single impermeable liner will be
laid in order to be on the safe side in the Project. Protective mat will be placed above and below the
impermeable liner in order to provide sure protection.
F. Rainwater Drainage Plan
a) Purpose and functions of rainwater collection and drainage facilities
The purpose of rainwater collection and drainage facilities on final disposal sites is to separate waste
materials from rainwater. Through preventing rainwater from infiltrating the landfill site, these
facilities serve to reduce the quantity of leachate and mitigate the load placed on leachate treatment
facilities and seepage control works. Since the Project landfill site will be enclosed by an embankment,
rainwater will not flow into the site, however, since it will be necessary to remove rainwater from the
surface final cover soil following completion of landfilling, the scale of drainage facilities was
planned in consideration of the post-landfill conditions.
b) Arrangement of rainwater collection and drainage channels
Drainage channels will be installed as side ditches alongside the roads around the perimeter of the
landfill site. Channels will be arranged to broadly separate the landfill site into two and collect
86
rainwater from around the site. Since the landfill site is on flat terrain, it is difficult to identify the
catchment basin, however, water will be directed to the regulating reservoir to ensure that water
doesn’t accumulate in the local area.
c) Setting of rainwater drainage channel cross section
c1)Rainwater runoff amount
The rational formula is also applied to obtain design rainwater runoff amount.
Q=1/360×f×r×A
where;
Q: rainwater runoff amount (m3/s)
f: runoff rate
r: rainfall intensity (mm/h)
A: catchments area (hectare)
c2) Runoff coefficient
The runoff coefficient differs according to the terrain (including the planned site), geological
conditions and ground surface, etc. Most of the land in the project site will be utilized for intermediate
treatment facilities and landfill site. The remainder of the land will account for only a very small
percentage of the water catchment area. The rainwater that falls on the landfill site will be separately
drained as leachate. On the area where landfill is completed, steps to facilitate surface drainage will
basically be adopted, however, the land generally has well rooted vegetation and land use generally
consists of gently sloping mountain land and parkland with abundant lawns and trees.
Accordingly, the mode of land use is generally deemed to be conducive to good water permeation and
water retention.
There are various approaches to the runoff coefficient, however, the following most representative
proposal given by the Mononobe will be adopted here. Out of the terrain types indicated below, the
Project site is deemed to be at an intermediate point between “undulating mountain land and
forestland,” “flat cultivated land” and “irrigated paddy.” The value f = 0.60, which is the upper limit
for flat cultivated land, will be adopted.
87
Table 3.3.12 Peak Runoff Coefficient Indicated by Mononobe (Japan Society of Civil Engineers,
1999)
Terrain condition fp
Precipitous upland 0.75~0.90
Tertiary upland 0.70~0.80
Undulating land and forestland 0.50~0.75
Flat cultivated land 0.45~0.60
Irrigated paddy 0.70~0.80
Upland river 0.75~0.85
Flatland stream 0.45~0.75
Major river with catchment basin of which
at least half is flatland
0.50~0.75
(Source: “Guidelines on Planning, Design and Management of Waste Disposal Site Construction”, Japan
Waste Management Association))
c3) Rainfall intensity
The landfill site will inevitably assume rainwater adjustment functions due to its structure during the
landfill period. The landfill period in each phase will be relatively short at 3~4 years, however, rainfall
probability period will be set at around 10 years to be on the safe side. Moreover, since there is no
rainfall intensity formula that can be applied to the Project, when it comes to calculating rainwater
flow, the 1/10th year probability rainfall intensity of 142 mm/h used by local governments in the south
of Japan will be substituted. This is because rainfall conditions such as annual rainfall and heavy rains
due to typhoons in southern Japan is similar to that in the project site.
c4) Setting of the target catchment area
The target catchment area for setting the cross section of drainage channels will reach its peak when
landfilling over the entire site is completed. In the Project, as in the leachate treatment facilities plan,
the minimum unit of the catchment area will be 4.0 hectares, and the phased aggregate cross section
in each landfill case including 20% allowance will be planned. In the transition period until
completion of the final landfilling, the maximum collection area will be assumed for each channel.
c5) Setting of the drainage channel cross section
Trapezoidal channels with concrete lining will be adopted as the drainage channels. When deciding
the cross section, considering the accumulation of sediment and so on, average flow velocity will be
sought and the allowable cross section set based on the representative Manning Formula assuming
depth allowance of 20%. The results of calculation are shown in the following flow calculation table.
88
Table 3.3.13 Flow Calculation Table
Channel
No.
Catchmen
t area
Runoff
coefficient
Rainfall
intensity
Runoff
amount Channel cross section
Channel
gradient
Roughnes
s
Average
flow
Allowable
flow rate Remarks
ha - mm/h m3/s W(mm) B(mm) H(mm) ‰ - m/s m3/s
Case 1
1 4.8 0.6 142 1.136 1,600 600 1,000 5.0 0.015 1.588 1.270
2 9.6 0.6 142 2.272 2,100 1,100 1,000 5.0 0.015 2.081 2.497 1+2
3 4.8 0.6 142 1.136 1,600 600 1,000 5.0 0.015 1.588 1.270
4 9.6 0.6 142 2.272 2,100 1,100 1,000 5.0 0.015 2.081 2.497 3+4
5 19.2 0.6 142 4.544 2,800 1,800 1,000 5.0 0.015 2.687 4.729 2+4
Case 2
1 4.8 0.6 142 1.136 1,600 600 1,000 5.0 0.015 1.588 1.270
2 14.4 0.6 142 3.408 2,500 1,500 1,000 5.0 0.015 2.436 3.703 1+2
3 24.0 0.6 142 5.680 3,100 2,100 1,000 5.0 0.015 2.925 5.850 2+3
4 28.8 0.6 142 6.816 3,400 2,400 1,000 5.0 0.015 3.155 7.067 3+4
5 4.8 0.6 142 1.136 1,600 600 1,000 5.0 0.015 1.588 1.270
6 9.6 0.6 142 2.272 2,100 1,100 1,000 5.0 0.015 2.081 2.497 5+6
7 19.2 0.6 142 4.544 2,800 1,800 1,000 5.0 0.015 2.687 4.729 6+7
8 28.8 0.6 142 6.816 3,400 2,400 1,000 5.0 0.015 3.155 7.067 7+8
9 57.6 0.6 142 13.632 4,200 2,700 1,500 5.0 0.015 3.520 13.939 4+8
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
G. Groundwater collection and drainage facilities plan
a) Purpose and functions of groundwater collection and drainage facilities
On landfill sites that are equipped with surface seepage control works, unless groundwater and spring
water occurring under the seepage control are appropriately removed, the uplift pressure created by
groundwater, spring water and soil gas, etc. sometimes ruptures the seepage control works. Moreover,
if the groundwater level around the landfill site rises, this can sometimes loosen ground and trigger
landslides depending on the geological and soil conditions of the landfill site. Groundwater collection
and drainage facilities will be installed in order to promptly remove groundwater, etc. and prevent
such negative impacts from occurring.
b) Arrangement of groundwater collection and drainage pipes
Pipe diameters of groundwater collection and drainage facilities are usually φ200~300 mm for arterial
lines and φ150 mm for branch lines except in locations that have an exceptionally high level of
groundwater. Moreover, as the Road Earthworks and Drainage Works Guidelines (Japan Road
Association) stipulates that “pipes with inner diameter of φ100 mm or less shouldn’t be used because
they tend to become blocked,” the pipes installed in the Project will have diameter of φ150 mm.
89
c) Groundwater drainage routes
Groundwater and spring water underneath the seepage control works will be collected in tanks via
pipes installed in the base and slopes of the landfill. The water will then be drained to peripheral
channels and pumped to drainage channels and a disaster control regulating reservoir.
The groundwater that flows into the disaster control regulating reservoir will be discharged into the
river together with rainwater.
H. Leachate collection and drainage plan
a) Purpose and functions of leachate collection and drainage facilities
Leachate collection and drainage facilities are installed in order to quickly remove rainwater that has
infiltrated the landfill site to the leachate treatment facilities.
Through limiting the amount of leachate that occurs inside the landfill and conveying it quickly to the
leachate treatment facilities, leachate isn’t allowed to accumulate inside the landfill and impart water
pressure on the seepage control works and storage structure. The collection and drainage facilities will
have pipe diameters of sufficient size to secure ventilation air, and the ends of pipes, etc. will be open
to the outside air.
b) Arrangement of leachate collection and drainage facilities
b1) Base collection and drainage pipes
The arrangement of base collection and drainage pipes is determined upon giving consideration to the
coefficient of permeability of waste, coefficient of permeability of impermeable liner, landfill site
terrain and size and (in the case of semi-aerobic landfill structure) the air supply function of leachate
collection and drainage facilities. In the Project, in view of the shape of the landfill facilities, trunk
lines will be straight while branch lines will be arranged at an interval of 15 m (the median value out
of the 10~20 m notified in Japanese legislation).
b2) Slope collection and drainage pipes
Since slope collection and drainage facilities are more important for draining water in the vertical
direction rather than collecting water, they will be arranged at roughly twice the interval adopted for
the base collection and drainage pipes.
b3) Vertical collection and drainage pipes
Vertical collection and drainage pipes will be installed for every 2,000 m2 at intervals of around 45 m.
The vertical collection and drainage pipes will have a diameter of 600 mm.
c) Setting of diameter of leachate collection and drainage pipes
c1) Calculation of leachate amount
90
The generated amount of leachate used when compiling the leachate treatment plan will target the
daily rainfall, however, in order to conduct sanitary landfill, the amount of time that leachate is
allowed to accumulate inside the landfill needs to be made as short as possible. In the case where
impermeable liner is damaged, since hardly any leakage will occur if there is little water inside the
landfill, it will be important for collection and drainage facilities to have the capacity to remove
leachate quickly.
Therefore, as is also the case in the rainwater drainage plan, it will be necessary to secure the capacity
to immediately drain water in the leachate collection and drainage facilities. Based on this viewpoint,
as in the case of rainwater runoff calculation, the most commonly used Rational formula will be used
to the leachate runoff amount as indicated below
The following formula will be used to calculate leachate runoff.
Q f r A1360
(m3/s)
Where,
Q: Design runoff amount (m3/s)
f: Runoff coefficient = 0.44 (according to (3) leachate treatment facilities of the final disposal
site)
r: Design rainfall intensity (mm/h) = 142 mm/h (10-year probability according to cases in Japan)
A: Catchment area (hectare)
Table 3.3.14 Leachate Amount Calculation Results
Landfill Catchment area
(ha)
Rainfall permeation (m3/s)
r=142mm/h
f=0.44
Minimum block 4.00 0.694
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
c2) Drainage capacity of leachate collection and drainage pipes
Runoff amount
Q=A・V (m3/sec)
Flow velocity
V =1
×R2/3×I1/2 (m/sec) n
Where,
A: Catchment area (m2)
91
V: Flow velocity (m/s)
N: Roughness coefficient (double polyethylene pipe 0.01 in this study)
R: Hydraulic radius (= A/P) (m)
P: Length of wetted perimeter of flowing water (m)
I: Gradient (0.5%)
The following table indicates the drainage capacity of collection and drainage pipes according to each
pipe diameter.
Table 3.3.15 Drainage Capacity of Leachate Collection and Drainage Pipes (m3/s) Type Full flow
Gradient ‰ 5.0
Flow rate m3/s
Pipe
diameter mm
200 0.030
300 0.089
400 0.191
500 0.347
600 0.564
700 0.851
800 1.216
900 1.664
1000 2.204
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
c3) Setting of pipe diameter
The following table shows the pipe diameters of collection and drainage pipes according to each
location.
Table 3.3.16 Diameters of Collection and Drainage Pipes
Installed location Pipe Diameter
Base collection and drainage pipes φ700
Slope collection and drainage pipes φ200
Slope collection and drainage pipes φ200
Vertical collection and drainage pipes φ600 (Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
92
I) Disaster control regulating reservoir plan
a) Planning criteria
When planning the disaster control regulating reservoir, it is necessary to give consideration to the
basin area, landfill area, installation of rainwater collection and drainage facilities, area of
development other than the landfill, discharge capacity of downstream river and so on.
In consideration of these conditions, the disaster control regulating reservoir will be planned
according to the Technical Criteria for Disaster Control Regulating Reservoir, etc. (Draft) (Japan
River Association).
Moreover, since there is no confirmed formula for rainfall intensity applicable to the Project, when
calculating the regulating reservoir capacity, the 1/30 year probability rainfall intensity formula used
by local governments in the south of Japan will be substituted, as rainfall conditions are considered to
be similar.
b) Consolidation of design conditions
The following table consolidates the design basic conditions for planning the disaster control
regulating reservoir.
93
Table 3.3.17 Design Basic Conditions
Item Value and/or Formula Remarks
Basic particulars
Catchment area (A) 100 ha
Permissible discharge
flow
34.40 m3/s
Runoff coefficient (f) 0.79
Arrival time (t) 10.0 minutes
Rainfall conditions
Rainfall waveform Rear concentrated type
Rainfall continued time 24 hours
Probability rainfall 1/30 year probability rainfall
Rainfall intensity
formula 287.0100.111
5/3tI
Inflow formula
A3601
・・・ rfQ
Q: Flow rate (m3/s)
f:Runoff coefficient
r:rainfall intensity (mm/h)
A:Catchment area (ha)
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
b1) Catchment area
The Project site is flatland surrounded by ponds and paddies that also have regulating functions and
make it difficult to identify the catchment area. Here, the rainwater collection and drainage area will
be set at 100 hectares, which corresponds to the Project area.
b2) Allowable discharge flow
The regulation flow will target the increase in the amount of runoff that accompanies the development.
Therefore, the allowable discharge flow will be as follows:
sm=・・・ 3/4.340.1000.1770.7360/1A360
1 rfQ
Where,
Q: Runoff amount (m3/s)
f: Runoff coefficient before development
r: Rainfall intensity (mm/h) (30 year probability r = 177 mm/h)
A: Catchment area (hectare)
b3) Runoff coefficient
94
The runoff coefficient will be set as shown below in consideration of cases in Japan.
Table 3.3.18 Adopted Values for Runoff Coefficient
Symbol Condition of ground surface Catchment area (ha)
Runoff coefficient
① Before development / Field, cultivated land, paddy 10.0 0.7
② After development / Land developed for residential use 90.0 0.8
Total ― 100.0 0.79
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
b4) Arrival time
Unit time shall be t = 10 min.
b5) Amount of sedimentation
The design amount of sedimentation shall be set at 150 (m3/ha/y) for every unit area.
V v AS
Where,
VS : Amount of sedimentation (m3)
v : Amount of sedimentation per unit developed area (=150m3/ha/y) A : Developed area (=100.0 ha)
0.100150SV
=15,000 (m3)
Therefore, capacity of 15,000 m3 will be secured. The sedimentation level shall be +0.5m.
c) Calculation of regulating capacity
Based on settings of the basic structural conditions such as the basic design conditions indicated in
Table 3.3.17 and the discharge holes, etc. indicated in Table 3.3.19, the inflow and discharge
calculation will be conducted to seek the maximum capacity.
As is shown in the calculation results below, the regulating reservoir will have a capacity of 34,823
m3.
95
Table 3.3.19 Basic Structural Conditions
Item Basic Structural
Conditions Remarks
Regulating reservoir
crest height +2.50m
Abnormal flood level +2.35m
Design flood level +1.60m
Initial water level +0.50m
Rim height +0.50m Sedimentation level
Discharge hole H1100×B24000 Cross-sectional area 26.40m2
Total capacity 79,450m3
Sedimentation 15,000m3
Possible regulating
capacity 34,823m3
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
Table 3.3.20 Calculation Results
Item Calculation Results Remarks
Maximum capacity 22,298(m3) Possible regulating capacity =34,823m3
OK
Maximum water level +1.209(m) Design flood flow =+1.600m OK
Maximum discharge
flow 25,717(m3/s)
Allowable discharge flow =34.40m3/s
OK
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
d) Setting of scale of spillway
The regulating reservoir will be equipped with a free overflow spillway in case of abnormal flooding.
The design flow rate of the spillway will be set at 1.5 times the flow rate in the 1/100 year annual
probability of exceedance flooding, and the structure of it will be water collecting tower type. The
peak flow rate will be calculated based on the Rational formula.
The probability rainfall intensity curve formula adopted in the Project will assume a 1/30 year
probability and the following formula for the said area.
1/100 year probability rainfall 306.01.134
5/3100 tr
r=102.7mm/h
96
- Cross-sectional calculation
Spillway design flow will be as follows:
sec229.375.10.1007.10287.0360
15.1360
1 3mArfQ
The spillway will be square shaped.
Q C L H 3 2/
Where,
Q : Flood overflow rate (m3/s)
C : Flow coefficient (1.8)
L: Overflow length (m)
H : Overflow depth
Assuming the overflow depth is H=0.75m,
mHQL 843.31)75.08.1(229.37)8.1( 2323
∴ 96.74843.31B ≒8.0m
Here, the spillway will need to have a square opening cross section of at least 8.0 m per side.
Also, since the orifice in the discharge culvert will require width of 24.0 m on three sides, the cross
section will need to be 24.0 ÷ 3=8.0m.
Therefore, the discharge culvert opening will measure 9.0 m per side.
97
Computational Output (regulating capacity calculation)
NOTE: Calculations are based on the method given in the Technical Standards (Draft) for Disaster
Prevention Regulating Reservoirs, etc.: Commentary and Design Cases (Japan Rivers Association).
Table 3.3.21 T
Time Rainfall Peak Rainfa Intensity Intensity
98
Table of Flood Regulation Calculations (1)
all Time of Peak Inflow Balancing Reservoir Water Oy Rainfall reservoir capacity level
Outflow Outflow/ time unit
Table o
99
of Flood Regulation Calculations (2)
Table o
100
of Flood Regulation Calculations (3)
101
(3) Final Disposal Site Leachate Treatment Facilities
Regarding the leachate treatment facilities plan, the treated amount and capacity of regulating facilities
will be simultaneously set according to the “Guidelines on Planning, Design and Management of Waste
Disposal Site Construction” (Japan Waste Management Association).
The design influent flow of leachate treatment facilities will be set between the maximum and minimum
values of the design amount of inflow, and the capacity of regulating facilities will be decided so that the
amount of leachate in excess of the treatment capacity of facilities can be stored, thereby ensuring that
the leachate that is generated each day can be treated without delay.
Figure 3.3.10 Method for Seeking the Scale of Leachate Treatment Facilities
(Source: “Guidelines on Planning, Design and Management of Waste Disposal Site Construction”,
Japan Waste Management Association)
In other words, considering the water balance between the daily generated amount of leachate (design
influent flow) and treatment capacity of the leachate treatment facilities, the capacity of the leachate
regulating facilities will be sought. Water balance and capacity of the leachate regulating facilities will
be calculated for a number of design inflow scenarios in the leachate treatment facilities; then the
appropriate design inflow to leachatnt facilities will be decided while considering the operating rate of
facilities (treatment amoune treatmet/treatment capacity) and economy, etc.
Rainfall data for the 10 year period between 2001 and 2010 in Tangerang will be used. Two cases will be
sought according to the scale of the landfill site.
Chronological calculation of storage amount of leachate controlling facility
Determination of capacity of leachate controlling facility
Chronological setting of daily leachate amountDetermination of planned influent quantity of
leachate treatment facility
102
Table 3.3.22 Table of Specifications in the Leachate Treatment Plan
Design particulars CASE-1 CASE-2
(1) (2) (3) Rainfall data 2001 to 2010 (10 years)
Average daily rainfall (mm) 5.0
Landfill area (ha) 16.0 16.0 32.0 48.0
Leachate coefficient (average)
Currently being
landfilled 0.44
Already landfilled
0.27
Average leachate flow (m3/d) 250 250 470 690
Maximum leachate flow (m3/d) 1,110 1,110 2,060 3,020
Calculation results
Daily treatment amount (m3/d)
400 400 750 1,100
Amount of increase (m3/d)
― ― 350 350
Regulating capacity (m3)
45,000 45,000 80,000 117,000
Amount of increase (m3)
― ― 35,000 37,000
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
A) Design inflow amount calculation method
The Rational formula will be used to calculate the average leachate amount and maximum leachate
amount. The used rainfall data will be that obtained from the meteorological observatory of
Tangerang between 2011 and 2010.
Q I C A C A11000 1 1 2 2
Where,
Q: Leachate amount(m3/d)
I: Daily precipitation (mm/d)
C1: Leachate coefficient from landfill in progress (-)
C2: Leachate coefficient from landfill that is idle or has been finished (-)
A1: Area of zone currently being landfilled (m2)
A2: Area of zone of landfill that is idle or has been finished (m2)
The average daily precipitation will be used when calculating the average leachate amount, while the
daily conversion of the maximum monthly precipitation level will be used when calculating the
maximum leachate amount.
103
B) Target disposal site area (CASE-1;16.0ha, CASE-2;48.0ha)
The landfill site will be divided into blocks with a minimum unit area of 4.0 hectares. In CASE 1,
there will be four blocks, while in CASE 2 there will be 12. The blocks will be successively landfilled
with the next block being moved to when the design completion height is reached. There will always
be a minimum block size of 4.0 hectares being landfilled, and the already landfilled blocks will
increase cumulatively so that the amount of leachate flow is greatest when the remaining three blocks
are completed.
The leachate coefficient will be sought for each month upon calculating the amount of
evapotranspiration based on temperature and sunlight time. The average figures are as shown below,
i.e. 0.44 for the block currently being landfilled and 0.27 for blocks that have been finished. During
the dry season from July to September, since there is hardly any rainfall and the amount of
evapotranspiration exceeds the amount of leachate, the leachate coefficient is negative but is set at
zero for calculation purposes.
Table 3.3.23 Leachate Treatment Target Area (ha)
Season
Area (A) Leachate Coefficient (C)
Block being landfilled
(A1)
Already landfilled
block (A2)
Total( A) Block being
landfilled (C1)
Already landfilled
block (C2)
CASE-1 4.00 12.00 16.00
0.44 0.27CASE-2
(1) 4.00 12.00 16.00
(2) 4.00 28.00 32.00
(3) 4.00 44.00 48.00
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
C) Setting of rainfall
The following table shows the aggregate results of data for the past 10 years. Data is taken from
Tangerang meteorological station for the period from 2001 to 2010. Among the data for the past 10
years, there are no outstanding years: the average value is 1,832 mm/y and the highest rainfall is 2,059
mm for 2010.
Table 3
(Source:
104
.3.24 Rainfall Data Statistical Table Observed days: 3,652 days Total rainfall: 18,320 mm Maximum year: 2010
Prepared by the authors of this report)
105
D) Calculation of design influent flow
a) Average leachate flow
From the aggregate table, the total rainfall over 10 years is 18,320 mm and the number of
observation days is 3,652. The daily average rainfall is thus calculated as follows:
dmmdmmI 0.5
652,3320,18
=
Accordingly, the average leachate amount is as follows.
CASE-1
日30.250000,12027.0000,4044.00.51000
1 mQ
CASE-2
日31 0.250000,12027.0000,4044.00.5
10001 mQ
日32 0.466000,28027.0000,4044.00.5
10001 mQ
日33 0.682000,44027.0000,4044.00.5
10001 mQ
b) Maximum leachate amount
Based on the table, maximum monthly rainfall was 663.8 mm/month for February 2008, and this is
converted into a daily amount as follows:
dmmdmmI 1.22
308.663
=
Therefore, the maximum leachate amount is calculated as follows.
CASE-1
日30.105,1000,4427.0000,4044.01.221000
1 mQ
CASE-2
日31 0.105,1000,12027.0000,4044.01.22
10001 mQ
日32 7.059,2000,28027.0000,4044.01.22
10001 mQ
日33 4.014,3000,44027.0000,4044.01.22
10001 mQ
The above results are compiled into the following table.
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
106
Table 3.3.25 Design Influent Flow Calculation Results
Target precipitation Annual average daily
precipitation
Maximum monthly precipitation
converted to daily amount
CASE-1
Average leachate flow amount
250m3/d ―
Maximum leachate flow amount
― 1,110m3/d
CASE-2
(1)
Average leachate flow amount 250m3/d ―
Maximum leachate flow amount
― 1,110m3/d
(2)
Average leachate flow amount
470 m3/d ―
Maximum leachate flow amount
― 2,060m3/d
(3)
Average leachate flow amount
690 m3/d ―
Maximum leachate flow amount
― 3,020m3/d
(Source: Prepared by authors of this report)
As is mentioned later, the case for calculating the daily treatment amount used in the chronological
calculation of leachate regulating facilities storage capacity will be set as the safest case, i.e. the
maximum value according to the conditions.
E) Setting of leachate regulating facilities capacity
Using the average leachate amount and maximum leachate amount as rough guides, 10 cases will be
set for daily treatment amount and the leachate regulating facilities capacity will be calculated. As
for the calculation method, the generated amount of leachate (= influent flow I) will be sought from
the daily rainfall chronological data, and maximum capacity will be sought from the set daily
treatment amount (=runoff amount O) and water balance calculation (in/out calculation). While
comparing the calculation results in each case, the leachate regulating facilities capacity and daily
treatment amount will be set.
Moreover, in the case where there is found to be residual leachate regulating capacity on the last
day of December as a result of the water balance calculation, continuous calculation will be
conducted using the same daily rainfall chronological data.
107
a)Water balance calculation method
In the water balance calculation, assuming that the difference between influent flow I and daily
treatment amount O is stored horizontally inside the regulating facilities, the difference in storage
amount on any given day ΔV will be as follows:
OIV
Therefore, the amount stored V (d) at the end of the optional day (d) will be calculated by the
following formula:
VdVdV 1
dOdIdV 1
Where,
V: Storage amount (m3)
I: Generated leachate amount (m3)
O: Daily treatment amount (m3/d)
Figure 3.3.11 Water Balance Model for Landfill
b) Setting of daily precipitation time series
As the daily precipitation time series data used in water balance calculation, the daily precipitation
time series for the year of highest precipitation over the past 10 years will be used.
According to the precipitation data statistics table, the year of highest precipitation was 2010 (annual
precipitation = 2,059 mm).
c) Calculation of generated leachate amount
The amount of generated leachate will be calculated by means of the Rational formula as follows:
Q I C A C A11000 1 1 2 2
Where,
I
O V(d-1)
ΔV
108
Q: Leachate amount (m3/d)
I: Daily precipitation (mm/d)
C1: Leachate coefficient from landfill in progress (-)
C2: Leachate coefficient from landfill that is idle or has been finished (-)
A1: Area of zone currently being landfilled (m2)
A2: Area of zone of landfill that is idle or has been finished (m2)
d) Water balance calculation results
Using the aforementioned in/out calculations, average leachate amount and maximum leachate
amount as rough guides, daily treatment amount was set and water balance calculation was carried
out for the 10 cases shown in Table 3.3.26. Calculation was conducted on the safe side by assuming
the year of highest precipitation (2010). The calculation results are shown in the table and Figure
3.3.26.
Table 3.3.26 In/Out Calculation Results (CASE 1)
Case Daily treatment amount (m3/d)
Maximum year (2010) Maximum leachate
regulation capacity (m3)
Treatment facilities
operating rate (%)
1 200 60,355 158.0% 2 250 55,855 126.4% 3 300 51,388 105.3% 4 350 47,388 90.3% 5 400 43,388 79.0% 6 450 39,388 70.2% 7 500 35,388 63.2% 8 550 31,388 57.5% 9 600 28,960 52.7%
10 650 27,310 48.8% Note) Treatment facilities operating rate = Total amount of treated water/Total daily treatment
amount
(Source: Prepared by authors of this report)
109
Figure 3.3.12 Daily Treatment Amount and Regulating Capacity (CASE 1)
(Source: Prepared by authors of this report)
In the maximum year (2010), the adjustment capacity changes almost uniformly according to the
increase in treated amount in this calculation case. Assuming an operating rate of around 80%, the
daily treatment amount is set at around 400 m3/d. The following figure shows a graph of changes in
stored amount over time assuming this daily treatment capacity of 400 m3/d.
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650
Max
imum
regu
latin
g ca
paci
ty(m
3 )
Daily treatment amount(m3/d)
110
Figure 3.3.13 Changes in Stored Amount over Time assuming Daily Treatment Capacity of 400 m3/d
(CASE 1)
(Source: Prepared by authors of this report)
Table 3.3.27 In/Out Calculation Results (CASE 2)
Case Daily Treatment Amount (m3/d)
Maximum Year (2010) Maximum leachate
regulating capacity (m3)
Treatment facilities
operating rate (%)
1 500 100,465 117.4% 2 550 95,965 106.7% 3 600 91,962 97.8% 4 650 87,962 90.3% 5 700 83,962 83.8% 6 750 79,962 78.2% 7 800 75,962 73.4% 8 850 71,962 69.0% 9 900 67,962 65.2%
10 950 63,962 61.8% Note) Treatment facilities operating rate = Total treatment amount/Total daily treatment amount
(Source: Prepared by authors of this report)
0
50
100
150
200
250
3000
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000
1 15 29 43 57 71 85 99 113 127 141 155 169 183 197 211 225 239 253 267 281 295 309 323 337 351 365
Dai
ly p
reci
pita
tion
amou
nt (m
m/d
)
Reg
ulat
ing
amou
nt (m
3 )
Days
Chronology(Yearly data for the maximum year)
Daily precipitation amount
400m3/day
Daily precipitation (mm/d)
111
Figure 3.3.14 Daily Treatment Amount and Regulating Capacity (CASE 2-(2))
(Source: Prepared by authors of this report)
Figure 3.3.15 Changes in Stored Amount over Time assuming Daily Treatment Capacity of 750 m3/d
(maximum year 2010) (CASE 2-(2))
(Source: Prepared by authors of this report)
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950
Max
imum
regu
latin
g am
ount
(m3 )
Daily treatment amount(m3/d)
Maximum year (m3)
0
50
100
150
200
250
3000
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
100000
1 15 29 43 57 71 85 99 113127141155169183197211225239253267281295309323337351365
Dai
ly p
reci
pita
tin a
mou
nt (m
m/d
)
Reg
ulat
ing
amou
nt (m
3 )
Days
Chronology(Yearly data for the maximum year)
Daily Precipitatin amount750m3/day
Daily precipitation (mm/d)
112
Table 3.3.28 In/Out Calculation Results (CASE 2-(3))
Case Daily Treatment Amount (m3/d)
Maximum Year (2010) Maximum leachate
regulating capacity (m3)
Treatment facilities
operating rate (%)
1 900 132,537 95.3% 2 950 128,537 90.3% 3 1,000 124,537 85.8% 4 1,050 120,537 81.7% 5 1,100 116,537 78.0% 6 1,150 112,537 74.6% 7 1,200 108,537 71.5% 8 1,250 104,537 68.6% 9 1,300 100,537 66.0%
10 1,350 96,537 63.5% Note) Treatment facilities operating rate = Total treatment amount/Total daily treatment amount
(Source: Prepared by authors of this report)
Figure 3.3.16 Daily Treatment Amount and Regulating Capacity (CASE 2-(3))
(Source: Prepared by authors of this report)
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350
最大
調整容
量(m3)
日処理量(m3/日)
113
Figure 3.3.17 Changes in Stored Amount Over Time assuming Daily Treatment Capacity of 1,100
m3/d (maximum year 2010) (CASE 2-(3))
(Source: Prepared by authors of this report)
In the Project, daily treatment capacity has been set with room to spare assuming a facilities operating rate
of 80%. As is indicated below, in CASE 1, daily treatment amount is 400 (m3/d) and regulating capacity is
45,000 (m3), while in CASE 2, it is planned to increase facilities to around the same degree in phased
development every five years. Considering the overall facilities development at the start of construction, it
will be necessary to set the scale as daily treatment amount of 1,100 (m3/d) and regulating capacity of
117,000 (m3).
Table 3.3.29 Scale of Leachate Treatment Facilities
Item CASE-1 CASE-2
(1) (2) (3)
Daily treatment amount (m3/d) 400 400 750 1,100
Amount of increase(m3/d) ― ― 350 350
Regulating capacity (m3) 45,000 45,000 80,000 117,000
Amount of increase(m3/d) ― ― 35,000 37,000
(Source: Prepared by authors of this report)
F) Leachate treatment facility of the landfill
In order for the leachate treatment system to meet the treated water effluent standard, it is composed the
following components.
0
50
100
150
200
250
3000
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
180000
200000
1 15 29 43 57 71 85 99 113 127 141 155 169 183 197 211 225 239 253 267 281 295 309 323 337 351 365
日降水量
(mm/日)
調整容量(m3)
日 付
日降水量
1100m3/日
Daily precipitation (mm/d)
114
(i) Primary coagulating sedimentation treatment
(ii) Biological treatment
(iii) Secondary coagulating sedimentation treatment
(iv) Filteration
(v) Activated carbon adsorption
(vi) Disinfection
(vii) Sludge dewatering
The above mentioned system flow is shown in the following Figure.
Reference: System Flow of Leachate Treatment
(Source: Prepared by authors of this report)
115
3.3.3 Contents of the Proposed Project (Area of Project Site, Project Budget, etc.)
(1)The Project Site
The project site is approximately 100 ha located at Jatiwaringin area in Tangerang Regency, adjoining
west side of Jakaruta. The site area is categorized for waste treatment facilities in the Land Use Plan of
Tangerang Regency (2011-2031), and an existing final disposal site (landfill) of Tangerang Regency is
also located. The project site is shown in figure 3.3.18.
Figure 3.3.18 Map of project site
(Source: Prepared by the authors of the report based on map by Google)
(2) Maintenance plan
A) Landfill plan
a) Basic policy
In designing the landfill plan, since the landfill period will be long at more than 15 years, zonal
landfilling will be planned with the objectives of reducing the amount of leachate, facilitating
management and achieving the early stabilization of the landfill.
The landfill will be divided into four sections by partition embankments. Rainwater in the sections
where landfilling hasn’t yet been started will be discharged into the regulating reservoir, and the
discharge destination will be switched to the leachate treatment system when landfilling starts.
Landfilling in each section will be conducted from the downstream side to ensure stabilization of the
impermeable liner, earth covering will be conducted when landfilling is finished and surface water
will be removed as much as possible in an effort to reduce the amount of leachate.
Jati Waringin
Tangerang Regency
Jakarta DKI
116
b) Design landfill capacity
Landfill in the Project will be considered assuming the case of 123 t/d of noncombustible waste and
the case of 438 t/d of combustible and noncombustible waste.
Table 3.3.30 Design Landfill Capacity Calculation Sheet
Landfill case Target landfill waste Weight (t/d) Landfill period (y) Design total weight (t)
CASE 1 Noncombustible waste 123 20
897,900
CASE 2 Noncombustible waste and combustible waste
438 3,197,400
Landfill case Unit volumetric
weight (t/m3) Design waste capacity (m3)
Cover earth capacity (m3)
Total capacity (m3)
CASE 1 0.5 1,795,800 628,530 2,424,330CASE 2 0.5 6,029,800 2,238,180 8,632,980
Landfill case Model design landfill
capacity (m3) Remarks
CASE 1 2,500,000 Basically adopt zonal landfill divided into 4 sections.
CASE 2 8,780,000 Basically adopt zonal landfill over 3 terms (7 years per term) and
4 sections. (Source: Prepared by authors of this report)
c) Landfill method
From the viewpoint of improving the properties of leachate and landfill gases as shown in Figure
3.3.19, a semi-aerobic landfill structure in where the leachate collection pipes (vent pipes) are
open-air will be adopted.
117
Figure 3.3.19 Semi-aerobic Landfill Structure
(Source: Prepared by authors of this report)
Moreover, the waste will be landfilled in a sandwich structure, comprising an earth-fill dam, an
intermediate soil covering and a final soil covering; moreover, same-day soil covering will be
conducted in order to prevent occurrence and spread of fires, fly-off of waste, occurrence of odor and
hygiene pests and so on.
Concerning the daily landfill method, wastes will be leveled to a thickness of around 30~50 cm and
amply compacted by heavy machinery.
d) Landfill work
As the Project site is on flat land, it will be necessary to conduct landfill up to a height in excess of the
height of the holding dam and peripheral management road in order to secure the design landfill
capacity. For this reason, the slope earth dam will be established in advance and the waste materials
will be landfilled to no higher than this.
The slope earth-fill dam will be built no higher than 2.5 m and the gradient will be no greater than
1:25. Crest width of at least 4 m will be secured. The slope earth-fill dam will be quickly planted with
vegetation to prevent the surface soil from running off.
Fully compacting the waste is important for stabilizing the landfill ground, extending the service life
of the landfill and enhancing the usability of the landfill site after it is closed. Waste will be scattered
to a thickness of 30~50 cm and compacted by pressing with a rolling compaction machine around five
times. Thickness of a single landfill layer will be no greater than 3 m, and intermediate cover soil of
around 50 cm will be applied for each layer.
Through landfilling easily scattered wastes with other wastes and sediment, and also by sprinkling
water to prevent dust from rising at arid times, scattering of waste can be prevented and a major effect
118
3000
5002500
2500
25001:2.5
1:2.51:2.5
4000
物棄廃
土覆
堤堰土
4000
2000
can be obtained for rolling compaction too. However, water should not be sprinkled in excess of the
evapotranspiration volume since this would increase the amount of leachate generated.
d1) Earth-fill dam
The landfill slope will be formed in stages by building the earth-fill dam in line with the progression
of landfill as shown in Figure 3.3.20. The inner side of the dam will be lined with impermeable liner.
Figure 3.3.20 Structure of Landfill Slope
(Source: Prepared by authors of this report)
d2) Cover soil
Intermediate cover soil: Apply 0.5 m of cover soil for every 3.0 m of waste.
Final cover soil: Apply 0.5~1.0 m of cover soil after completion of landfill
Cover coil material: Compost made from household waste would be applied
Cover soil volume: Necessary amount of cover soil: CASE 1: 530,000 m3,
CASE 2: 2,530,000 m3
d3) Landfill work
Figure 3.3.21 shows the flow of landfill work.
Cover soil
Waste
Soil Embankment
119
Figure 3.3.21 Flow of Landfill Work
< landfilling operation >
End of day`s work
Completion of a compartment
(Source: Prepared by authors of this report)
B) Landfill site maintenance plan
a) Facilities maintenance and management
Facilities such as the storage dam and seepage control will be inspected every day, and improvement
steps will be immediately implemented when damage is found in them.
Surrounding enclosures will be inspected and maintained at least once per month and the damaged
sections will be immediately repaired. Gates will be closed and locked at the end of work every day.
In order to maintain the functions of drainage facilities and regulating reservoir, etc. for preventing
rainwater from flowing into the landfill, inspections will be conducted, accumulated sediment will be
removed and facilities will be repaired on a regular basis.
The incoming road will be kept clean and repaired as the need arises. Also, the vehicle washing
equipment will be periodically inspected and sediment will be promptly removed when it
accumulates.
b) Landfill management
Incoming waste will as a rule be compacted, covered with soil and leveled, etc. on the day it arrives.
Carry in
Measurement
Dumping
Placement Shredding Surface compaction
(Daily earth cover)
Intermediate cover
Final cover
End of landfilling
Installation of hauling road
Slope construction
120
The waterproof sheet will be inspected periodically and, in cases where there is risk that the seepage
control effect declines, the necessary steps will be taken to restore effectiveness.
c) Management after landfilling
After landfill disposal is completed on the landfill site, drainage facilities of sufficient structure and
scale to drain off rainwater without any problem will be installed.
The cover soil will be inspected for subsidence, runoff and cracking, etc. and repairs will be made as
the need arises.
C) Landfill management setup
Figure 3.3.22 shows the maintenance setup during the landfill period.
Figure 3.3.22 Maintenance setup (CASE 1)
1 member
2 members
4 members (10 members)
2 members
10 members (20 members)
NOTE: Figures in parentheses show CASE 2
(Source: Prepared by authors of this report)
It is possible to outsource the operation management of landfill work and leachate treatment facilities
as well as the repair of facilities, however, in CASE 1, it will be necessary to have control personnel
of 12 members including the plant manager. In CASE 2, assuming two weighing personnel and 10
landfill workers, it will be necessary to have control personnel of around 24 members including the
plant manager.
D) Landfill maintenance costs
a)Landfill costs: Employees
Management office of landfill site
Director
Administrative matters
Measurement
Landfill work
Management of facilities
121
Table 3.3.31 Personnel Expenses
Unit: …/y
Item Unit cost
(yen)
CASE 1 CASE 2
Num
ber of
staff
Personnel
expenses
Num
ber of
staff
Personnel
expenses
Plant manager 3,250,000 1 3,250,000 1 3,250,000
General affairs supervisor 1,560,000 2 3,120,000 2 3,120,000
Weighing supervisor 910,000 4 3,640,000 10 9,100,000
Facilities maintenance supervisor 1,040,000 4 4,160,000 4 4,160,000
Member in charge of landfill work 650,000 10 6,500,000 20 13,000,000
Total 20,670,000 32,630,000
(Source: Prepared by authors of this report)
b) Landfill work cost: Heavy machinery lease charge, fuel cost, cover earth cost, etc.
Table 3.3.32 Landfill Work Cost
Unit: …/y
Reference quantities (/y)
Earth-fill dam
(m3)
Intermediate cover
soil (m3)
Total (m3) Impermeable liner
(m2)
CASE-1 10,000 25,300 35,300 1,300
CASE-2 40,800 128,200 169,000 5,400
(Source: Prepared by authors of this report)
c) Inspection and repair costs: Landfill
Item Cost
Remarks CASE 1 CASE 2
Heavy
machinery lease
charge
21,600,000 43,200,000
Bulldozer, back-how, dump truck, tire roller
Fuel cost 0 0 Light diesel oil Include in the heavy
machinery lease charge.
Cover earth cost 15,501,000 68,378,000 Earth-fill dam
Total 37,101,000 111,578,000
122
Table 3.3.33 Inspection and Repair Cost
Unit: …/y
Item CASE 1 CASE 2 Remarks
Length of gas
extraction pipes 388,800 1,166,400
CASE 1: 108 locations
CASE 2: 324 locations
Drainage channels
installation
880,000 2,350,000 Slope steps
Drainage channel
cleaning, etc.
3,960,000 7,920,000 10% increase for cost of expendable
items
Total 5,228,800 11,436,400
(Source: Prepared by authors of this report)
(3)The project content and budget scale
The project content is a construction of facilities consisting of a receiving station (including an
administration building), intermediate treatment facilities (bag shredder, manual sorting, MBT,
composting, RDF manufacture), a landfill (leachate treatment system) and a reservoir for preventing
rainwater from flowing into the landfill. The facilities are expected to treat and dispose 1,500 t/d of
municipal waste generated from Jakaruta for 20 years. An abstract description of the facilities is
indicated in table 3.3.34.
The land use planning of the facilities to be constructed under this project is shown in Figure 3.3.23 and
3.3.24.
Table 3.3.34 This Project Scale and Facility Component, etc.
Facility Component Content・Capacity・Facility Component, etc.
Controlled Landfill Landfill area: 16ha , landfill volume: 250m3, semi-aerobic landfill
structure(an earth-fill dam used excavated soil with gentle slope gradient,
sandwich approach, seepage control structure, vent pipes, open leachate
collection system, leachate treatment system)
Receiving Station Scale equipment, administration building
Bag Shredder +
Manual Sorting
Bag shredder, building, conveyer belt
MBT (Mechanical
Biological
Treatment)Facility
Daily treatment capacity 1,410t(1,185 + 225 ton), treatment
method:recyclable segregation facility, shredding facility, conveyer belt,
fermentation tank、building, segregation facility, storage facility
RDF Manufacturing
Facility
Capacity 480 t/d(product amount 430 t/d)
Composting Facility Capacity 410 t/d(334 + 76 t/d) (product amount 165 t/d)
(Source: Prepared by the authors of the report)
123
Figure 3.3.23 Land use planning (CASE 1)
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
124
Figure 3.3.24 Land use planning (CASE 2)
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
125
As shown in Table 3.3.35, the budget necessary for construction and operation of the facilities for 20
years is 3.4383 trillion Rp (29.6 billion yen or 343.83 million USD) for CASE 1 and 3.3844 trillion Rp
(29.1 billion yen or 375.56 million USD) for CASE 2.
Table 3.3.35 Project budget
Item CASE 1 CASE 2
1,000Rp 1,000yen 1,000Rp 1,000yen
Land acquisition 60,000,000 516,000 60,000,000 516,000
Preparation 2,325,000 20,000 2,325,000 20,000
Initial investment 1,061,537,000 9,129,000 1,295,542,000 11,141,660
O&M 1,614,651,000 13,886,000 1,509,870,000 12,984,880
Fund procurement
cost
245,700,000 2,113,020 292,144,000 2,512,442
Contingency 186,035,000 1,599,902 180,201,000 1,549,730
Tax 268,061,000 2,305,329 44,354,000 381,446
Total 3,438,309,000 29,569,251 3,384,436,000 29,106,158
Total in USD (1,000
USD) 381,539
375,563
Item in local currency in Japanese yen In local currency in Japanese yen
1,000Rp 1,000yen 1,000Rp 1,000yen
Land acquisition 60,000,000 0 60,000,000 0
Preparation 2,325,000 0 2,325,000 0
Initial investment 491,770,000 4,900,000 1,016,472,000 2,400,000
O&M 1,614,651,000 0 1,509,870,000 0
Fund procurement
cost
2,113,020 2,512,442
Contingency 93,017,500 799,951 90,100,500 774,865
Tax 268,061,000 0 44,354,000 0
Total 2,529,824,500 7,812,971 2,723,121,500 5,687,307
(Source: Prepared by authors of this report)
3.3.4 Issues and Solutions in Adopting the Proposed Technologies and System
Issues and solutions regarding to apply proposed technologies/systems are as follows:
(1) Procurement and management of workers for tasks including manual sorting
This project requires about 1,200 workers. As a result, there are challenges to procure the number of
workers and to manage them. For the solution, existing workers tasked for collecting waste are gathered
to employ continuously, and made to follow contract of employment by opening their bank accounts for
126
salary payment. Additionally, they receive medical check regularly to keep their health.
(2) Procurement of heavy equipment operators
In this project, about 40 loaders are operated to treat/dispose waste; therefore, appropriate skilled
operators are necessary. For the solution, heavy equipment operators are locally and widely recruited,
and for fulfilling shortage of the number of operators, non-skilled workers are trained to become the
operators until the project starts.
(3) Procurement of RDF users with considerations of transportation
It is necessary to procure users of RDF manufactured through this project. Also, transportation system
for the RDF users needs to be evaluated.
For the solution, cement factories are the first candidate for the RDF user because they already have
been purchasing 150Rp/kg to 375Rp/kg of RDF. As a result, the RDF user providing the most profitable
is selected under considerations of efficient RDF transportation. Also, it is discussed to seek RDF
demand from other than the cement factories. For instance, it is evaluated a possibility to use RDF as
fuel substitution at a thermal power plant, located at coastal area 10 km NW away from this project site.
For the evaluation, it is approached by both technical and economic aspects. The evaluation of this
power plant as the RDF user is resulted from advantages which are its location relatively close to the
project site and its stable business almost indefinitely comparing with the cement factories, and it is an
effective management to reduce risk by dealing with several users not only the cement factories but also
other businesses. For the reasons, the RDF quality sustains to satisfy the users with shape, impurity
and etc. under economically feasible range as well as calorific value.
(4) Compost quality procuring the compost users
Users of compost which manufactured through this project are necessary to be procured. The compost
quality is under precondition to satisfy the compost users; therefore, for especially organic oriented
market waste as material, it is necessary to be evaluated in details about the compost demand
mechanism later on as well as maintaining the compost quality standard.
For the solution, the existing compost users’ condition is reviewed and the compost demand forecast is
analyzed.
(5)Supplying transportation systems
At the project site, there is the existing landfill of Tangerang Regency and a total of approximately 100
waste transportation vehicles are daily moved. In this project, about 1,500t waste is expected to be
transported by a total of 1,000 vehicles if one vehicle carries 1.5t of waste amount. In this case, it
creates major impact to the neighborhood.
127
As stated in the Chapter 3, as one of the solutions, it is considered to establish a transfer station in west
Jakaruta. Since an existing transfer station in Sunter is abolished and an incinerator plant is planned to
be replaced, the transfer station needs to be considered to repair including to utilize usable materials.
Regarding the transportation cost, as mentioned in Chapter 3, no matter if the transfer station is
established, it is aimed to improve the existing waste transportation system for Batar Gebang via Sunter.
128
129
Chapter 4
Evaluation of Environmental and Social Impacts
130
131
In this chapter, the environmental and social aspects of the Project are analysed. It must be noted that
although environmental and social impact of the project has been analyzed for both the area near the
existing Bantar Gebang and the project site in Jatiwaringin area, analysis has been more extensively done
for the project site as the impact and effect is expected to be more significant.
4.1 Analysis of the Present Environmental and Social Conditions
4.1.1 Analysis of the Present Conditions
(1) Area near the Bantar Gebang final disposal site
A) Present Environmental Conditions
As was mentioned in Chapter 3, the final disposal of wastes generated in Jakarta is concentrated into the
final disposal site at Bantar Gebang, located in Bekasi City. On average, between 5,000~6,000t of wastes
are carried into this site every day. These large amounts of waste are simply dumped without any earth
covering, thus imparting a heavy load on the environment. On conducting survey of Bantar Gebang final
disposal site, the following results were obtained (Source: Indonesia Ministry of Environment, State of
Environment Report 2009):
- As a result of water quality survey, 40% of the samples were found to be in excess of the
standard value for acidity.
- As a result of water quality survey, 95% of the samples were found to contain coli bacteria.
- As a result of rectal swab inspection, 60% of targets were found to carry pathogenic germs.
Among these were coli bacteria (62%), salmonella bacteria (2%) and dysentery bacteria (2%).
- As a result of pulmonary tuberculosis inspection based on sputum sampling, 100 people were
found positive in 1998 while the number dropped to 16 in 1999.
- As a result of x-ray inspection, it was found that 34% of residents have chronic lung diseases
such as pulmonary tuberculosis, etc.
Moreover, the large numbers of trucks carrying waste to the site are a cause of traffic
congestion and an impediment to local economic activities.
B) Present Social Conditions
At Bantar Gebang final disposal site, numerous waste pickers scavenge for valuable resources. According
to the results of an interview survey of residents conducted in 2008, many waste pickers live in temporary
houses while collecting plastic, cans, bottles and iron, etc. on the site, and from these activities they earn
between 500,000~1,000,000 Rp per month. In the same survey, whereas 19% of the respondents said that
the final disposal site provided benefits (increased income, widened roads, etc.), 92% said that there is
need to carry out improvement of the site in sanitary terms (source: SAPROF report).
132
(2) Project site (Tangerang Regency, Jatiwaringin Village and environs)
A) Present Environmental Conditions
An environmental survey was conducted locally to quantitatively analyse the likely improvement effects of
the Project as much as possible. This survey involved the sampling of environmental air, river water,
groundwater, odour and leachate around the project site and the chemical analysis of these samples at a
laboratory. Existing documents and aerial photographs were used to assist the survey on the natural
environment (see Figure 4.1.1. for the sampling points). The survey findings are described next.
Figure 4.1.1 Sampling Sites of Environmental Air, River Water, Groundwater, Odour and Leachate
(Source: (Source: Prepared by the authors of this report using Google aerial map)
NOTE: The work shed has been indicated because it affects the water quality)
a) Results of environmental survey
a1) Ambient Air
Compared to the clean air standards set forth by Government Regulation No. 41 (1999) on Air
Pollution Control, the TSP value on the leeward side exceeds the reference value. It is inferred that
smoke generated at the existing disposal site has pushed up the TSP value on the leeward side.
In contrast, the SO2, CO, NO2 and O3 values are lower on the leeward side than those on the
windward side. Compared to their reference values, the differences are inferred to be within the range
of fluctuation at a much lower level.
133
Table 4.1.1 Environmental Air Analysis Results
Item Unit Analysis Results
Reference Value Windward
(Southeast) Leeward
(Northwest) SO2 μg/Nm3 124 117 365 CO μg/Nm3 558 269 100,000 NO2 μg/Nm3 22 6 150 O3 μg/Nm3 20 10 235 TSP μg/Nm3 101 414 230 CO2 μg/Nm3 108 223 None
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report. The analysis was conducted as part of the Study. The
reference values are those of Government Regulation No. 41 (1999) on Air Pollution Control.)
Figure 4.1.2 Comparison of TSP Values Between Windward and Leeward Sides
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
Photo 4.1.1 Smoke generated by the existing disposal site
(Source:Taken by the authors of this report)
a2) River Water
Cirarap River running at the side of the project site is contaminated by various organic compounds. The
river water of Cirarap River is classified as “Class D: usable for agriculture, small-scale projects, industry
and hydroelectric generation” by Government Regulation No. 82 (2001) on the Management of Water
Quality and Control of Water Pollution. Compared to the reference values set forth by this regulation for
Class D water, only the BOD value of the sampled water exceeds the relevant reference value.
0
100
20
300
400
500
Southeastern Side Northwestern Side
TSP
TSP
μg/Nm3
134
Table 4.1.2 River Water Analysis Results
Item Unit Analysis Results Reference
Value Upstream Downstream Total dissolved solids (TDS) mg/liter 232 346 2,000Residue on evaporation 173 193 400 pH 7 7 5-9BOD mg/liter 21 48 12COD mg/liter 40 77 100DO mg/liter 0 0 0T-P mg/liter 0.1 0.1 5Nitrate nitrogen mg/liter 0.05 1 20Soluble cobalt mg/liter 0.03 0.04 0.2Boron mg/liter 0.5 0.4 1Soluble cadmium mg/liter < 0.0003 < 0.0003 0.01Cr6+ mg/liter 0.04 0.05 1Soluble copper mg/liter 0.01 0.01 0.2Soluble lead mg/liter < 0.004 < 0.004 Soluble zinc mg/liter 0.1 0.1 2Soluble iron mg/liter 1.1 0.6 ―Fluorides mg/liter 0.4 0.4 ―Chlorides mg/liter 36 53 ―Soluble manganese mg/liter 0.8 0.4 ―Nitrite mg/liter 0.02 0.04 ―Fecal coliforms 2,640 1,000 2,000Total coliforms 28,500 12,500 10,000
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report. The analysis was conducted as part of the study. The
reference values are those of Government Regulation No. 82 (2001) on the Management of Water Quality
and Control of Water Pollution.)
NOTE: The reference values in the above table are those applicable to Class D water: usable for
agriculture, small projects, industry and hydropower generation.
The sample water was taken from both the upstream and downstream sides of the disposal site. There is a
tendency for the BOD and COD values to be higher on the downstream side than those on the upstream
side.
Figure 4.1.3 Comparison of BOD and COD Values Between Upstream and Downstream Sides
0
20406080
100
Upstream Downstream
CODmg/L
0
20
40
60
Upstream Downstream
BODmg/L
135
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
It was confirmed during the field survey that plastic bags, etc. recovered from the waste brought to the
disposal site are washed at a shed located between the upstream and downstream river water sampling
sites. For this work, river water is pumped up and then returned to the river after use for washing. Many
bags, etc. which have escaped during the washing work are scattered at the riverside, implying their
possible adverse effects on the river water quality (see Photo 4.1.2). This situation suggests that the
higher BOD and COD values on the downstream side as shown by the river water analysis results are
likely to be attributable to not only the final disposal site itself but also to a whole range of waste
recycling activities.
Photo 4.1.2 Riverside near the bag washing shed (Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
The coliform count was found to be higher on the upstream side than the downstream side. The field
survey confirmed that this is caused by the existence of a toilet facility near the water sampling site on
the upstream side.
Photo 4.1.3 View of the river water sampling site on the upstream side
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
a3) Groundwater
Compared to the reference standards for Class A water: Usable for drinking water without treatment set
forth by Government Regulation No. 82 (2001) on the Management of Water Quality and Control of Water
Flow directionRiver
Shed
Inflow of waster water to the river Scattered bags, etc. from the shed
Toilet Sampling site
Flow direction
Scattered bags, etc.
136
Pollution, the turbidity, Fe, Cr6+ and coliform values are higher in some samples. No clear correlation is
observed between the sampling locations and sites as well as levels of pollution, suggesting that the
pollution of groundwater is almost evenly spread over the entire area. According to the local consultant
entrusted to conduct the environmental survey, the local groundwater has likely been affected by industrial
activities given the high level of such activities in Tangerang District even though the sources of pollution
have not been identified.
Table 4.1.3 Groundwater Analysis Results
Item Unit Analysis Results Reference
Value Sample No. 1 Sample No. 2 Sample No. 3
TDS mg/liter 726 906 1,422 1,000Turbidity Nephelometric
Turbidity Units (NTU)
9 0.5 12 5
Taste Tasteless Tasteless Tasteless TastelessTemperature Celcius 27.9 27.9 27.5 Air temperature
±3Colour True colour
units 9 < 4 9 15
Fe mg/liter 0.2 0.04 0.2 0.1F mg/liter 0.3 0.4 0.2 1.5Cd mg/liter < 0.003 < 0.003 < 0.003 0.005CaCO3 mg/liter 500Cl mg/liter 194 500 407 600Cr6+ mg/liter 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.05Mn mg/liter 0.04 0.1 0.1 0.5NO3- mg/liter < 0.08 < 0.08 < 0.08 10NO2- mg/liter 0.02 < 0.0009 0.01 1pH 6.5- 6.6 7.3 6.5-8.5Coliforms (MPN) MPL/100ml 60 50 43 50
*The reference values in the above table are those applicable to Class A water: usable for drinking
water without treatment
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report. The analysis was conducted as part of the study. The
reference values are those of Government Regulation No. 82 (2001) on the Management of Water Quality
and Control of Water Pollution.) a4) Odour
The NH3 and H2S values exceed their corresponding reference values in Indonesia, confirming the
presence of bad odour around the project site. Sampling took place at the same sites for the sampling
of environmental air (windward and leeward sides) and a tendency for the odour values to be higher
on the leeward side is observed.
137
Table 4.1.4 Odour Analysis Results
Item Unit Analysis Results Reference Value Windward Leeward
NH3 mg/liter 1.2 2.6 2.0CH3SH mg/liter 0.003 0.005 0.002H2S mg/liter 0.03 0.04 0.02(CH3)2S mg/liter 0.005 0.008 0.01C6H5CHCH2 mg/liter 0.008 0.006 0.1
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report. The analysis was conducted as part of the study.
The reference values are those set forth by Ministerial Decree No. 50 (1996)
of the Ministry of Environment on Odour Standards.)
a5) Leachate
Compared to the reference values set forth by Ministerial Decree No. 51 (1995) of the Ministry of
Environment on Effluent Standards for Industry, the fluorine, mercury and selenium values of some
samples exceed the relevant reference values.
Table 4.1.5 Leachate Analysis Results
Item Unit Analysis Results Reference Value Sample No. 1 Sample No. 2
Arsenic mg/liter 0.1 0.01 0.1Barium mg/liter <0.001 <0.001 - Boron mg/liter 3.2 0.6 - Cadmium mg/liter <0.007 <0.007 0.05Chrome mg/liter 0.1 0.1 0.5Copper mg/liter 0.02 0.2 2Cyanogen compounds mg/liter 0.03 0.02 0.05Fluorine mg/liter 5.5 6.4 2Lead mg/liter 0.04 0.01 0.1Mercury mg/liter 0.01 0.004 0.002Nitrate + nitrite mg/liter 7.5 2.1 - Nitrite mg/liter 0.9 0.1 - Selenium mg/liter 0.1 0.1 0.05Silver mg/liter 0.03 0.01 - Zinc mg/liter 0.5 0.1 5
*The reference values are those applicable to Group 1 factories with an advanced effluent treatment
system.
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report. The analysis was conducted as part of the study. The
reference values are those set forth by Ministerial Decree No. 51 (1995) of the Ministry of Environment on
Effluent Standards for Industry.)
138
Photo 4.1.4 Leachate accumulating at the disposal site
*Leachate and waste are mixed up together.
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
a6) Natural Environment
According to existing documents and aerial photographs, there is no nature reserve designated by the
government near the project site. However, a wild mangrove forest which is protected under the
national government policy is located some 7 km away from the project site.
b) Summary of Environmental Issues
The findings of the field survey indicate the following environmental issues to be considered.
・ Air pollution attributable to the natural combustion of waste at the existing disposal site is
observed even though the level of pollution is below the relevant environmental standard for air.
・ While the quality of river water is affected by human sewage, there is another factor that effluent
from the operation at a nearby shed of washing plastic bags, etc. recovered from waste for
recycling is discharged to the river without any treatment. This situation indicates that
environmental loads are produced by the operation of the final disposal site as well as waste
recovery and recycling activities of which the underlying motivation is quite favourable.
・ The local groundwater fails to meet the reference standard in relation to several analysis items. The
groundwater pollution appears to be common knowledge locally and all of the local residents
interviewed replied that they buy drinking water. This suggests that the groundwater from local
boreholes is used for washing and other purposes. Cr6+ was detected in the groundwater from
boreholes located in the upstream of the project site. It is inferred that industrial waste, etc. at
another final disposal site located in the upstream of the project site may well be the source of this
pollution but the exact source has not yet been identified. Meanwhile, the slightly high level of
coliforms is thought to be attributable to human sewage, including that of waste pickers operating
near the disposal site.
・ In regard to leachate, some heavy metals show relative high values and these must be noted from
the viewpoint of the management of hazardous waste. The relevant control measures include
restrictions on incoming waste containing heavy metals (for example, fluorescent lamps, dry cells,
139
mercury thermometers and manometers) and continual monitoring with a view to preventing an
unwanted increase of the level of heavy metal concentration in leachate.
・ The interviews with local residents on the state of their health found that 83% were healthy before
the opening of the existing disposal site. None of them described themselves as “healthy” since the
opening of the disposal site. 8% complained of stomach pains, 28% complained of the symptoms
of skin disorders (hives, chromphytosis, scabies and others) and 64% complained of the symptoms
of respiratory disorders (TB, shortness of breath and others). It is probably safe to assume that
these medical conditions are related to the environmental pollution described above.
・ At present, the following management techniques for the final waste disposal site have not yet
been adopted.
a) Appropriate landfill method
b) Environmental management and monitoring techniques
c) Techniques designed to reduce environmental loads in order to minimise adverse impacts on
the local environment
(3) Present Social Conditions
a) Results of Social Survey
A social environment survey was conducted around the project site. The main components of this survey
were a series of interviews with administrators and local residents and the gathering of administrative
statistics. The main findings are described next.
a1) Housing
At present, the project site is mostly used for rice cultivation. Although there are no permanent dwellings,
some 10 temporary buildings occupied by waste pickers, etc. exist in the area. Some of these buildings are
used for the storage of recovered valuables from the disposal site or the resting of waste pickers.
a2) Livelihood
According to the manager of the Jatiwaringin Disposal Site and others, 843 local residents recover
valuables from the said disposal site. In general, these recovered valuables provide some 50% of the
income for many of these people with the remaining 50% coming from farming, etc. The most popular
item recovered from the disposal site is plastics but other valuables include steel (iron), aluminium (broken
pans, etc.), tins (food tins, etc.), broken glass, worn sandals and electric bulbs.
Waste pickers collect these valuables without sorting and sell them to middlemen (lapak) at 1,400 Rp/kg
(glass is the only item with variable prices from 250 Rp/kg for coloured glass to 400 Rp/kg for clear glass).
Middlemen then clean, sort and sell the valuables to recycling plants at a price of 500 Rp to 3,900 Rp/kg
depending on the type of waste. This process of recycling valuable waste from waste pickers at a recycling
plant is shown in Figure 4.1.4.
Figure. 4.1.4 Flow o
Waste pickers
They collect valuable resources from the disposal site and sell them to middlemen without separating.
They svaluable vendors.
(Source: Prepared by t
The interviews with the largest middle
recovered from the Jatiwaringin dispos
Waste pickers earn some 18,925,000 R
picker earns an average of 2,450 Rp/d.
Table 4.1.6 Quantities and Value
Type R
Plastic High-density polyethylene bags Polypropylene (PP) bags Polyethylene (PE) bags Other bags Polyethylene (PE) packaging Other packaging Plastic bottles Plastic toys
Iron Aluminum (e.g. pieces of pan) Tin (e.g. cans of canned foods) Broken glass (clear) Broken glass (colored) Sandals Light bulbs
Total(Source: Prepared by the author
Mixed valuable resources (e.g.
PET bottles, cans, plastic bags)
140
of Recovered Valuables (in case of PET bottles)
Middlemen Vendors
separate and clean items and sell them to
They purchase only specific valuable items, conduct further separation, cleaning, crushing and drying where necessary, and sell them to recycling companies.
Tbototeet
the authors of this report based on the interview resul
emen operating in Jatiwaringin revealed the quantiti
al site and the middlemen’s purchase prices as shown
Rp/d from the recovery of valuables at the disposal s
es of Valuables Recovered from the Jatiwaringin DQuantity
Recovered (kg/d) Sales to middlemen
(kg/d) Sales Price (Rp/kg) Total sale7,000 1,400
1,000 1,400 1,000 1,400 2,000 1,400
50 700
20 1,400 50 700
1,000 1,400 20 1,400
143 1,400 1,000 1,400 500* 400 500* 250
3 1,400 50 1,400
14,336 rs of this report based on the interview results with m
PET bottles PET bottle fragmen
Recycling companies at
home and abroad
They use PET ottle fragments o manufacture extile products, tc.
lts)
ies of valuables
n in Table 4.1.6.
site. Each waste
Disposal Site
es to (Rp/d)9,800,000
1,400,000 1,400,000 2,800,000
35,000
28,000 35,000
1,400,000 28,000
200,000 1,400,000
200,000 125,000
4,000 70,000
18,925,000 middlemen)
nts
141
a3) Cultural Assets, Landscape and Ethnic Minorities
As mentioned earlier, the land at the project site is mostly used for rice cultivation at present. Even though
there are no permanent dwellings, some 10 temporary buildings exist to accommodate waste pickers, etc.
These buildings are also used to store valuables recovered from the disposal site and for the resting of
waste pickers. No cultural assets protected by a public body exist on or around the project site. Neither are
there any colonies of ethnic minorities or indigenous people on or around the project site.
a4) Work Environment
At the Jatiwaringin disposal site, 843 people operate as waste pickers to recover valuables from the surface
of the waste mountains and near the trucks unloading the waste. Some landfill sites in Indonesia have
experienced the death of waste pickers due to the collapse of the waste mountains as mentioned earlier. In
the case of an open dumping type disposal site such as the existing Jatiwaringin disposal site where waste
is simply piled up, not only the possible collapse of the waste mountains but also the frequent autogenous
ignition of the waste through the fermentation of organic matters make the work environment for waste
pickers unsafe.
a5) Transport
The access road to the Jatiwaringin disposal site currently carries some 115 dump trucks transporting waste
to the site as well as some 145 vehicles a day. The results of interviews with local residents indicate their
desire to see the use of the road by dump trucks outside the busy hours of between 07:00 and 09:00 in the
morning and between 16:00 and 18:00 in the evening.
b) Summary of Social Issues
The field survey has identified the following social issues concerning the area surrounding the project site.
・ Although there are 10 temporary housing, there are no permanent housing
・ Many of the residents in the area collect valuables in the existing landfill site and the disposal site
is contributing to the local community
・ There are no natural or cultural heritages near the project site.
・ The work environment is not very safe for waste pickers because of the possible collapse of the
waste mountains as well as the frequent autogenous ignition of these mountains to cause fires.
・ Trucks that pass the near roads for transporation of wasts may be hindering economic and social
activities of the local communities during the busy morning and evening hours.
4.1.2 Future projections (if project is not implemented)
Section 3.1.2(3) summarizes the problems that will arise in the case where the Project isn’t implemented,
and the following paragraphs examine problems from the viewpoint of environmental and social
consideration.
142
(1) Area around Bantar Gebang final disposal site
As was mentioned earlier, since a lot of waste is carried into Bantar Gebang final disposal site every
day, this leads to environmental pollution in terms of water contamination, health damage to local
residents and traffic congestion, etc. Since the generated amount of waste in Jakarta is expected to
increase even more in line with economic growth in future, in the event where the Project is not
implemented, the said problems around Bantar Gebang final disposal site are likely to deteriorate.
(2) On the Project site (area around Jatiwaringin Village in Tangerang District)
The final disposal site in Tangerang Regency conducts open dumping with hardly any earth covering,
and fermenting waste is allowed to spontaneously combust. Revision of pertinent legislation has made
it necessary to switch from open dumping to sanitary landfill by 2013, however, due to the difficulty
of acquiring covering materials and lack of experience in management technology, it will be very
difficult to effect improvement. Conversely, in Jatiwaringin in Tangerang Regency, since there are no
facilities for receiving municipal wastes from Jakarta, no contribution can be expected with respect to
the rehabilitation of existing facilities through, for example, the economic effect and supply of
covering materials to existing final disposal sites described in the coming sections.
The major problems from the viewpoint of environmental and social consideration are as follows:
- The air pollution caused by smoke, etc. rising from spontaneously combusting waste on the site
will remain unchanged or deteriorate even more.
- Since bag cleaning work, etc. implemented on and around the site will remain unchanged, it
will not be possible to remove the cause of pollution to river water. Similarly, the quality of
bottom sediment will remain unchanged or deteriorate even more.
- The current situation of water pollution due to human excreta and other wastewater from waste
pickers and other locals will remain unchanged, and pollution caused by fecal bacteria will
remain unchanged or worsen.
- Since no improvements will be made to the noise and vibration situation in terms of equipment
and maintenance, the current situation will remain unchanged or deteriorate even more.
- Since no improvements will be made to the odor situation in terms of equipment and
maintenance, the current situation will remain unchanged or deteriorate even more.
- Many local residents collect valuable materials from the existing disposal site, however, since
there is risk of the waste mountain collapsing and catching fire, the work environment is not
safe for them. These conditions will remain unchanged or deteriorate even more.
143
4.2 Environmental Improvement Effects of the Project
The environmental improvement effects of the Project are examined separately for Jakarta and
Tangerang Regency.
4.2.1 Improvement Effects in the Bantar Gebang Final Disposal Site
(1) Environment
The amount of waste at Bantar Gebang final disposal site will decrease, while construction of facilities on
the west side of Jakarta as opposed to Bantar Gebang in the east will help improve the waste transportation
efficiency, reduce waste transportation costs and improve traffic congestion around Bantar Gebang. The
improvement in traffic congestion will also lead to improvement in the state of air pollution caused by
exhaust gases from passing vehicles. Furthermore, on Bantar Gebang disposal site, even though it is
planned to switch from open dumping to the more sanitary landfill approach, the site is unable to conduct
earth covering on the same day due to the large amounts of waste being carried in. However, since the
amount of incoming waste will be reduced as a result of the Project, it will become possible to conduct
same day earth cover, not to mention the fact that a major effect can be expected in terms of extending the
landfilling service life.
(2) Society
Concern is raised over the negative impact of the Project in that the reduction of incoming municipal waste
to Bantar Gebang disposal site will adversely affect the income of waste pickers who make a living by
collecting and selling valuable wastes from the site. However, since the waste pickers form an extensive
organization, it is expected that the impact can be kept to a minimum if the waste pickers move in line with
the flow of waste.
4.2.2 Improvement Effects on the Project Site (area around Jatiwaringin Village in Tangerang District)
(1) Environment
The Project will not directly conduct improvements to the existing disposal site in Jatiwaringin,
however, as the neighbouring land will be developed and the existing disposal site will be improved,
the environmental load in this area will decline. It is also hoped that new management methods will
be introduced, thereby leading to improvement in the skill levels and so on of operators.
- Since sanitary landfilling, which doesn’t entail risk of spontaneous combustion, will be
introduced on the new disposal site, naturally occurring fires will be prevented and this will
lead to improvement in the air environment.
- In addition to improvement of the Project disposal site, the activities of waste pickers around
the site will be modified to a more environmentally considerate method, thereby leading to
reduction in the environmental load placed on water quality. The situation regarding resource
144
collection in bags, etc. around the disposal site will be improved, and the pollutant load
entering rivers will be mitigated as a result of the integrated treatment of bag washing water
and leachate. Moreover, as an incidental effect, the construction of toilets, etc. will help
improve the sanitary environment and reduce inflow of coliform bacteria to rivers, etc. The
resulting improvement in water quality will also be effective in improving bottom sediment
quality.
- The adoption of low noise heavy machinery will help improve noise and vibration.
- The introduction of sanitary landfilling will lead to improvement in the effects of odor.
(2) Society
Through constructing a new disposal site, it is anticipated that this will lead to vitalization of the local
economy around Jatiwaringin improvement in the working environment for waste pickers.
・ The construction of a new disposal site is expected to create new employment at Jatiwaringin and
to stimulate the local economy. When the new disposal site opens, it is estimated that some 1,500t
of waste will be brought in every day. Establishment of 8 lines for manual sorting of valuables from
wastes with 50 staffs for each line ise planned, which would employ a total of 1,200 people. The
revenue from sales of collected valuables would be paid to the workers in the sorting lines. In
addition to these sorting workers, the recruitment of approximately 20 workers will be necessary
for administration of the operation of the landfill site (e.g. operation of machineries), creating
further employment.
・ The construction of an environmentally sound waste disposal site under the Project will much
improve the work environment of waste pickers. The new disposal site is designed to prevent the
collapse of the waste mountains and also to reduce the risk of autogenous ignition as organic waste
will be either composted or covered by soil after landfilling operation (see Chapter 3 for the design
of the new disposal site). As waste pickers will recover valuables from the waste on a manual
sorting line in an orderly manner instead of picking them out from among waste mountains, the
work environment will be much safer without the risk of accidents due to contact with heavy
machinery or dump trucks.
4.3 Environmental and Social Impacts of the Implementation of the
Project 4.3.1 Environmental and Social Issues Requiring Consideration at the Next Stage of the Study
Careful attention must be paid to the following issues in the process leading to the implementation of the
Project. Detailed examination of these issues is necessary as part of the environmental impact assessment
(AMDAL) scheduled to take place in due course.
145
(1) Environmental Issues
・ Impacts of increased traffic noise and vibration and emissions resulting from the delivery of waste
by dump trucks to the disposal site
・ Impacts of dust, noise, vibration and emissions caused by heavy machinery involved in the landfill
operation of waste
・ Impacts on the river, etc. due to prevention of the underground seepage of the leachate from the
disposal site, installation of a waste water treatment system and discharge of treated water
・ It is appropriate to include the period required for the stabilisation of the landfilled waste when
considering the impacts of the final disposal site.
・ Impacts of human sewage and waste water produced by people working at the final disposal site,
including those engaged in waste recycling
・ It is appropriate for planning of the scope of the final disposal site to include recycling activities
conducted around the disposal site.
(2) Social Issues
・ Any legal requirement must be clarified in relation to the procedure to relocate the 10 temporary
buildings which are currently used by waste pickers for dwelling and other purposes. Any negative
impacts on the people using these buildings must be minimised.
・ Interviews with 36 local residents found that 10 of them (approximately 28%) are engaged in
farming full-time or part-time with an average income from farming of some 1,179,285Rp/month.
Because the construction of the new final disposal site means partial loss of the existing farmland,
some of these people will find it impossible to continue farming. Although the new disposal site
will create new employment opportunities, it will be desirable to provide the necessary training,
etc. for those people who may be forced to abandon farming and to seek work with a valuables
recovery line, etc. at the disposal site so that they can quickly adapt to a new job and environment.
・ It is necessary to carefully ensure that the income of no local resident will drop due to the
implementation of the Project.
・ The construction of a large-scale final disposal site means a substantial increase of the traffic
volume involving dump trucks which is likely to disrupt traffic involving local residents. As such
disruption may hinder the development of the local economy, an IEA must examine any likely
impacts of the increased traffic with a view to coming up with suitable remedial measures (for
example, widening of the roads and the compression of waste at transfer stations to reduce the
waste volume).
Table 4.3.1 and Table 4.3.2 summarise the present environmental and social conditions, environmental and
social improvement effects and likely impacts of the implementation of the Project.
146
Table 4.3.1 Current Environmental and Social Conditions, and Improvement Effects and Impacts
Arising in Line with Project Implementation (Area around Bantar Gebang Final Disposal Site) Item Current Conditions Improvement Effect Impact
Environment Waste is being concentrated into 1 final disposal site, causing overload, and there is concern over air pollution, etc. caused by transporting vehicles.
Construction of a new treatment facility will mitigate load, reduce the number of incoming vehicles and improve air pollution. Construction of a disposal site on the west side of the regency will resolve the issue of over-concentration on the east side.
-
Society Concentration of incoming vehicles is causing traffic congestion.
The number of incoming vehicles will fall, leading to improvement in traffic congestion.
Reduction in the amount of incoming waste will lead to reduced employment on the disposal site.
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
Table 4.3.2 Present Environmental and Social Conditions and Improvement Effects and Impacts of
the Project (in areas near the Project site) Item Present Conditions Improvement Effects Impacts Environmental Aspect
Air There is air pollution caused by smoke from the autogenous ignition of waste at the existing disposal site. At one survey site, the TSP value of 414 g–Nm3 far exceeds the reference value (230
g-Nm3).
The Project will have the effect of improving the existing disposal site, preventing autogenous ignition to improve the air environment. For the new disposal site, the sanitary landfill method with no autogenous ignition will be adopted.
The increased number of vehicles transporting waste will increase the overall amount of emissions while the increased amount of waste will increase the amount of emissions from heavy machinery. Careful attention will be required to deal with dust, etc. associated with the landfill work.
Water Quality
The river water is polluted by the operation to wash recovered plastic bags, etc. and human sewage produced by waste pickers and others. For example, the BOD value increases from 21 mg/liter in the upstream to 48 mg/liter in the downstream.
Apart from the improvement of the existing disposal site, the activities of waste pickers in the area should be guided to more environmentally sound activities to reduce the overall environmental load.
Treated leachate is discharged from the existing disposal site and its environmental load should be taken into consideration.
Waste At present, the Jatiwaringin disposal
As the Project will take place at land adjacent
With the completion of the Project, the area
147
Item Present Conditions Improvement Effects Impacts site is operated by the Tangeran district authority but is marred by a number of problems as described in this table because of its open dumping method.
to the existing disposal site, it does not directly aim at improving the existing disposal site. However, with the opening of a new disposal site, positive impacts, including improvement of the operation and management, are expected to be realised at the existing disposal site.
will become a major destination for waste from Jakarta. While individual issues are described under the suitable headings in this table, it is essential to ensure an appropriate design, construction work and management of the new site to prevent an increase of the environmental load.
Soil Pollution
Groundwater is polluted by Cr6+, etc. released from a source located upstream of the project site (a Cr6+ level of 0.14 mg/liter which is well above the reference value of 0.05 mg/liter was detected at three boreholes, including one located in the upstream).
*It is inferred that there must be a groundwater pollution source which has nothing to do with the waste disposal site. This pollution should be carefully monitored as known pollution.
The pollution of groundwater by leachate from the final disposal site can be avoided by the introduction of an impermeable layer. The prevention of groundwater pollution also requires an appropriate design, construction work and management of the disposal site.
Noise and Vibration
While there are no private houses in the immediate vicinity, noise and vibration may occur at the disposal site due to the operation of heavy machinery. Noise and vibration will also occur at the roadside due to the passing of dump trucks.
With the introduction of low noise heavy machinery, the noise level at the new disposal site should be much lower than that of conventional disposal sites.
The increased number of dump trucks required to bring in a much greater volume of waste means a likely increase of noise and vibration. The introduction of appropriate measures (quiet operation, use of low noise machinery and others) will be important.
Ground Subsidence
No ground subsidence has been observed.
- As no component of the Project is likely to cause ground subsidence, this aspect can be disregarded.
Bad Odour The impacts of the disposal site are observed, including an ammonia concentration level of 2.6 mg/liter on the leeward side compared to a reference value of 2.0 mg/liter.
The introduction of the sanitary landfill method should curtail the bad odour.
It is important to regularly cover the dumped waste with soil to prevent the occurrence of bad odour.
Bottom Although the bottom Improvement of the As an increased
148
Item Present Conditions Improvement Effects Impacts Sediment material at the riverbed
has not been analysed, there can be an accumulation of pollutants in the material in view of the state of river water pollution.
treated water to be discharged to the river should reduce the burden on the river, etc.
amount of waste transported to the disposal site means a likely increase of the leachate load, it is essential to conduct the proper management of leachate.
Natural Environment
There is a mangrove forest some 7 km from the site. Even though this is not an official reserve, mangrove trees are subject to protection under a government policy.
There are no likely impacts on the natural environment in need of protection but the project design should take harmony with the surrounding natural environment into consideration.
No adverse impacts on the natural environment in need of protection will occur.
Social Aspect Relocation of Residents
There are some 10 temporary buildings used as dwellings, etc.
- These temporary buildings will require relocation.
Local Livelihood
843 waste pickers earn an average of 22,450 Rp per day from the recovery of valuables.
Employment will be created for the recovery of valuables and the operation and management of the disposal site and the income of local residents will increase.
There will be some shifts of the local production and industrial activities due to the reduction of farmland.
Cultural Assets
There are no cultural assets designated by the government
- -
Landscape River fields extend over the project site - -
Indigenous People and Ethnic Minorities
There are no communities of indigenous people or ethnic minorities locally.
- -
Work Environment
The work environment is not quite safe because of the piled up waste and autogenous ignition of the waste.
The construction of a safe disposal site will improve the work environment.
-
Transport The access road is used by some 115 dump trucks transporting waste and 145 other vehicles a day.
-
The overall traffic volume will increase due to a large number of dump trucks and other vehicles connected to the operation at the new disposal site.
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
149
4.3.2 Comparative Analysis between the Project Components and Other Options with Fewer
Environmental and Social Impacts
Comparison was carried out between the Project and alternative (rival) technologies and systems,
namely incineration (waste power generation) + managed final disposal site, and methane
fermentation + RDF + managed final disposal site. In selecting the system, it is important to consider
whether the technology is superior and what kind of contribution can be made to the Project area. The
alternative proposals are also excellent technologies with merits, however, ultimately the plan to
introduce MBT and managed final disposal site is considered to be superior in terms of its diversity in
providing cover soil for Jatiwaringin disposal site next to the composting facility and providing
compost for local farmland.
Table 4.3.3 Comparison with Alternative Proposals [Project]
MBT + Managed final disposal site
[Alternative 1] Incineration (waste power
generation) + Managed final disposal site
[Alternative 2] Methane fermentation + RDF + Managed final
disposal site
Products from intermediate treatment
Compost Treatment residue
Incineration ash (including fly-ash) Treatment residues (noncombustible waste, etc.)
Biogas RDF Digestion fluid (including residues)
Main environmental loads
Leachate from disposal site
Leachate, exhaust gases, incineration ash (including fly-ash) from disposal site
Leachate from disposal site Digestion fluid
Noteworthy environmental load substances
BOD, COD, T-N, etc. HCl,NO2, CO, dioxins, heavy metals in flay-ash
High concentration organic wastewater
Environmental improvement effects
Compost can be effectively utilized as covering material.
There is a large volume reduction effect. Compared to other options, the time required for treatment is short. Electric power can be obtained.
Fuels such as biogas and RDF, etc. can be obtained.
Social effects Employment creation, improvement in labor environment
Securing of electric power Securing of fuels
Problems The energy collection effect is worse than in the alternative proposals.
Caution is required in implementing dioxin countermeasures concerning exhaust gases and incineration ash Plastic bags, which are currently collected for recycling, have high potential for being incinerated with a view to securing heating value. This runs counter to the goal of collecting resources.
There are uncertainties regarding effective utilization of digestion fluids and its treatment may increase costs.
150
In addition to incinerators, it is possible that costs will rise due to maintenance of exhaust gas treatment facilities and power generating facilities.
Applicability to the Project
Compared to the alternative proposals, the environmental load is lower and maintenance costs are less. The obtained compost can be used as cover soil for improving Jatiwaringin disposal site (switch to sanitary landfilling) or it can be returned to farmland, etc. Due to the diversity of such uses, a large contribution can be made to the local area.
If incineration facilities are constructed, it is better in terms of transportation efficiency to build them close to the city where wastes are generated. Care is required in environmental terms concerning exhaust gases and dioxins. It is possible that maintenance costs will increase.
It would be effective if there are demands for biogas and RDF cloes to the project site. Costs may increase due to t digestion fluid treatment costs.
Overall assessment Good Moderate Moderate
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report) 4.3.3 Discussions with Stakeholders
The likely main stakeholders in the Project are those listed in Table 4.3.4. Although separate
discussions with the officials in charge of the Project in the Jakarta Raya and Tangerang district
governments have started, it will be necessary to set up a discussion forum for local residents and
other stakeholders.
151
Table 4.3.4 Likely Main Stakeholders in the Project
Central
Government
Ministry of Environment
Ministry of Public Works
Local
Governments
Government of Jakarta Raya (Governor, Cleansing Department)
Government of Tangerang District (Governor’s Office; Cleansing
Department; Land Department)
Village authorities in the project-affected area (Jatiwaringin, Buaran Jati,
Gintung, Tanjakan Mekar and Rajeg)
Others Local residents (including waste pickers), middlemen to purchase recovered
valuables and local NGOs
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report based on
the interview results and other relevant information)
The interviews with 36 local residents found that 33 respondents (92%) are in favour of the
construction of a new disposal site employing environmentally sound techniques and technologies
with 3 respondents (8%) against. However, the following conditions were put forward for the
construction. The primary reason for opposition to a new disposal site given by those against is that
they could not trust government promises to improve the existing disposal site.
Provision of free medical insurance for communities adversely affected by the disposal site
Secured employment for local residents
Road improvement (particularly the access road to Tanjakan Mekar village)
Environmentally sound management of the disposal site.
4.4 Summary of Regulations regarding Environmental and Social
Considerations in the Partner Country.
4.4.1 Summary of regulations regarding environmental and social considerations in order to implement the
project.
In Indonesia, Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is called AMDAL(Analisis Menganai Dampak
Lingkungan), and regulated by Laws or Decrees of the Minister of State for Environment as shown on the
following table. Also, under Law No.32/2009 concerning Environmental Protection and Management,
Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA or KLHS in Indonesian)1 is regulated to be conducted.
Central and local governments are obligated to perform SEA when the following policies, plans, etc. are 1 SEA is called Kajian Lingkungan Hidup Strategies (KLHS) in Indonesian.
152
prepared.
・ Long-term Development Plans
・ Medium-term Development Plans
・ Spatial Plans across National, Province and District
・ Policies, Plans and Programs which give environmental impact or its risk.
Table 4.4.1 Laws and regulations on EIA in Indonesia Law
・ Government Regulation No.27/1999: Process of the conduct of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA/AMDAL)
・ Law No.32/2009 concerning Environmental Protection and Management Decree of the Minister of State for Environment
・ Decree of the Minister of State for Environment No. 11/2006 about Types of Business or Activity Compulsory Equipped with Environmental Impact Analysis
・ Decree of the Minister of State for Environment No.2/2000 on Guidance on the Evaluation of the EIA (AMDAL) Document
・ Decree of the Minister of State for Environment No.8/2000 on Guidance on Public Participation and Information Disclosure of the EIA Process.
・ Decree of the Minister of State for Environment No.9/2000 on Guidelines for Preparation of Environmental Impacts
・ Decree of the Minister of State for Environment No.40/2000 on Guidance on the Working Procedure of the EIA Commission.
・ Decree of the Minister of State for Environment No.41/2000 on Guidance on the Establishment of Commission for the EIA Evaluation in Regency/City.
(Source: Ministry of Environment, Indonesia)
153
4.4.2 AMDAL and KLHS
The following table provides comparison of AMDAL and KLHS.
Table 4.4.2 AMDAL and SEA Compared AMDAL KLHS Scope Decision Making
Applied to Projects Applied to Policies, Plans and Programs
Structure Nature Applied to Operation Strategitic, Abstract, ConceptualOutput Detail Abstract Considered Range of Project Alternatives
Location/Site Decision, Design, Construction and Operation
Area, Rule, Technology,Economy, Finance
Time Scale Short to Medium Medium to Long Impact Capacity Detailed Impact over Specified
Area Impact over more Broad Range
Main Data Sources On-site study Strategy of Sustainable Development, Balanced Environment and Vision
Depth of Research Limited and Profound Details More Conditions required rather than Profound and Broad Details
Data Type Relatively Quantitative Relatively Qualitative Quality Evaluation More Accurate Highly Uncertainness Focus Evaluate and Manage for
significant Environmental Negative Impact
Achievement on Issues of Sustainability, Review of Sources causing Environmental Burden
Fundamental Evaluation, Benchmark
Compliance with Regulations and Custom Practices regarding Best Practices
Sustainable Standards and Achievement of Goals
(Source: Peraturan Menteri Negara Lingkungan Hidup Nomor 27 Tahun 2009 Tentang Pedoman Pelaksanaan Kajian Lingkungan Hidup Strategis)
Figure 4.4.1 The scope of strategic environmental assessment
SEA(KLHS)
Policy
Plan
Project
AMDAL Project
(Source: Peraturan Menteri Negara Lingkungan Hidup Nomor 27 Tahun 2009, Tentang Pedoman
Pelaksanaan Kajian Lingkungan Hidup Strategis)
154
4.4.3 Businesses subjected to EIA
A decree of the State Minister for Environment in 19942 indicates a detailed list dividing business
activities subjected to EIA into 14 sectors such as industry and public works, etc., and shows specific
activities and scales by sector. The authority to implement EIA is given to government offices with
jurisdiction over the business concerned, or the Province (Level-1 Region), and the. Environmental
Impact Management Agency (BAPEDAL: Badan Pengendalian Dampak Lingkungan) is assigned to
coordinate the overall EIA preparation. In the case when a Japanese company performs a project
activity with some investment, firstly the project proposal is required to be submitted to the National
Investment Coordinating Board (BKPM: Badan Koordinasi Penanaman Modal), which forwards it to
an appropriate responsible ministry or agency. The proposal is screened if EIA is required, and then
EIA procedures are started. For the project activities subjected to the EIA, it is mandatory to
implement EIA for approval of the project activities.
In accordance with Decree of Ministry of Environment No. 11/2006 about Types of Business or
Activity Compulsory Equipped with Environmental Impact Analysis, a final disposal site which is
fallen under the Table 4.4.3 is mandatory to implement AMDAL. Since this project area exceeds
more than 10 ha, AMDAL procedures is necessary due to potential impacts such as air pollution,
residential health risk, odors, illness vector and leachate contamination.
Table 4.4.3 Project Activities Required EIA No Kinds of activity Quantity Scientific Justification Waste management a Final Disposal Site (TPA, or
Tempat Pembuangan Akhir) with control landfill/sanitary landfill include supporting facilities
- Area of TPA or - Total Capacity
10 ha 10,000t
Potential impacts are air pollution, community health risk, odor, illness vector and leachate pollution
b. TPA in Tidal Area - Area of TPA or - Total Capacity
5 ha 5,000t
c. Transfer Station - Total Capacity
1,000t/d
d. Integrated waste Management - Total Capacity
500t/d
e. Management by using Incinerator - Total Capacity
500t/d
Fly ash and bottom ash, biogas emission (H2S, NOx, SOx, COx and dioxine)
2 Decree of the State Minister for Environment of the Republic of Indonesia concerning the Types of
Businesses or Activities Required to Prepare an Environmental Impact Assessment
(KEP-11/MENLH/3/1994)
155
f. Composting Plant
- Capacity 100t/d
Potential impacts are air pollution, community health risk, odor, illness vector and leachate pollution
(Sources: Decree of Ministry of Environment No. 11/2006 about Types of Business or Activity
Compulsory Equipped with Environmental Impact Analysis)
4.4.4 Procedure of EIA (AMDAL) Implementation
EIA(AMDAL) is composed of (1) Environmental Impact Statement(ANDAL), (2) Environmental
Management Plan (RKL), (3) Environmental Monitoring Plan (RPL). The other documents required for
EIA (AMDAL) is summarized as below.
Table 4.4.4 Required Documents for Implementing EIA (AMDAL)
Document
(Original) Description
AMDAL EIA - Environmental Impact Assessment
KA-ANDAL Implementation Plan: a document that describes research range of EIA,
methods of data collection and analysis, etc.
ANDAL EIS - Environmental Impact Statement: a detailed research document that
describes factors which is likely to give major environmental impacts as a
result of proposed project activities
RKL Environmental Management Plan: an effort to handle major environmental
impact brought from proposed project activities
RPL Environmental Monitoring Plan: an effort to monitor identifying
environmental component changes brought from proposed project activities
(Sources:Global Environmental Forum “Overseas Environmental Measures of Japanese
Companies(Indonesia)” March, 1998)
156
The following is a flow chart of AMDAL and a process of AMDAL implementation and a procedure of
public participation and information disclosure.
Figure 4.4.2 Flow Chart of AMDAL
Sources: ASIA (Revised Edition), Asian Economic Research Institute, 1996
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report based on the figure in Kajima Corporation, Feasibility
Study on the MSW Intermediate Treatment Programmatic CDM in West Java Province, Indonesia,
February 2009)
Responsible Ministry/ Agency
AMDAL Committee in the responsible Ministry/Agency
Project Owner(Government)
Project Owner(Private Sector)
(Not BKPM
Project Owner(Government)(BKPM related)
Screening (whether or not there is major impact)
AMDAL required
Recording as the project that is environmentally managed in
accordance with Standard Operating Procedure(SOP)
Approval for the project
National Investment Coordinating Agency
Small-scale or it is possible to use
technology to minimize impact.
Screening the project based on BAPEDAL
standard
ANDAL/RKL/RPL reviewed by Committee in
45 days
KA-ANDAL reviewed by Committee in 12 days
AMDAL not required
157
Figure 4.4.3 Process of AMDAL Implementation
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report based on the figure in Kajima Corporation, Feasibility
Study on the MSW Intermediate Treatment Programmatic CDM in West Java Province, Indonesia, February 2009)
Project Owner (Proponent) AMDAL Commission Approval Authority
①
②
③
④
⑤
⑥
⑦
⑧
⑨ ⑩
⑪
⑫
⑬
Submission ofKA-ANDAL
Acception of KA-ANDAL submission
Evaluation of KA-ANDAL
Requesting to prepareANDAL, RKL, RPL
Review (Revision)
Approval confirmation ofANDAL, RKL, RPL
Submission ofANDAL, RKL,
Evaluation ofANDAL, RKL,
Approval confirmation ofKA-ANDALReview(Revision)
Approval for the projectReceiving theapproval
Decision making for KA-ANDAL approval
158
Figure 4.4.4 Procedure of Public Participation and Information Disclosure
(Source: Kajima Corporation, Feasibility Study on the MSW Intermediate Treatment Programmatic CDM
in West Java Province, Indonesia, February 2009)
4.5 Items to be borne by the Recipient Country (Implementing
Agency and other Related Agencies) for Realizing the Project
4.5.1 Outline of Procedures
As the Project entails construction of waste treatment facilities, it will be necessary to conduct design and
obtain the necessary authorizations according to waste-related legislation and environmental law. The
normally expected authorization contents are indicated below, however, it will be necessary to conduct
procedures in close liaison with each government office.
- Land acquisition
- Development permit
- Permission to establish waste treatment facilities
- Permission to establish buildings and structures, etc.
- Procedures based on environmental law (leachate treatment facilities, etc.)
Project Owner (Proponent) Responsible Authority Related Local Residence
Projectannouncement
Confirmation of project& EIA implementation
Announcement ofEIA
Discussion
Comments & Opinions
KA-ANDALpreparation
Evaluation ofKA-ANDAL
Approval for theproject
from environmental
Comments & opinionsConfirmation ofcomments &
ANDAL, RKL, RPL preparation
ANDAL, RKL, RPL preparation
159
4.5.2 Environmental Impact Assessment (AMDAL)
Since the Project entails construction of a final disposal site larger than 10 hectares, it will be necessary to
conduct AMDAL procedure. Through introducing technologies for environmental consideration, it is
planned to reduce environmental load and maximize social benefits.
4.5.3 Environmental Management Plan (RKL)
In the AMDAL procedure, it is necessary to present both the environmental management plan (RKL) and
environmental monitoring plan (RPL). In implementing the Project, an appropriate environmental
management plan will be compiled and coordinated with the maintenance plan and Project plan.
4.5.4 Environmental Monitoring (RPL)
Environmental monitoring is important for confirming environmental loads arising from Project
implementation and compliance with standard values and legal controls. Furthermore, the social benefits
imparted by the Project will be identified to the extent possible. Table 4.5.1 shows the draft monitoring
plan for environmental and social consideration. The details will need to be discussed and decided with the
local authorities in the Project plan implementation stage.
Table 4.5.1 Environmental and Social Consideration Monitoring Plan (Draft) Item Monitoring Item Frequency Location Environmental consideration
Air SO2, CO, NO2, TSP Particulate fallout Wind direction and velocity
2 times per year 1 location each on the windward and leeward sides
Water quality
pH, BOD, COD, SS, T-N, T-P, heavy metals, etc.
4 times per year (depending on the item, monthly implementation may be desirable)
Treated leachate effluent
pH, BOD, COD, SS, T-N, T-P, heavy metals, etc.
4 times per year Water from 1 river location each upstream and downstream from the disposal site discharge point
Heavy metals, nitrate-nitrogen, nitrite-nitrogen, chloride ion, electric conductivity
4 times per year 2 neighboring wells
Bottom sediment
Heavy metals, etc. 1 time per year Bottom sediment from 1 river location each upstream and downstream from the disposal site discharge point
Noise and Noise and 1 time per year 1 location on the site
160
Item Monitoring Item Frequency Location vibration vibration on the
site and access road
boundary 1 location on the incoming road
Odor Ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, etc.
1 time per year 1 location each on the windward and leeward sides
Natural environment
Ecosystem, etc.
Changes in the ecosystem before and after construction
1 time per year Target area
Social consideration
Relocation of residents
Relocated number, amount of guarantee
Before start of work Target area
Livelihood Survey of employment and income using the interview method, etc.
1 time per year Target area
(Source: Compiled by the Study Team)
161
Chapter 5
Financial and Economic Evaluation
162
163
5.1 Cost Estimation for Project Expense
The project expense consists of 1) preparation cost centering around full-scale FS and consulting before
BOT contract, 2) initial cost starting after contract, then detail design, construction, until completion, and
3) operation and maintenance (O&M) cost for 20 years after inauguration. The cost considered in this
chapter is those related to the cash flow of the project owner for the project implementation. CASE 1 is the
estimation for the project, while CASE 2 shows the estimation for another possible option explained in
chapter 3 (MBT, compost, and controlled landfill type landfill site).
5.1.1 Assumptions for Cost Estimation
The following are the assumptions for cost estimation.
(1) Inflation and Exchange Rate
The prices are as of December 2011. If there is price escalation due to the inflation, the fluctuation in costs
such as initial investment and operation and maintenance would be balanced out with the fluctuation in
revenue. The exchange rates are set as follows:
Rp = 0.0086 Yen
1.00 US$ =77.5 Yen
1.00 US$ =9,000 Rp
(2) Contingency Fund
The contingency fund is calculated as 10% of the annual expense.
(3) Depreciation
Depreciation period is 20 years. Depreciation method is straight-line depreciation.
(4) Financing Method
70% of the initial investment would be financed by JICA’s investment and loan, and the rest is financed
from the market and own resources. JICA’s scheme provides interest rate of 1.5 % with 15 years repayment
period, and it is limited up to 70% of the cost for facility construction. The interest rate of the market is 5%
with 10 years repayment period.
(5) Corporation Taxes
The effective tax rate for a corporation in Indonesia is 25%.
164
5.1.2 Preparation Cost
Preparation cost consists of geological survey, environmental impact study, and other items as shown in
table 5.1.1.
Table 5.1.1 List of the Preparation Cost (for both CASE 1 and CASE 2; all in local currency)
Item Amount
(1,000 Rp) Amount
(thou. yen) a) Geological Survey 465,000 4,000b) Environmental Impact
Study 581,000 5,000
c) Development Permission 116,000 1,000d) Basic Design for
Facilitaion 1,163,000 10,000
Total (1,000 Rp) 2,325,000 20,000Total (thou. yen) 20,000
Total (1,000 USD) 258 (Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
5.1.3 Initial Cost
Initial cost consists of formation of SPC, design, construction management, construction cost, and others as
shown in the table 5.1.2. The total cost amounts to 9.12 billion yen for CASE 1 and 9.14 billion yen for
CASE 2. However, for CASE 2, 2 billion yen would be necessary during the project period in order to
construct an additional leachate treatment facility.
In addition, 516 million yen would be necessary for land acquisition.
165
Table 5.1.2 List of the Initial Cost
Item Amount (CASE 1) Amount (CASE 2)
Remarks 1,000 Rp
Thousand yen
1,000 Rp Thousand
yen
i) Formation of SPC 116,000 1,000 116,000 1000Local currency
ii) Execution Design 5,814,000 50,000 4,651,000 40,000Local currency
iii) Construction Management 20,698,000 178,000 20,748,000 178,000Local currency
iv) Civil Engineering and Construction (mainly, final disposal site, leachate control reservoir, and stormwater reservoir)
220,909,000 1,900,000 572,402,000 4,922,660Table 5.1.2AB
v) Equipment (mainly, intermediate treatment facility and leachate treatment facility)
814,000,000 7,000,000 465,000,000 4,000,000Table 5.1.2C
Total (1,000Rp) 1,061,537,000 9,129,000 1,062,917,000 9,141,660 Total (1,000USD) 1,061,537,000 9,129,000 118,102
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
The details of the above table are as follows.
Table 5.1.2A: Cost of Civil Engineering and Construction
(Initial Cost for Final Disposal Site) (CASE 1)
Class Item Quantity Unit Rate (JPY)
Amount (JPYx1,000) Remarks
Earthworks <347,283> Excavation 363,000 m3 174 63,162 BH1.0 Soil Transportation 363,000 m3 535 194,205
Embankment 53,000 m3 473 25,069
21t Bulldozer, Fill with excavated soil, including slope ditches
Soil Disposal 310,000 m3 124 38,440 Cost at Disposal Field only
Cut Slope Trimming 20,000 m2 174 3,480 Fill Slope Trimming 21,800 m2 236 5,144 Bottom Grading 129,000 m2 100 12,900 Hydroseeding 11,200 m2 436 4,883 20mm thicknessLeachate Control Works <435,634> Membrane Anchor 6,000 m 3,733 22,398
Bottom Membrane Lining 131,600 m2 2,576 339,001
Including a Protection Layer t=500
Side Slope Membrane Lining 30,600 m2 2,426 74,235
166
Class Item Quantity Unit Rate (JPY)
Amount (JPYx1,000) Remarks
Storm Drainage Works <142,338> Concrete U-channel 880 m 11,971 10,534 U-1600×600×1000 Concrete U-channel 880 m 13,414 11,804 U-2100×1100×1000 Concrete U-channel 100 m 15,878 1,587 U-2800×1800×1000 Catchpit 4 place 261,312 1,045 Slab for channel crossing 4 place 1,493,213 5,972 Buried Drain 800 m 6,782 5,425 φ300 Buried Drain 3,130 m 4,753 14,876 φ150
Buried Drain Pit 2 place 186,652 373 Excluding Pumping Facility
Pumping facility in Pit 2 place 3,733,032 7,466
Regulating reservoir 1 set 79,262,215 79,262 Including Box Culvert 4.5x2x20m
Regulating tower 1 set 3,994,344 3,994 Sewage Works <103,106> Catchment Basin 1 place 846,154 846 H=6.0m Arterial Pipe Drain 800 m 38,824 31,059 φ700 Branch Pipe Drain 4,040 m 13,414 54,192 φ200 Gas Vent at Slope 860 m 7,590 6,527 φ200 Gas Vent Pipe 108 place 97,059 10,482 φ600Administration Facilities <169,198>
Access road 2,200 m 59,729 131,403 Asphalt Pavement, W=8.0m
Wheel washing bay 1 set 2,426,471 2,426
with a high pressure washer, excluding power supply
Monitoring well 4 place 248,869 995 L=20m Track scale 1 set 4,759,615 4,759 Administration building 1 set 29,615,384 29,615 340m2
Ancillary Works <25,261> Gate 1 set 373,303 373 Chain link fencing 4,000 m 6,222 24,888 H=1.8mTotal Amount of Direct Works 1,222,820
Temporary Works 122,282 10% of Direct Works
Site expense, tax, etc. 403,530 30% of Above Total
Total Amount 1,748,632 Sewage Plant <151,189>
1 set 151,189,000 151,189
All (including expense, etc.) for Basing only
Grand Total Amount 1,899,821
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
167
Table 5.1.2B: Cost of Civil Engineering and Construction
(Initial Cost for Final Disposal Site) (CASE 2)
Class Item Quantity Unit Rate (JPY)
Amount (JPYx1,000) Remarks
Earthworks <1,043,098> Excavation 1,126,000 m3 174 195,924 BH1.0 Soil Transportation 1,126,000 m3 535 602,410
Embankment 117,000 m3 473 55,341
21t Bulldozer, Fill with excavated soil, including slope ditches
Soil Disposal 1,009,000 m3 124 125,116 Cost at Disposal Field only
Cut Slope Trimming 30,700 m2 174 5,341 Fill Slope Trimming 43,300 m2 236 10,218 Bottom Grading 392,000 m2 100 39,200 Hydroseeding 21,900 m2 436 9,548 20mm thicknessLeachate Control Works <1,283,829> Membrane Anchor 11,900 m 3,733 44,422
Bottom Membrane Lining 404,100 m2 2,576 1,040,961
Including a Protection Layer t=500
Side Slope Membrane Lining 81,800 m2 2,426 198,446
Storm Drainage Works <244,361> Concrete U-channel 880 m 11,971 10,534 U-1600×600×1000 Concrete U-channel 440 m 13,414 5,902 U-2100×1100×1000 Concrete U-channel 440 m 14,808 6,515 U-2500×1500×1000 Concrete U-channel 440 m 15,878 6,986 U-2800×1800×1000 Concrete U-channel 440 m 17,421 7,665 U-3100×2100×1000 Concrete U-channel 880 m 18,279 16,085 U-3400×2400×1000 Concrete U-channel 100 m 19,424 1,942 U-4200×2700×1500 Catchpit 7 place 447,964 3,135 Slab for channel crossing 8 place 2,239,819 17,918 Buried Drain 2,400 m 6,782 16,276 φ300 Buried Drain 9,390 m 4,753 44,630 φ150
Buried Drain Pit 6 place 186,652 1,119 Excluding Pumping Facility
Pumping facility in Pit 6 place 3,733,032 22,398
Regulating reservoir 1 set 79,262,218 79,262 Including Box Culvert 4.5x2x20m
Regulating tower 1 set 3,994,344 3,994 Sewage Works <306,133> Catchment Basin 3 place 846,154 2,538 H=6.0m Arterial Pipe Drain 2,400 m 38,824 93,177 φ700 Branch Pipe Drain 12,120 m 13,414 162,577 φ200 Gas Vent at Slope 2,160 m 7,590 16,394 φ200 Gas Vent Pipe 324 place 97,059 31,447 φ600Administration Facilities <264,765>
Access road 3,800 m 59,729 226,970 Asphalt Pavement, W=8.0m
Wheel washing bay 1 set 2,426,471 2,426
with a high pressure washer, excluding power supply
168
Class Item Quantity Unit Rate (JPY)
Amount (JPYx1,000) Remarks
Monitoring well 4 place 248,869 995 L=20m Track scale 1 set 4,759,615 4,759 340m2
Administration building 1 set 29,615,385 29,615 Ancillary Works <25,261> Gate 1 set 373,303 373 Chain link fencing 4,000 m 6,222 24,888 H=1.8mTotal Amount of Direct Works 3,167,447
Temporary Works 316,744 10% of Direct Works
Site expense, tax, etc. 1,045,257 30% of Above Total
Total Amount 4,529,448 Sewage Plant <393,212>
1 set 393,212,000 393,212
All (including expense, etc.) for Basing only
Grand Total Amount 4,922,660
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
Table 5.1.2C: Cost of Equipment
(Initial cost for intermediate treatment facility)
No Process Main
equipment/machineSpecifications
CASE 1
(thousand yens)
CASE2
(thousand yens)
1 Bag breaker* Bag breaker Capacity: 80m3/h 200,000 200,000
2
Manual sorting Conveyor 3m width × 60m×8
rows 100,000 100,000
3 Magnetic sorting* Magnetic sorter 200,000 200,000
4 Fermentation Shovel loader 30 × 1.5m3 buckets 200,000 200,000
5 Mechanical sorting Mechanical sorter Capacity: 261.88m3/h 600,000 300,000
6 RDF manufacturing
(only for CASE 1)
Presser, bailer 480t/d
2,500,000 0
3,800,000 1,000,000
7 Building Facilities to accept and store waste,
manufacture compost and other 1,200,000 1,000,000
Total 5,000,000 2,000,000
*: Indicated in Japanese yen (for both CASE 1 and CASE 2)
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
Table 5.1.2D Cost of Equipment
169
(initial cost for intermediate treatment facility, all in Japanese yens)
Main facility Fee (1,000 yens)
(i) Primary Coagulating Sedimentation 290,000
(ii) Biological Treatment 750,000
(iii) Secondary Coagulating Sedimentation 290,000
(iv) Sand filtration 240,000
(v) Disinfection 20,000
(vi) Sludge Dehydration 410,000
合計 2,000,000
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
5.1.4 Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Cost
O&M cost consists of items related to intermediate treatment, landfill at the final disposal site, and leachate
treatment at the final disposal site, as shown in Table 5.1.3. Depreciations is separately calculated.
・ Labor cost
・ Utility
・ Consumables
・ Facility Maintenance
・ Equipment Replacement
・ Depreciation
170
Table 5.1.3 List of the O&M Cost (Annual)
Item Cost(CASE 1) Cost(CASE 2)
1,000 Rp 1,000 yen 1,000 Rp 1,000 yen
Landfill
Labor 2,403,000 20,670 3,794,000 32,630Utility 4,314,000 37,101 12,974,000 111,578Facility Maintenance
608,000 5,229 1,330,000 11,436
Subtotal 7,325,000 63,000 18,098,000 155,644
Intermediate treatment and leachate treatment
Labor (for work other than manual sorting)
18,291,000 157,300 18,291,000 157,300
Labor (for manual sorting)
30,698,000 264,000 21,488,000 184,800
Operation and maintenance
24,419,000 210,000 13,953,000 �120,000
Subtotal 73,408,000 631,300 53,732,000 462,100Grand Total 80,733,000 694,300 71,830,000 617,744
Total (1,000 USD) 8,959 7,971
・ When additional leachate treatment facility is constructed, the cost would double
・ Operating hours per day is assumed to be 16 hours.
・ Operating days per year is assumed to be 330 days.0
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
As a result of the above estimation, it will cost 700 million yen per year for the operation of CASE 1. Cost
per t is 1,300 yen. For CASE 2, it will cost 620 million yen per year. Cost per t is 1,000 yen. However,
these costs exclude depreciation, financing cost, contingency fund, and tax.
(1) Labor Cost
Based on the maintenance cost and personnel plan estimated in the previous chapter, annual labor cost will
be as shown in Table 5.1.4.
171
Table 5.1.4 A Labor Cost (for final disposal site) (Unit; yen/y)
Item Unit cost (yen)
CASE 1 CASE 2 No. of staff
Personnel expenses
No. of staff
Personnel expenses
Plant manager 3,250,000 1 3,250,000 1 3,250,000Staffs in charge of general affairs 1,560,000 2 3,120,000 2 3,120,000Staffs in charge of Weighing 910,000 4 3,640,000 10 9,100,000Staffs in charge of facilities maintenancer
1,040,000 4 4,160,000 4 4,160,000
Staffs in charge of landfill work 650,000 10 6,500,000 20 13,000,000Total 20,670,000 32,630,000
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
Table 5.1.4B Labor Cost
(for intermediate treatment and leachate treatment facility; apply for both CASE 1 and CASE 2)
Item Unit
(1,000 yen/y per person)
No. of staff/group
No. of group
Total no. of staff
Labor cost (1,000 yen/y)
Manager of facility 1,040 10 2 20 20,800
Shovel loader operator 650 70 3 210 136,500
Total 157,300
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
Table 5.1.4C Labor Cost (for manual sorting)
Item Unit
(1,000 yen/y per person)
No. of staff/group
No. of group
Total no. of staff
Labor cost (1,000 yen/y)
CASE 1 220 400 3 1,200 264,000
CASE 2 220 280 3 840 184,800
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
172
a. Utility
Cost related to utility is shown in Table 5.1.5.
Table 5.1.5 Utility
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
b. Facility Maintenance
Cost for maintenance is shown in Table 5.1.6
Table 5.1.6 Inspection and Repair Cost
(Unit: yen/y)
Item CASE 1 CASE 2 Remarks Length of gas extraction pipes
388,800 1,166,400 CASE 1: 108 locations CASE 2: 324 locations
Drainage channels installation
880,000 2,350,000 Slope steps
Drainage channel cleaning, etc.
3,960,000 7,920,000 10% increase for cost of expendable items
Total 5,228,800 11,436,400 (Source: Prepared by the Authors of this report)
Item Annual cost (yen/y)
Remarks CASE 1 CASE 2
Heavy machinery lease charge
21,600,000 43,200,000 Bulldozer, back-how, dump truck, tire roller
Fuel cost 0 0 Light diesel oil Include in the heavy machinery lease charge.
Cover earth cost 15,501,000 68,378,000 Earth-filled dam Total 37,101,000 111,578,000
173
5.2 Outline of Preliminary Financial and Economic Evaluation of the Project
5.2.1 Project revenue and cost recovery
(1) Revenue from sales and cost recovery
Revenue from the project includes tipping fee from Jakarta and revenue from the sale of outputs from the
project activities. Output from the project includes plastics and other valuables, compost and RDF.
Revenue is dependent on the collection ratio of the products (material balance) and the sale amount. The
planned value as explained in chapter 3 is considered for the material balance for the project .
Table 5.2.1 Input and output from the project
Item Unit
CASE 1 CASE 2 Input Output Yield of
collection ratio
Input Output Yield of collection ratio
Plastics t/d 195 68 35% 195 68 35%Metals (Iron, Aluminum)
t/d 13 12 90% 13 12 90%
Glass t/d 26 9 35% 26 9 35%Compost (from household waste)
t/d 301 139 46% 301 139 46%
Compost (from market waste)
t/d 68 26 38% 68 26 38%
RDF t/d 430 430 100% 0 0 - (Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
Sale price for the output products is set as follows.
- Plastics: Plastics collected using manual segregation is set at1,400 Rp/kg (12.04 yen/kg)
using data explained in chapter 4.
- Metals (Iron, Aluminum): Metals (Iron, Aluminum) collected using manual segregation is set
at 1,400Rp/kg (12.04 yen/kg) using data explained in chapter 4.
- Glasses: Glasses collected from manual segregation is set at 300Rp/kg (2.58 yen/kg) using
data explained in chapter 4.
- Compost: It can be expected that it will not be easy to sell compost from household waste at a
good price. So it is assumed that compost will be used as a covering agent at landfills and
will not be considered as a source of revenue. For compost from market waste, the rate is set
at 500Rp/kg (4.3 yen/kg).
- RDF (Only CASE 1) : RDF will be primarily of paper and plastics with a high value as a fuel.
As explained in chapter 3, the rate is set at 375Rp/kg (3.225 yen /kg), which is the current
selling price in Jakarta.
174
Cost recovery rate from revenue from sales is 64% for CASE 1 and 30% for CASE 2. Regarding the
investment cost, it can be said that recovery only from sales revenue would be difficult.
Table5.2.2. Recovery rate of OM cost from revenue from sales
Scale Annual sale amount
(1,000 yen/y)
OM Cost
(1,000 yen /y) OM Cost recovery
CASE 1 907,105 1,425,551 63.6%
CASE 2 400,850 1,342,658 29.9%
Note: OM cost is inclusive of depreciation portion
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
The figures when not including depreciation is shown in table 5.2.3. Recovery of OM cost (not including
depreciation) is at 93.6% for CASE 1 and 45.2% for CASE 2.
Table 5.2.3 OM cost recovery rate from revenue from sales (excluding depreciation)
Scale yearly sale amount
(1,000 yen /y)
OM cost
(1,000 yen /y) OM cost recovery
CASE 1 907,105 969,551 93.6%
CASE 2 400,850 885,658 45.2%
Note: OM cost does not include depreciation portion
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
(2) Tipping fee
Tipping fee from Jakarta for the project will be the same amount that has been set by Jakarta in its existing
contracts i.e. 189,000 Rp/t (1625 yen/t) under the assumption that MBT will be included.
The total initial investment cost, annual treatment volume, and annual revenue and expenditure (for each
item and also their sum) are shown below.
175
Table 5.2.4 Initial Investment Cost
Item CASE1 CASE2
1,000Rp 1,000 yens 1,000Rp 1,000 yens
Land procurement cost 60,000,000 516,000 60,000,000 516,000
Preparation 2,325,000 20,000 2,325,000 20,000
Initial investment 1,061,537,000 9,129,000 1,295,542,000 11,141,660
O&M 1,614,651,000 13,886,000 1,645,916,000 14,154,880
Fund procurement cost 245,700,000 2,113,020 292,144,000 2,512,442
Contingency 186,035,000 1,599,902 180,201,000 1,549,730
Tax 268,061,000 2,305,329 44,354,000 381,446
Total 3,438,309,000 29,569,251 3,384,436,000 29,106,158
Total in USD
(1,000USD) 381,539 375,563
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
176
Table 5.2.5 Total initial investment cost, annual treatment volume, and annual revenue and expenditure (for each item and its sum)(CASE1)
Unit: 1,000yen/y
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
Year 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 TotalOperating year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Waste treatmentvolume (t/y) 547,500 547,500 547,500 547,500 547,500 547,500 547,500 547,500 547,500 547,500 547,500 547,500 547,500 547,500 547,500 547,500 547,500 547,500 547,500 547,500 10,950,000
RevenueTipping fee 889,907 889,907 889,907 889,907 889,907 889,907 889,907 889,907 889,907 889,907 889,907 889,907 889,907 889,907 889,907 889,907 889,907 889,907 889,907 889,907 17,798,130
Sales of manual sortedrecyclables 360,043 360,043 360,043 360,043 360,043 360,043 360,043 360,043 360,043 360,043 360,043 360,043 360,043 360,043 360,043 360,043 360,043 360,043 360,043 360,043 7,200,866Sales of PDF 506,255 506,255 506,255 506,255 506,255 506,255 506,255 506,255 506,255 506,255 506,255 506,255 506,255 506,255 506,255 506,255 506,255 506,255 506,255 506,255 10,125,100Sales of compost 40,807 40,807 40,807 40,807 40,807 40,807 40,807 40,807 40,807 40,807 40,807 40,807 40,807 40,807 40,807 40,807 40,807 40,807 40,807 40,807 816,140
0Total revenue 1,797,012 1,797,012 1,797,012 1,797,012 1,797,012 1,797,012 1,797,012 1,797,012 1,797,012 1,797,012 1,797,012 1,797,012 1,797,012 1,797,012 1,797,012 1,797,012 1,797,012 1,797,012 1,797,012 1,797,012 35,940,236
ExpenditureLabor cost (for finaldisposal site, manualsorting, operator, etc.) 441,970 441,970 441,970 441,970 441,970 441,970 441,970 441,970 441,970 441,970 441,970 441,970 441,970 441,970 441,970 441,970 441,970 441,970 441,970 441,970 8,839,400Consumables 0Maintenance of finaldisposal site 5,229 5,229 5,229 5,229 5,229 5,229 5,229 5,229 5,229 5,229 5,229 5,229 5,229 5,229 5,229 5,229 5,229 5,229 5,229 5,229 104,580Utility of final disposalsite 37,101 37,101 37,101 37,101 37,101 37,101 37,101 37,101 37,101 37,101 37,101 37,101 37,101 37,101 37,101 37,101 37,101 37,101 37,101 37,101 742,020O&M for intermediateand leachate treatmentfacilities 210,000 210,000 210,000 210,000 210,000 210,000 210,000 210,000 210,000 210,000 210,000 210,000 210,000 210,000 210,000 210,000 210,000 210,000 210,000 210,000 4,200,000
0Total balance(exludingdepreciation, interstrate, income tax) 694,300 694,300 694,300 694,300 694,300 694,300 694,300 694,300 694,300 694,300 694,300 694,300 694,300 694,300 694,300 694,300 694,300 694,300 694,300 694,300 13,886,000
177
5.2.2 Cash flow
The project period is set as 20 years. It is expected that the service life of the facility is 20 years after
which it will need to be replaced.
Regarding the procurement of fund, out of 9.2 billion Rp (total of Table 5.1.1 and 5.1.2) which is the total
business establishment and initial investment cost, 70% would be financed by the JICA investment and
loan (15 years repayment with 5 years loan moratorium, interest rate of 1.5%) and 20% would be from
commercial banks as a long term loan (10 years repayment, interest rate of 5%). The remaining 10% would
be self-funded. All repayments would be done in a level payment basis.
Further, contingency fund would be 10% of the annual cost. The cash flow and FIRR for this project are
shown in Table 5.2.6.
Table 5.2.6 Results of Cash Flow and FIRR Analysis
Cash Flow FIRR NPV B/C
CASE 1 No shortage:
Refer to Table 5.2.7 12.2% 5.8 billion yen 1.24
CASE 2
Shortage:
Refer to Table 5.2.8
(In order to keep FIRR at 7%, tipping fee was
raised by 16% (i.e. 219,240Rp/t, 24USD/t、or
1,885 円/t))
6.8% 1 billion yen 1.07
*Discount rate was set at 6%
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
The results of the calculation show that there is no shortage of cash flow in CASE 1. In this case, the FIRR
is 12.2% which exceeds the interest rate of the long-term Indonesian government bonds 6.215% (as of
December). Regarding CASE 2, in order for it to become feasible to implement, the tipping fee must
increase from 189,000Rp/t (equivalent to 21USD/t or 1,625 yen) to 219,240 Rp/t (equivalent to 24 USD/t
or 1,885 yen/t).
178
Tab
le 5
.2.7
Pro
ject
Cas
h Fl
ow (C
ASE
1)
(S
ourc
e: P
repa
red
by th
e au
thor
s of t
his r
epor
t)
Yea
r20
1320
1420
1520
1620
1720
1820
1920
2020
2120
2220
2320
2420
2520
2620
2720
2820
2920
3020
3120
3220
3320
3420
35Pr
ojec
t yea
r1
23
45
67
89
1011
1213
1415
1617
1819
2021
2223
Cap
ital e
xpen
sela
nd a
cqui
sitio
n51
6,00
0SP
C e
stab
lishm
ent c
ost
1,00
0D
etai
l Des
ign
cost
50,0
00Su
perv
isin
g co
st17
8,00
0C
ivil
engi
neer
ing
cons
truct
ion
cost
1,90
0,00
0M
ater
ial a
nd m
achi
nery
cos
t7,
000,
000
Com
mer
cial
ize
cost
(I
nclu
ding
EIA
)20
,000
Instr
umen
tatio
n &
Cab
ling,
Pip
ing
Frei
ght (
15%
of J
apan
ese
Supp
ly)
Phys
ical
Con
tinge
ncy
Engi
neer
ing
(15%
) V
AT
Sub-
tota
l51
6,00
021
,000
9,12
8,00
0In
tere
st d
urin
g th
e co
nstru
ctio
nT
otal
516,
000
21,0
009,
128,
000
00
Tipp
ing
fee
889,
907
889,
907
889,
907
889,
907
889,
907
889,
907
889,
907
889,
907
889,
907
889,
907
889,
907
889,
907
889,
907
889,
907
889,
907
889,
907
889,
907
889,
907
889,
907
889,
907
Han
d so
rting
recy
clab
le m
ater
ial s
ellin
g36
0,04
336
0,04
336
0,04
336
0,04
336
0,04
336
0,04
336
0,04
336
0,04
336
0,04
336
0,04
336
0,04
336
0,04
336
0,04
336
0,04
336
0,04
336
0,04
336
0,04
336
0,04
336
0,04
336
0,04
3R
DF
selli
n g50
6,25
550
6,25
550
6,25
550
6,25
550
6,25
550
6,25
550
6,25
550
6,25
550
6,25
550
6,25
550
6,25
550
6,25
550
6,25
550
6,25
550
6,25
550
6,25
550
6,25
550
6,25
550
6,25
550
6,25
5Co
mpo
st s
elin
g40
,807
40,8
0740
,807
40,8
0740
,807
40,8
0740
,807
40,8
0740
,807
40,8
0740
,807
40,8
0740
,807
40,8
0740
,807
40,8
0740
,807
40,8
0740
,807
40,8
07
Tota
l Inc
ome
1,79
7,01
21,
797,
012
1,79
7,01
21,
797,
012
1,79
7,01
21,
797,
012
1,79
7,01
21,
797,
012
1,79
7,01
21,
797,
012
1,79
7,01
21,
797,
012
1,79
7,01
21,
797,
012
1,79
7,01
21,
797,
012
1,79
7,01
21,
797,
012
1,79
7,01
21,
797,
012
Ope
ratin
g ex
pens
esM
anpo
wer
cos
t44
1,97
044
1,97
044
1,97
044
1,97
044
1,97
044
1,97
044
1,97
044
1,97
044
1,97
044
1,97
044
1,97
044
1,97
044
1,97
044
1,97
044
1,97
044
1,97
044
1,97
044
1,97
044
1,97
044
1,97
0C
onsu
mab
les
Mai
nten
ance
cos
t5,
229
5,22
95,
229
5,22
95,
229
5,22
95,
229
5,22
95,
229
5,22
95,
229
5,22
95,
229
5,22
95,
229
5,22
95,
229
5,22
95,
229
5,22
9U
tility
cos
t37
,101
37,1
0137
,101
37,1
0137
,101
37,1
0137
,101
37,1
0137
,101
37,1
0137
,101
37,1
0137
,101
37,1
0137
,101
37,1
0137
,101
37,1
0137
,101
37,1
01O
&M
cos
t of I
nter
med
iate
and
leac
hate
trea
tmen
t21
0,00
021
0,00
021
0,00
021
0,00
021
0,00
021
0,00
021
0,00
021
0,00
021
0,00
021
0,00
021
0,00
021
0,00
021
0,00
021
0,00
021
0,00
021
0,00
021
0,00
021
0,00
021
0,00
021
0,00
0In
tere
st p
aym
ent f
or J
ICA
Loa
n95
,850
95,8
5095
,850
95,8
5095
,850
95,8
5089
,460
83,0
7076
,680
70,2
9063
,900
57,5
1051
,120
44,7
3038
,340
31,9
5025
,560
19,1
7012
,780
6,39
0In
tere
st p
aym
ent f
or p
riva
te lo
ngte
rm lo
an91
,260
91,2
6091
,260
91,2
6091
,260
82,1
3473
,008
63,8
8254
,756
45,6
3036
,504
27,3
7818
,252
9,12
60
00
00
0In
tere
st p
aym
ent f
or s
hort-
term
loan
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
0D
epre
ciat
ion
456,
000
456,
000
456,
000
456,
000
456,
000
456,
000
456,
000
456,
000
456,
000
456,
000
456,
000
456,
000
456,
000
456,
000
456,
000
456,
000
456,
000
456,
000
456,
000
456,
000
Con
tinge
ncy
88,1
4188
,141
88,1
4188
,141
88,1
4187
,228
85,6
7784
,125
82,5
7481
,022
79,4
7077
,919
76,3
6774
,816
73,2
6472
,625
71,9
8671
,347
70,7
0870
,069
Tot
al o
pera
ting
expe
nses
1,42
5,55
11,
425,
551
1,42
5,55
11,
425,
551
1,42
5,55
11,
415,
512
1,39
8,44
51,
381,
377
1,36
4,31
01,
347,
242
1,33
0,17
41,
313,
107
1,29
6,03
91,
278,
972
1,26
1,90
41,
254,
875
1,24
7,84
61,
240,
817
1,23
3,78
81,
226,
759
(ex
clud
ing
depr
ecia
tion)
969,
551
969,
551
969,
551
969,
551
969,
551
959,
512
942,
445
925,
377
908,
310
891,
242
874,
174
857,
107
840,
039
822,
972
805,
904
798,
875
791,
846
784,
817
777,
788
770,
759
Prof
it be
fore
tax(
inco
me-
OM
exp
ense
s)37
1,46
137
1,46
137
1,46
137
1,46
137
1,46
138
1,50
039
8,56
741
5,63
543
2,70
244
9,77
046
6,83
848
3,90
550
0,97
351
8,04
053
5,10
854
2,13
754
9,16
655
6,19
556
3,22
457
0,25
3C
orpo
rate
inco
me
tax
92,8
6592
,865
92,8
6592
,865
92,8
6595
,375
99,6
4210
3,90
910
8,17
511
2,44
211
6,70
912
0,97
612
5,24
312
9,51
013
3,77
713
5,53
413
7,29
113
9,04
914
0,80
614
2,56
3Pr
ofit
afte
r ta
x27
8,59
627
8,59
627
8,59
627
8,59
627
8,59
628
6,12
529
8,92
531
1,72
632
4,52
633
7,32
735
0,12
836
2,92
937
5,73
038
8,53
040
1,33
140
6,60
341
1,87
441
7,14
642
2,41
842
7,69
0
Rec
over
y (re
venu
e/O
M c
ost)t
ax e
xmpt
ed62
.43%
62.4
3%62
.43%
62.4
3%62
.43%
62.8
7%63
.64%
64.4
2%65
.23%
66.0
5%66
.90%
67.7
7%68
.66%
69.5
8%70
.52%
70.9
2%71
.32%
71.7
2%41
.03%
41.2
7%R
ecov
ery (
reve
nue/
OM
cos
t)with
tax
Rec
over
y (re
venu
e/O
M c
ost e
xclu
ding
dep
reci
atio
n)91
.79%
91.7
9%91
.79%
91.7
9%91
.79%
92.7
5%94
.43%
96.1
7%97
.97%
99.8
5%10
1.80
%10
3.83
%10
5.94
%10
8.13
%11
0.42
%11
1.39
%11
2.38
%11
3.39
%87
.40%
86.6
1%R
ecov
ery (
reve
nue/
OM
incl
udin
g re
duct
ion
reve
nue)
185.
34%
185.
34%
185.
34%
185.
34%
185.
34%
187.
28%
190.
68%
194.
19%
197.
84%
201.
63%
205.
57%
209.
66%
213.
92%
218.
36%
222.
98%
224.
94%
226.
94%
228.
97%
231.
04%
233.
15%
Rep
aym
ent f
or JI
CA
loan
00
042
6,00
042
6,00
042
6,00
042
6,00
042
6,00
042
6,00
042
6,00
042
6,00
042
6,00
042
6,00
042
6,00
042
6,00
042
6,00
042
6,00
042
6,00
0R
epay
men
t for
pri
vate
long
-term
loan
00
182,
520
182,
520
182,
520
182,
520
182,
520
182,
520
182,
520
182,
520
182,
520
182,
520
00
00
00
Rep
aym
ent f
or p
riva
te s
hort-
term
loan
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
Bal
ance
at t
he fi
scal
yea
r end
734,
596
734,
596
734,
596
734,
596
552,
076
133,
605
146,
405
159,
206
172,
006
184,
807
197,
608
210,
409
223,
210
236,
010
431,
331
436,
603
441,
874
447,
146
452,
418
457,
690
Bal
ance
bro
ught
forw
ard
734,
596
1,46
9,19
12,
203,
787
2,93
8,38
23,
490,
458
3,62
4,06
33,
770,
468
3,92
9,67
44,
101,
680
4,28
6,48
84,
484,
096
4,69
4,50
54,
917,
714
5,15
3,72
45,
585,
055
6,02
1,65
86,
463,
532
6,91
0,67
87,
363,
096
7,82
0,78
6
Fund
rais
ing
Ow
ned
capi
tal
516,
000
21,0
0091
2,80
0Su
bisi
dyJI
CA
Gra
ntJI
CA
loan
6,39
0,00
0Pr
ivat
e lo
ng-te
rm lo
an1,
825,
200
Priv
ate
shor
t-ter
m lo
an
Loa
n ba
lanc
e at
the
fisca
l yea
r en
dJI
CA
loan
6,39
0,00
06,
390,
000
6,39
0,00
06,
390,
000
6,39
0,00
06,
390,
000
5,96
4,00
05,
538,
000
5,11
2,00
04,
686,
000
4,26
0,00
03,
834,
000
3,40
8,00
02,
982,
000
2,55
6,00
02,
130,
000
1,70
4,00
01,
278,
000
852,
000
426,
000
0Pr
ivat
e lo
ng-te
rm lo
an1,
825,
200
1,82
5,20
01,
825,
200
1,82
5,20
01,
825,
200
1,64
2,68
01,
460,
160
1,27
7,64
01,
095,
120
912,
600
730,
080
547,
560
365,
040
182,
520
00
00
00
0Pr
ivat
e sh
ort-t
erm
loan
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
0
179
Tab
le 5
.2.8
Pro
ject
Cas
h Fl
ow (C
ASE
2)
(Sou
rce:
Pre
pare
d by
the
auth
ors o
f thi
s rep
ort)
Yea
r20
1320
1420
1520
1620
1720
1820
1920
2020
2120
2220
2320
2420
2520
2620
2720
2820
2920
3020
3120
3220
3320
3420
35To
tal
Proj
ect y
ear
12
34
56
78
910
1112
1314
1516
1718
1920
2122
23C
apita
l exp
ense
land
acq
uisi
tion
516,
000
516,
000
SPC
esta
blis
hmen
t cos
t1,
000
1,00
0D
etai
l Des
ign
cost
40,0
0040
,000
Supe
rvisi
ng c
ost
178,
000
178,
000
Civi
l eng
inee
ring
cons
truct
ion
cost
4,92
2,66
04,
922,
660
Mat
eria
l and
mac
hine
ry c
ost
4,00
0,00
01,
000,
000
1,00
0,00
06,
000,
000
Com
mer
cial
ize c
ost
20,0
0020
,000
Inst
rum
enta
tion
& C
ablin
g, P
ipin
g0
Frei
ght (
15%
of J
apan
ese
Supp
ly)
0Ph
ysic
al C
ontin
genc
y0
Engi
neer
ing
(15%
) 0
VAT
0Su
b-to
tal
516,
000
21,0
009,
140,
660
00
00
00
1,00
0,00
00
1,00
0,00
011
,677
,660
Inte
rest
dur
ing
the
cons
truct
ion
0To
tal
516,
000
21,0
009,
140,
660
00
00
00
1,00
0,00
00
1,00
0,00
011
,677
,660
Tipp
ing
fee
1,11
2,38
31,
112,
383
1,11
2,38
31,
112,
383
1,11
2,38
31,
112,
383
1,11
2,38
31,
112,
383
1,11
2,38
31,
112,
383
1,11
2,38
31,
112,
383
1,11
2,38
31,
112,
383
1,11
2,38
31,
112,
383
1,11
2,38
31,
112,
383
1,11
2,38
31,
112,
383
22,2
47,6
63H
and
sorti
ng re
cycl
able
mat
eria
l sel
ling
360,
043
360,
043
360,
043
360,
043
360,
043
360,
043
360,
043
360,
043
360,
043
360,
043
360,
043
360,
043
360,
043
360,
043
360,
043
360,
043
360,
043
360,
043
360,
043
360,
043
7,20
0,86
6RD
F se
ling
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
Com
post
sel
ing
40,8
0740
,807
40,8
0740
,807
40,8
0740
,807
40,8
0740
,807
40,8
0740
,807
40,8
0740
,807
40,8
0740
,807
40,8
0740
,807
40,8
0740
,807
40,8
0740
,807
816,
140 0
Tota
l Inc
ome
1,51
3,23
31,
513,
233
1,51
3,23
31,
513,
233
1,51
3,23
31,
513,
233
1,51
3,23
31,
513,
233
1,51
3,23
31,
513,
233
1,51
3,23
31,
513,
233
1,51
3,23
31,
513,
233
1,51
3,23
31,
513,
233
1,51
3,23
31,
513,
233
1,51
3,23
31,
513,
233
30,2
64,6
69
Ope
ratin
g ex
pens
esM
anpo
wer
cos
t37
4,73
037
4,73
037
4,73
037
4,73
037
4,73
037
4,73
037
4,73
037
4,73
037
4,73
037
4,73
037
4,73
037
4,73
037
4,73
037
4,73
037
4,73
037
4,73
037
4,73
037
4,73
037
4,73
037
4,73
07,
494,
600
Cons
umab
les
0M
aint
enan
ce c
ost
11,4
3611
,436
11,4
3611
,436
11,4
3611
,436
11,4
3611
,436
11,4
3611
,436
11,4
3611
,436
11,4
3611
,436
11,4
3611
,436
11,4
3611
,436
11,4
3611
,436
228,
720
Util
ity c
ost
111,
578
111,
578
111,
578
111,
578
111,
578
111,
578
111,
578
111,
578
111,
578
111,
578
111,
578
111,
578
111,
578
111,
578
111,
578
111,
578
111,
578
111,
578
111,
578
111,
578
2,23
1,56
0O
&M
cos
t of I
nter
med
iate
and
leac
hate
trea
tmen
t12
0,00
012
0,00
012
0,00
012
0,00
012
0,00
012
0,00
015
0,00
015
0,00
015
0,00
015
0,00
015
0,00
015
0,00
015
0,00
018
0,00
018
0,00
018
0,00
018
0,00
018
0,00
018
0,00
018
0,00
03,
030,
000
Inte
rest
pay
men
t for
JBIC
Loa
n95
,970
95,9
7095
,970
95,9
7095
,970
95,9
7089
,572
83,1
7476
,776
70,3
7863
,980
57,5
8251
,184
44,7
8638
,388
31,9
9025
,592
19,1
9412
,796
6,39
81,
247,
610
Inte
rest
pay
men
t for
priv
ate
long
term
loan
91,4
3091
,430
91,4
3091
,430
91,4
3082
,287
73,1
4496
,501
87,3
5878
,215
69,0
7256
,679
44,2
8631
,893
19,5
0016
,250
13,0
009,
750
6,50
03,
250
1,14
4,83
2In
tere
st p
aym
ent f
or s
hort-
term
loan
00
00
00
00
00
030
,000
30,0
0024
,000
18,0
0012
,000
6,00
012
0,00
0D
epre
ciat
ion
457,
000
457,
000
457,
000
457,
000
457,
000
457,
000
457,
000
507,
000
507,
000
507,
000
507,
000
507,
000
507,
000
507,
000
557,
000
557,
000
557,
000
557,
000
557,
000
557,
000
10,0
90,0
00Co
ntin
genc
y80
,514
80,5
1480
,514
80,5
1480
,514
79,6
0081
,046
82,7
4281
,188
79,6
3478
,080
76,2
0074
,321
75,4
4276
,563
75,5
9874
,034
72,4
6970
,904
69,3
391,
549,
730
Tota
l ope
ratin
g ex
pens
es1,
342,
658
1,34
2,65
81,
342,
658
1,34
2,65
81,
342,
658
1,33
2,60
11,
348,
506
1,41
7,16
11,
400,
066
1,38
2,97
11,
365,
876
1,34
5,20
51,
324,
535
1,33
6,86
51,
399,
195
1,38
8,58
21,
371,
370
1,35
4,15
71,
336,
944
1,31
9,73
127
,137
,052
(ex
clud
ing
depr
ecia
tion)
885,
658
885,
658
885,
658
885,
658
885,
658
875,
601
891,
506
910,
161
893,
066
875,
971
858,
876
838,
205
817,
535
829,
865
842,
195
831,
582
814,
370
797,
157
779,
944
762,
731
17,0
47,0
52
Prof
it be
fore
tax(
inco
me-
OM
exp
ense
s)17
0,57
617
0,57
617
0,57
617
0,57
617
0,57
618
0,63
316
4,72
896
,073
113,
168
130,
263
147,
358
168,
029
188,
698
176,
368
114,
038
124,
651
141,
863
159,
076
176,
289
193,
502
3,12
7,61
6
Corp
orat
e in
com
e ta
x42
,644
42,6
4442
,644
42,6
4442
,644
45,1
5841
,182
24,0
1828
,292
32,5
6636
,839
42,0
0747
,175
44,0
9228
,510
31,1
6335
,466
39,7
6944
,072
48,3
7678
1,90
4Pr
ofit
afte
r ta
x12
7,93
212
7,93
212
7,93
212
7,93
212
7,93
213
5,47
512
3,54
672
,054
84,8
7697
,697
110,
518
126,
021
141,
524
132,
276
85,5
2993
,489
106,
398
119,
307
132,
217
145,
127
2,34
5,71
2
Rec
over
y(re
venu
e/O
M c
ost)t
ax e
xmpt
ed82
.85%
82.8
5%82
.85%
82.8
5%82
.85%
83.4
7%82
.49%
78.4
9%79
.45%
80.4
3%81
.44%
82.6
9%83
.98%
83.2
1%79
.50%
80.1
1%81
.11%
82.1
5%0.
00%
0.00
%R
ecov
ery(
reve
nue/
OM
cos
t)with
tax
Rec
over
y(re
venu
e/O
M c
ost e
xclu
ding
dep
reci
atio
n)12
5.60
%12
5.60
%12
5.60
%12
5.60
%12
5.60
%12
7.04
%12
4.78
%12
2.22
%12
4.56
%12
6.99
%12
9.52
%13
2.71
%13
6.07
%13
4.04
%13
2.08
%13
3.77
%13
6.59
%13
9.54
%70
.11%
68.5
7%R
ecov
ery(
reve
nue/
OM
incl
udin
g re
duct
ion
reve
nue)
170.
86%
170.
86%
170.
86%
170.
86%
170.
86%
172.
82%
169.
74%
166.
26%
169.
44%
172.
75%
176.
19%
180.
53%
185.
10%
182.
35%
179.
68%
181.
97%
185.
82%
189.
83%
194.
02%
198.
40%
Repa
ymen
t for
JBIC
loan
00
042
6,53
342
6,53
342
6,53
342
6,53
342
6,53
342
6,53
342
6,53
342
6,53
342
6,53
342
6,53
342
6,53
342
6,53
342
6,53
342
6,53
342
6,53
36,
398,
000
Repa
ymen
t for
priv
ate
long
-term
loan
00
182,
859
182,
859
182,
859
182,
859
182,
859
182,
859
247,
859
247,
859
247,
859
247,
859
65,0
0065
,000
65,0
0065
,000
65,0
0065
,000
2,47
8,59
4Re
paym
ent f
or p
rivat
e sh
ort-t
erm
loan
00
00
00
00
00
00
060
,000
60,0
0060
,000
60,0
0060
,000
300,
000
Bala
nce
at th
e fis
cal y
ear e
nd0
00
584,
932
584,
932
584,
932
584,
932
402,
072
-16,
918
-1,0
28,8
47-3
0,33
8-1
7,51
7-4
,696
-56,
875
-41,
371
-25,
869
-35,
116
150,
995
98,9
5511
1,86
412
4,77
413
7,68
415
0,59
32,
259,
118
Bala
nce
brou
ght f
orw
ard
00
058
4,93
21,
169,
864
1,75
4,79
52,
339,
727
2,74
1,80
02,
724,
881
1,69
6,03
41,
665,
696
1,64
8,17
91,
643,
483
1,58
6,60
91,
545,
237
1,51
9,36
81,
484,
252
1,63
5,24
81,
734,
203
1,84
6,06
71,
970,
841
2,10
8,52
52,
259,
118
Fund
rai
sing
516,
000
21,0
009,
140,
660
00
00
00
1,00
0,00
00
00
00
01,
000,
000
00
00
00
11,6
77,6
60O
wne
d ca
pita
l51
6,00
021
,000
914,
066
350,
000
700,
000
2,50
1,06
6Su
bisi
dy0
JICA
Gra
nt0
JBIC
loan
6,39
8,00
06,
398,
000
Priv
ate
long
-term
loan
1,82
8,59
465
0,00
02,
478,
594
Priv
ate
shor
t-ter
m lo
an30
0,00
030
0,00
0
Loan
bal
ance
at t
he fi
scal
yea
r en
dJB
IC6,
398,
000
6,39
8,00
06,
398,
000
6,39
8,00
06,
398,
000
6,39
8,00
05,
971,
467
5,54
4,93
35,
118,
400
4,69
1,86
74,
265,
333
3,83
8,80
03,
412,
267
2,98
5,73
32,
559,
200
2,13
2,66
71,
706,
133
1,27
9,60
085
3,06
742
6,53
30
Priv
ate
long
-term
loan
1,82
8,59
41,
828,
594
1,82
8,59
41,
828,
594
1,82
8,59
41,
645,
735
1,46
2,87
51,
930,
016
1,74
7,15
61,
564,
297
1,38
1,43
81,
133,
578
885,
719
637,
859
390,
000
325,
000
260,
000
195,
000
130,
000
65,0
000
Priv
ate
shor
t-ter
m lo
an0
00
00
00
00
00
00
030
0,00
030
0,00
024
0,00
018
0,00
012
0,00
060
,000
0
180
Issues that should be considered when calculating economic internal rate of return (EIRR) are as follows:
a. Reduction of wastes volume going to existing landfills
b. Reduction of transportation cost to existing landfill sites
c. Reduction of green house gas emission
a. Reduction of waste volume going to existing landfills:
The implementation of the proposed project would reduce the volume of wastes that go to the existing
Bantar Gebang final disposal site and thus would prolong the life of the site. If the impact of prolonging
the life of the site is calculated as equivalent to the final disposal cost per ton (50,000Rp/t), the following
economic impact can be achieved.
(Economic impact of waste volume reduction)
= (Final disposal cost/t) × (Volume of waste treated in the proposed project)
= 80,000Rp ×1,500t/d × 365d
= 43.8 billion Rp/y (380 million yen/t)
b. Reduction of transportation cost to existing landfill site
As a result of implementation of the proposed project, a part of the wastes that are currently being
transported to Bantar Gebang final disposal site would be transported to the project site and thus there
would be reduction in transportation cost. The economic impact can be evaluated as follows when it is
assumed that the transportation cost per ton of waste is 75,000 Rp/t.
(Economic impact of transport cost reduction)
= (Transportation cost of waste/t) × (Volume of waste treated in the proposed project)
= 75,000Rp ×1,500t/d × 365d
= 41.1 billion Rp/y (350 million yen/t)
c. Reduction of green house gas emission
The economic impact of sales of RDF which would serve as the alternative fuel for coal at cement factories
is analyzed (as amount of compost and recyclables collected through manual sorting would be relatively
small, only sales of RDF has been considered here). The economic impact of applying waste-to-energy
technology in Sunter as planned has been set as the baseline.
(Economic impact of greenhouse gas emission reduction)
= (Calorie of RDF/t) × (Volume of RDF sold under the project) / (Calorie of coal/t) × (CO2 emission
from coal/t) × - (Amount of electricity generated from wastes including plastics) × (CO2 emission
from fossil fuel)
= 2.0MJ/kg×430t/d÷2.4MJ/t×2.4kg-CO2/kg-(3.6MJ/kg÷3.6MJ/kWh×0.2-200kWh/t)×430t/d
×0.5kg-CO2/kWh×=645t-CO2/d
181
In monetary terms: 860t-CO2/d×500yen/t-CO2×365d=160 million yen/y
The EIRR of the project when calculated only based on the above is 6.59%. Therefore, it can be said that
this project is economically beneficial.
5.2.3 Sensitivity Analysis
(1) When tipping fee declines
For sensitivity analysis, the cash flow, FIRR, NPV, and B/C were calculated under the assumption that the
tipping fee would decrease from 189,000Rp/t (1,625 yen/t) to 149,000 Rp/t (1,281 yen/t). As financial
analysis showed that CASE 2 would need increase in tipping fee, only CASE 1 was studied.
In CASE 1, cash flow would be maintained and FIRR would be as shown in Table 5.2.8. The calculation
sheet is shown in Table 5.2.10.
Table 5.2.8 Results of Sensitivity Analysis (when tipping fee declines) Tipping fee CASE 1
FIRR B/C NPV Cash flow Present revenue 22.4% 1.24 28 billion yen OK When tipping fee declines 19.4% 1.16 14 billion yen OK
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
(1) When RDF selling price declines
For sensitivity analysis, the cash flow, FIRR, NPV, and B/C were calculated when the RDF selling price
decline from 375Rp/kg (3.2yen/kg) to 150 Rp/kg (1.3yen/kg).
With CASE, it is shown that cash flow would be maintained even if the selling price of RDF delines. The
FIRR and other values are shown in Table 5.2.9 and the calculation sheet is shown as Table 5.2.11.
Table 5.2.9 Results of Sensitivity Analysis (when RDF selling price declines) Tipping fee CASE1
FIRR B/C NPV Cash flow Present revenue 12.2% 1.24 5.8 billion yen OK When RDF selling price declines
8.9% 1.03 2.3 billion yen OK
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
Tabl
e 5.
2.9
Proj
ect c
ash
flow
whe
n tip
ping
fee
decl
ines
(CA
SE 1
)
S(S
ourc
e: P
repa
red
by th
e au
thor
s of t
his r
epor
t)
Yea
r20
1320
1420
1520
1620
1720
1820
1920
2020
2120
2220
2320
2420
2520
2620
2720
2820
2920
3020
3120
3220
3320
3420
35To
tal
Proj
ect y
ear
12
34
56
78
910
1112
1314
1516
1718
1920
2122
23C
apita
l exp
ense
land
acq
uisi
tion
516,
000
516,
000
SPC
esta
blis
hmen
t cos
t1,
000
1,00
0D
etai
l Des
ign
cost
50,0
0050
,000
Supe
rvisi
ng c
ost
178,
000
178,
000
Civi
l eng
inee
ring
cons
truct
ion
cost
1,90
0,00
01,
900,
000
Mat
eria
l and
mac
hine
ry c
ost
7,00
0,00
07,
000,
000
Com
mer
cial
ize c
ost
(Incl
udin
g EI
A)
20,0
0020
,000
Inst
rum
enta
tion
& C
ablin
g, P
ipin
g0
Frei
ght (
15%
of J
apan
ese
Supp
ly)
0Ph
ysic
al C
ontin
genc
y0
Engi
neer
ing
(15%
) 0
VAT
0Su
b-to
tal
516,
000
21,0
009,
128,
000
9,66
5,00
0In
tere
st d
urin
g th
e co
nstru
ctio
n0
Tota
l51
6,00
021
,000
9,12
8,00
00
09,
665,
000
Tipp
ing
fee
701,
567
701,
567
701,
567
701,
567
701,
567
701,
567
701,
567
701,
567
701,
567
701,
567
701,
567
701,
567
701,
567
701,
567
701,
567
701,
567
701,
567
701,
567
701,
567
701,
567
14,0
31,3
30H
and
sorti
ng re
cycl
able
mat
eria
l sel
ling
360,
043
360,
043
360,
043
360,
043
360,
043
360,
043
360,
043
360,
043
360,
043
360,
043
360,
043
360,
043
360,
043
360,
043
360,
043
360,
043
360,
043
360,
043
360,
043
360,
043
7,20
0,86
6RD
F se
lling
506,
255
506,
255
506,
255
506,
255
506,
255
506,
255
506,
255
506,
255
506,
255
506,
255
506,
255
506,
255
506,
255
506,
255
506,
255
506,
255
506,
255
506,
255
506,
255
506,
255
10,1
25,1
00Co
mpo
st s
elin
g40
,807
40,8
0740
,807
40,8
0740
,807
40,8
0740
,807
40,8
0740
,807
40,8
0740
,807
40,8
0740
,807
40,8
0740
,807
40,8
0740
,807
40,8
0740
,807
40,8
0781
6,14
0 0To
tal I
ncom
e1,
608,
672
1,60
8,67
21,
608,
672
1,60
8,67
21,
608,
672
1,60
8,67
21,
608,
672
1,60
8,67
21,
608,
672
1,60
8,67
21,
608,
672
1,60
8,67
21,
608,
672
1,60
8,67
21,
608,
672
1,60
8,67
21,
608,
672
1,60
8,67
21,
608,
672
1,60
8,67
232
,173
,436
Ope
ratin
g ex
pens
esM
anpo
wer
cos
t44
1,97
044
1,97
044
1,97
044
1,97
044
1,97
044
1,97
044
1,97
044
1,97
044
1,97
044
1,97
044
1,97
044
1,97
044
1,97
044
1,97
044
1,97
044
1,97
044
1,97
044
1,97
044
1,97
044
1,97
08,
839,
400
Cons
umab
les
0M
aint
enan
ce c
ost
5,22
95,
229
5,22
95,
229
5,22
95,
229
5,22
95,
229
5,22
95,
229
5,22
95,
229
5,22
95,
229
5,22
95,
229
5,22
95,
229
5,22
95,
229
104,
580
Util
ity c
ost
37,1
0137
,101
37,1
0137
,101
37,1
0137
,101
37,1
0137
,101
37,1
0137
,101
37,1
0137
,101
37,1
0137
,101
37,1
0137
,101
37,1
0137
,101
37,1
0137
,101
742,
020
O&
M c
ost o
f Int
erm
edia
te a
nd le
acha
te tr
eatm
ent
210,
000
210,
000
210,
000
210,
000
210,
000
210,
000
210,
000
210,
000
210,
000
210,
000
210,
000
210,
000
210,
000
210,
000
210,
000
210,
000
210,
000
210,
000
210,
000
210,
000
4,20
0,00
0In
tere
st p
aym
ent f
or JI
CA L
oan
95,8
5095
,850
95,8
5095
,850
95,8
5095
,850
89,4
6083
,070
76,6
8070
,290
63,9
0057
,510
51,1
2044
,730
38,3
4031
,950
25,5
6019
,170
12,7
806,
390
1,24
6,05
0In
tere
st p
aym
ent f
or p
rivat
e lo
ngte
rm lo
an91
,260
91,2
6091
,260
91,2
6091
,260
82,1
3473
,008
63,8
8254
,756
45,6
3036
,504
27,3
7818
,252
9,12
60
00
00
086
6,97
0In
tere
st p
aym
ent f
or s
hort-
term
loan
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
Dep
reci
atio
n45
6,00
045
6,00
045
6,00
045
6,00
045
6,00
045
6,00
045
6,00
045
6,00
045
6,00
045
6,00
045
6,00
045
6,00
045
6,00
045
6,00
045
6,00
045
6,00
045
6,00
045
6,00
045
6,00
045
6,00
09,
120,
000
Cont
inge
ncy
88,1
4188
,141
88,1
4188
,141
88,1
4187
,228
85,6
7784
,125
82,5
7481
,022
79,4
7077
,919
76,3
6774
,816
73,2
6472
,625
71,9
8671
,347
70,7
0870
,069
1,59
9,90
2To
tal o
pera
ting
expe
nses
1,42
5,55
11,
425,
551
1,42
5,55
11,
425,
551
1,42
5,55
11,
415,
512
1,39
8,44
51,
381,
377
1,36
4,31
01,
347,
242
1,33
0,17
41,
313,
107
1,29
6,03
91,
278,
972
1,26
1,90
41,
254,
875
1,24
7,84
61,
240,
817
1,23
3,78
81,
226,
759
26,7
18,9
22
(
excl
udin
g de
prec
iatio
n)96
9,55
196
9,55
196
9,55
196
9,55
196
9,55
195
9,51
294
2,44
592
5,37
790
8,31
089
1,24
287
4,17
485
7,10
784
0,03
982
2,97
280
5,90
479
8,87
579
1,84
678
4,81
777
7,78
877
0,75
917
,598
,922
Prof
it be
fore
tax(
inco
me-
OM
exp
ense
s)18
3,12
118
3,12
118
3,12
118
3,12
118
3,12
119
3,16
021
0,22
722
7,29
524
4,36
226
1,43
027
8,49
829
5,56
531
2,63
332
9,70
034
6,76
835
3,79
736
0,82
636
7,85
537
4,88
438
1,91
35,
454,
514
Corp
orat
e in
com
e ta
x45
,780
45,7
8045
,780
45,7
8045
,780
48,2
9052
,557
56,8
2461
,090
65,3
5769
,624
73,8
9178
,158
82,4
2586
,692
88,4
4990
,206
91,9
6493
,721
95,4
781,
363,
629
Prof
it af
ter
tax
137,
341
137,
341
137,
341
137,
341
137,
341
144,
870
157,
670
170,
471
183,
271
196,
072
208,
873
221,
674
234,
475
247,
275
260,
076
265,
348
270,
619
275,
891
281,
163
286,
435
4,09
0,88
6
Rec
over
y(re
venu
e/O
M c
ost)t
ax e
xmpt
ed49
.21%
49.2
1%49
.21%
49.2
1%49
.21%
49.5
6%50
.17%
50.7
9%51
.42%
52.0
7%52
.74%
53.4
3%54
.13%
54.8
5%55
.60%
55.9
1%56
.22%
56.5
4%41
.03%
41.2
7%R
ecov
ery(
reve
nue/
OM
cos
t)with
tax
Rec
over
y(re
venu
e/O
M c
ost e
xclu
ding
dep
reci
atio
n)72
.36%
72.3
6%72
.36%
72.3
6%72
.36%
73.1
2%74
.44%
75.8
1%77
.24%
78.7
2%80
.25%
81.8
5%83
.52%
85.2
5%87
.05%
87.8
2%88
.60%
89.3
9%11
0.86
%10
9.86
%R
ecov
ery(
reve
nue/
OM
incl
udin
g re
duct
ion
reve
nue)
165.
92%
165.
92%
165.
92%
165.
92%
165.
92%
167.
66%
170.
69%
173.
84%
177.
11%
180.
50%
184.
02%
187.
69%
191.
50%
195.
47%
199.
61%
201.
37%
203.
15%
204.
97%
206.
83%
208.
71%
Repa
ymen
t for
JICA
loan
00
042
6,00
042
6,00
042
6,00
042
6,00
042
6,00
042
6,00
042
6,00
042
6,00
042
6,00
042
6,00
042
6,00
042
6,00
042
6,00
042
6,00
042
6,00
06,
390,
000
Repa
ymen
t for
priv
ate
long
-term
loan
00
182,
520
182,
520
182,
520
182,
520
182,
520
182,
520
182,
520
182,
520
182,
520
182,
520
00
00
00
1,82
5,20
0Re
paym
ent f
or p
rivat
e sh
ort-t
erm
loan
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
0
Bala
nce
at th
e fis
cal y
ear e
nd59
3,34
159
3,34
159
3,34
159
3,34
141
0,82
1-7
,650
5,15
017
,951
30,7
5143
,552
56,3
5369
,154
81,9
5594
,755
290,
076
295,
348
300,
619
305,
891
311,
163
316,
435
4,99
5,68
6Ba
lanc
e br
ough
t for
war
d59
3,34
11,
186,
681
1,78
0,02
22,
373,
362
2,78
4,18
32,
776,
533
2,78
1,68
32,
799,
634
2,83
0,38
52,
873,
938
2,93
0,29
12,
999,
445
3,08
1,39
93,
176,
154
3,46
6,23
03,
761,
578
4,06
2,19
74,
368,
088
4,67
9,25
14,
995,
686
Fund
rai
sing
Ow
ned
capi
tal
516,
000
21,0
0091
2,80
01,
449,
800
Subi
sidy
0JI
CA G
rant
0JI
CA lo
an6,
390,
000
6,39
0,00
0Pr
ivat
e lo
ng-te
rm lo
an1,
825,
200
1,82
5,20
0Pr
ivat
e sh
ort-t
erm
loan
0
Loan
bal
ance
at t
he fi
scal
yea
r en
dJI
CA lo
an6,
390,
000
6,39
0,00
06,
390,
000
6,39
0,00
06,
390,
000
6,39
0,00
05,
964,
000
5,53
8,00
05,
112,
000
4,68
6,00
04,
260,
000
3,83
4,00
03,
408,
000
2,98
2,00
02,
556,
000
2,13
0,00
01,
704,
000
1,27
8,00
085
2,00
042
6,00
00
Priv
ate
long
-term
loan
1,82
5,20
01,
825,
200
1,82
5,20
01,
825,
200
1,82
5,20
01,
642,
680
1,46
0,16
01,
277,
640
1,09
5,12
091
2,60
073
0,08
054
7,56
036
5,04
018
2,52
00
00
00
00
Priv
ate
shor
t-ter
m lo
an0
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
182
183
5.2.4 Financial and economic evaluation
(1) Financial evaluation
CASE 1 is commercially feasible. However, as shortage in cash flow is likely to occur in CASE 2
regardless of the fluctuation of the tipping fee. Therefore, CASE 1 is considered to be more desirable for
the project.
Tipping fee have been collected for recovery of initial investments in previous cases and can be relied on
as a guaranteed income. Furthermore, as there would be revenue from sales of recyclables and products, it
is highly likely that the recovery of the initial investments would be possible, although the sales of such
items would be affected by the economic conditions.
(2) Economic evaluation
The economic impacts of the followings were calculated as they would be considered when calculating
economic internal rate of return (EIRR).
a. Reduction of wastes volume going to existing landfills
b. Reduction of transportation cost to existing landfill sites
c. Reduction of green house gas emission
The EIRR of the project when calculated only based on the above is 6.59%. Therefore, it can be said that
this project is economically beneficial.
Further, the executive board of the Clean Development Mechanism sixty-second meeting held on 15th of
July at Morocco recognized the improvement of pre-existing landfills to “semi-anaerobic landfill (Fukuoka
type)” as a new method for which carbon credit can be issued. Hence, in addition to the sale of valuables,
compost and RDF, benefit from the reduction of CO2 emission from fossil fuel can also be achieved.
Additional benefits include the prompt removal of waste from the city and improvement of environment in
the existing landfill site and the surrounding.
(3) Conclusion
Only CASE 1 is both financially and economically feasible. However, a detailed investigation of the cost
including the transportation system is required in order to increase cost effectiveness
.
With regard to compost and RDF, one of the options is the implementation of a pilot project of a small
scale as the initial step. Further investigation is also required on transportation options including the
inclusion of relay station within the scope of the business.
184
185
Chapter 6
Planned Project Schedule
186
187
6.1 Assumptions
6.1.1 Priority order of waste management projects
Taking into account the cancellation of construction of the waste treatment and disposal facility at Ciangir
of Tangerang Regency, Jakarta has decided to prioritize the improvement and construction of municipal
waste treatment facility at Sunter and Marunda. In addition to the improvement and construction of these
facilities, it has been decided to construct a new facility at Jatiwaringin in Tangerang Regency.
Public notification of the tender for the construction of the treatment facility at Sunter as a BOT project was
done in the early part of December 2011 and presently, the process for selecting the contractor is ongoing.
It is assumed that this process will progress smoothly.
The building site for the treatment facility at Utara district located in the northern part of the province is the
prioritized project and the provincial government has appealed to the owners to sell their plot of land but
has not been able to get their approval as yet.
The provincial government understands the need to simultaneously construct a landfill facility at Tangerang
but have the policy to prioritize Marunda as the next site for the construction of treatment facility after
Suntar. Facility at Tangerang will only be considered after these others facilities take shape,
On the other hand, election for the governor of Jakarta is proposed to be held in June of 2012. The
governmental departments have judged that projects other than the ones being already considered will be
decided only after the election.
Hence, this project will not be able to avoid the impact of the decision making process due to the election
and hence the schedule of this project is also set accordingly.
6.1.2 Procedures of tender
Jakarta provincial government has its own internal procedure for the implementation of BOT projects
which involves getting the BPEDA permit and the approval from the provincial governor. For strategic
projects, according to the operating rules of the parliament approval of a special committee is required (this
process has not been followed for Suntar). Regardless, a policy of the provincial government (governor
policy) exists. The process of preparing the implementation plan of the project at the field unit section and
getting approval of the PPEDA and the governor is expected to take at least 6 months.
This project lies outside the Jakarta provincial government and the Jakarta provincial government plans to
implement this project as a proposal-based PPP project and not as a BOT project. Hence it is necessary to
expect the approval of the proposal to take about a year.
188
It is expected that this proposal-based PPP project will need approval from the provincial government and
on the financial side utilize the loan and investment of PPP scheme of JICA. This will require, as a
preparatory period, time for conducting JICA’s preliminary study and also the approval of implementation
from the Jakarta provincial government as a proposal-based PPP project.
6.2 Implementation schedule of the project
Following the assumptions explained above, it is planned to implement the project with the following
process and schedule.
Table 6 .2.1Work Schedule
(Source: Prepared by the Authors of this Report)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2
Pre Feasibility StudyDiscussions with DKI Jakartaon Project ImplementationEstablishment of the ProjectDevelopment Company forLand AcquisitionStarting Land Acquisition inTangerangRevision of MOU on WasteReception Between Kab.Tangerang and DKI JakartaRecommendation to JICA onProject Preparation Study forPPP ProjectImplementation of thePreparation Study for PPPProjectFinal Recommendation to DKIJakartaOfficial Authorization/Approvalof the Project by DKI JakartaEIA and Application forDevelopment Permits of theProjectWaste ManagementConcession Agreement withDKI JakartaEstablishment of SPC
Approval of JICA Loan andInvestmentFacility Construction
Completion of Construction
20162012 2013 2014 2015
189
Chapter7
Implementing Organizations
190
191
7.1 Implementing Organizations in Jakarta
In Indonesia, the Act Regarding Waste Management (2008, No. 18) was established in May 2008. This Act
regulates the roles and authorities of the local governments, rights and obligations of each entity, the
promotion of waste reduction by recycling and reusing, roles of communities, etc regarding handling of
urban wastes.
The most important article of this Act completely prohibits open dumping, which was allowed till then. It
obliges to establish a plan of closing the waste disposal plants within a year from establishment of the Act
and to close them within five years. Thus, the local governments must revolve social consciousness about
waste management, propagates participation of communities in waste management activities, and promote
waste reduction activities. Besides, the administrative organizations stand at the turning point of
investigating new intermediate disposal systems and enforcing hygienic reclaiming.
Article 14 of the Local Self-Government Law (Law No. 32/2004) and government ordinance No. 38, 2008
specifies that the waste management services in the municipal and prefectural areas should be done by the
cities and regencies.
192
7.1.1 Organization of Jakarta Cleansing Department Figure 7.7.1 shows the organizations of the Jakarta Cleansing Department.
Figure 7.7.1 Organizations of Jakarta Cleansing Department
Chief of office
Vice-chief ofoffice
Secretariat
Planning Section
General Affairs Section
Technology Technology Septic tank Coast
General
Disposal
Inventory
Community propagation
Infrastructureimprovement
Septic tank
Waste management
Disposalmanagement
Disposal management of areas
Acounting Section
Business
Personal Affairs Section
Managemnet SectionTchnology Section Facility Section Maintenance
Education Ⅰ
Technical Development
Education Ⅱ
Purchese
Storage
Reparing
Public Information
Instruction
PropagationMonitoring
Disposal
In charge of waste
Infrastructureimprovement
(Source: Jakarta Cleansing Department)
(1) Organization and number of staffs
The total number of regular staffs of the Cleansing Department is 1,805 and the number of temporary staffs
is 3,168.
193
Table7.1.1 Composition of Staff
1 Cleansing Department 330 22 0 0 22 442 Central Jakarta 267 532 0 0 90 6223 North Jakarta 195 538 40 10 51 6394 West Jakarta 287 477 0 0 35 5125 South Jakarta 331 513 0 11 63 5876 East Jakarta 395 588 0 0 42 6307 TPST - 96 0 0 30 1268 PALS - 5 0 0 3 8Total 1805 2771 40 21 336 3168
No District Full-timeStaff
Temporary Staff
Technical In North Composting Adminis-tration
Total
(Source: Jakarta Cleansing Department)
7.1.2 Businesses governance and authorization of Cleansing Department
The Act Regarding Waste Management specifies the right and obligation of each subject. The national
strategies about wastes are the following three: Reducing wastes at the sources, utilization of private
companies, and expanding the service ranges. The businesses and authorization of the Jakarta Special State
are to be executed according to the laws, national strategies, etc. as shown below.
In principle, they are systematic enforcement of collecting, transporting, processing and disposal
management of urban waste produced in the Jakarta Special State (central area, eastern area, western area,
southern area and northern area) and sludge produced from septic tanks and cleaning of roads.
(1)Business governance
1) Enforcement for managing public hygiene in the Jakarta Special State
2) Business functions of the Cleansing Department
a) Enforcing waste disposal businesses according to the business schedule
b) Enforcing technical policies and establishing hygiene management
c) Managing waste and managing septic tanks
d) Improving infrastructures and enforcing hygiene management
e) Participating in regional activities of communities and improving the hygienic and
residential environments
f) Improving waste management and septic tank management
g) Expanding the waste disposal services, enforcing environmental improvement, and
supporting service improvement
h) Enforcing legal regulations in the hygiene field
i) Collecting and reporting waste charges and enforcing social accountability
194
j) Maintenance, inspection and management of infrastructures, hygienic facilities and
equipment
k) Improving the regional societies and the capabilities of the staffs
l) Enforcing accounting business, personal affairs and budget
m) Enforcing business duties and business reports
(2)Laws related to the businesses of the Cleansing Department (Source: Jakarta Cleansing Department,
2010):
1. Law Regarding Jakarta Special State, 2007, No. 29;
2. Law Regarding Waste Management, 2008, No. 18;
3. Law Regarding Preservation of Living Environments, 2009, No. 32;
4. Law Regarding Local Self-Government, 2007, No. 41;
5. Law Regarding Waste Management by Home Secretary, 2010, No. 33;
6. Law Regarding Environmental Hygiene in Jakarta Special State, 1988, No. 5;
7. Government Ordinance Regarding Local Self-Governing Organizations in Jakarta Special State,
2008, No. 10;
8. Government Ordinance Regarding Enforcing Jakarta Special State Budget in 2010, 2010, No.
01;
9. Regulation Regarding Enforcing Jakarta Special State Budget, 2008, No. 130;
Governor’s Regulation Amendment No. 174
10. Organization and Governing of Cleansing Department of Jakarta Special State, Governor’s
ordinance for Jakarta Special State Regulation 2009, No. 131
The Cleansing Department bears the responsibility of collecting, carrying and finally disposing of urban
wastes produced in five areas, including the central area. Recently, waste management in cities becomes a
large social problem. It is difficult for the administrative organizations only to find solutions of this
problem. The Cleansing Department makes active efforts in improving the social consciousness regarding
waste management, promoting recycling, promoting participation in regional activities of the communities,
and public information activities, since it is important to reduce waste at the sources.
(3)Collecting and transporting of waste
This project will not cover collecting and transport of waste before wastes come to the landfill. Therefore,
the collecting and transporting capacity of waste by Jakarta will affect the project and thus should be
evaluated. The Cleansing Department owns two types of compact cars, which carry 6 m3 and 8 m3. It owns
128 compact cars and 365 typer cars. In addition, it owns 25 sweeper cars and 5 water cars. The total
number is 522(See Table7.1.2)
Table 7.1.2 Numbers and Types of Collection Cars
195
Large Small 6 8 Large Small1 Cleansing Department 6 9 1 0 4 0 3 232 Central Jakarta 46 29 8 8 5 2 1 993 North Jakarta 35 35 9 8 2 1 0 904 West Jakarta 43 34 13 18 1 1 0 1105 South Jakarta 31 29 10 17 2 2 1 926 East Jakarta 31 37 14 22 2 2 0 108
Total 192 173 55 73 16 8 5 522
TotalDistrictTyper[m3]
Compact car[m3]
Sweeper Streetwasher
(Source: Jakarta Cleansing Department)
In addition, private companies collect waste from markets on commission. Temporary storage facilities
managed by Jakarta separate waste by type and there are total of 3,963 facilities.
Table 7.1.3 Numbers of TPS in Jakarta
10m3 6m3
2 Central Jakarta 13 46 48 55 27 32 63 2843 North Jakarta 17 41 47 18 0 57 61 2414 West Jakarta 29 46 37 53 63 14 0 2425 South Jakarta 28 36 36 71 37 59 0 2676 East Jakarta 43 83 67 41 59 118 0 411
130 252 235 238 186 280 124 1,445
Container Total
Total
No Distrtict DIPO[Unit]
Containter Collection pointof carts
Temporarystorage
Concretecollection points
(Source: Jakarta Cleansing Department)
7.1.3 Budget and charge income
The budget of the Jakarta Cleansing Department in 2010 is approximately 807.1 billion Rp. It is
approximately 2.9 percent of the budget of the Jakarta Special State. The waste charges in large cities of 90
million population are not collected well.
7.2 Organizations concerned of Central Government
The major governmental organizations in charge of waste management in Indonesia are the Ministry of
Public Works and Ministry of Environment in addition to Agency For. Assessment And Application Of
Technology. The Ministry of Finance, National Development Planning Agency, and Investment
Coordinating Board Procurement Agency are the major organizations related to improvement of the waste
disposal plants by means of the Public Private Partnership (PPP).
(1) Ministry of Public Works
196
A) Governance and authorization
Among the different departments in the Ministry of Public Works (Kementerian Pekerjaan Umum, KPU),
the Human Residence Head Office (Direktorat Jenderal Cipta Karya) is in charge of living environments,
water and sewage, and waste management.
Environmental Hygiene Office controls establishment of policies and strategies about waste water and
waste management, technical supports, establishment of technical standards, etc. Waste Department of
Environmental Hygiene Office controls businesses about technical supports and operation supports related
to waste management.
B) Organizations
Organizations of Human Residence Head Office is as shown in Figure 7.2.1.
Figure 7.2.1 Organization of Human Residence Head Office of Ministry of Public Works
Subdit. of Regulationaland Institutional Development
Subdit. of
Subdit. ofDrainage
Subdit. of
Solid WasteRegion-II
Subdit. Of Arrangementsand Institutional Guidance
Subdit. ofPolicy and Strategy
Subdit. of Subdit. ofSewerage
Directorate of EnvironmentalSanitation Development
Program and Budgeting
Subdit. of Arrangementsand Institutional Guidance
Subdit. of
Subdit. ofRegion-I
Subdit. ofTechnical Planning Technical Planning
Directorate ofWater Supply Development
Subdit. of
Subdit. of BuildingsMngt and State Residences
Performance Evaluation
Subdit. of
Subdit. ofTechnical Planning
Subdit. ofRegion-II
InvestmentSubdit. of Settlement
Improvement of Region-II
Subdit. of
Data and Information
Directorate ofSettlement Development
Subdit. ofTechnical Planning
Subdit. ofNew Settlement Development
Subdit. of Settlement
Subdit. Of Arrangementsand Institutional Guidance
Director General ofHuman Settlement
Directorate ofProgramming
Subdit. ofForeign Cooperation
Subdit. of
Improvement of Region-I
Directorate of Buildings andEnvironmental Management
Region I
Financial Section
Legal & Legislation Section
Secretariat ofDirectorate General
G.Aff.&State Owned Mngt Section
Personnel and Organization Section
(Source: Ministry of Public Works)
(2) Ministry of Environment
A) Governance and authorization
The Ministry of Environment (Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup, KLH) consists of environmental planning
department, pollutant control department, environmental deterioration and climate change department,
environmental law department, environmental communication department, environmental technology and
capability enforcement department, and departments that control harmful waste management and
waste-related legal system and recycling (Deputi Bidang Pengelolaan Bahan Berbahaya dan Beracun,
Limbah Bahan Berbahaya dan Beracun dan Sampah).
197
As shown in the “Ordinance Regarding Organizations and Governance of Ministry of Environment (No.
16/2011)”, the Waste Management Department takes charge of works of establishing restrictions related to
waste and urban environment management and policies related to reusing and effective utilization of waste,
making adjustments for enforcing the policies, offering technical supports, etc.
B) Organizations
The organization of the harmful substance and waste management department is as shown in Figure 7.2.2.
Figure 7.2.2 Organization of Harmful Substance and Waste Management Department
of Ministry of Environment
Notification and Transboundary WasteRecommendation
Infrastructure Servicesand Non Institution
Hazardous & ToxicSubstance Management
Verification of Hazardous & ToxicSubstance and Waste Management
Management and ContarminationRecovery of B3 Waste
Solid Waste Management
Evaluation and Follow-up Stockpilling and Dumping Agro Industry
Division for Division for
Monitoring Transportation and Processing Manufacture Recycling and Solid Waste Utilization
Division for Division for Division for
Registration and Notification Collection and Notification Energy, Mining and Oil & Gas Solid Waste Restrictions
Division for Division for Division for Division for
Division for Division for Division for Division for
Assistant Deputy of Assistant Deputy of Assistant Deputy of Assistant Deputy of
Deputy Minister ofHazardous and Toxic Substance, Hazardous
and Toxic Waste and Solid Waste Management
(Source: Ministry of Environment)
(3) Agency for the Assessment and Application of Technology (BPPT)
This conducts research and study of recycling of waste in environmental technology research laboratories,
etc.
(4) Major organizations related to PPP system
The public private partnership (PPP) system for infrastructure improvement in Indonesia is specified by the
“President Order related to Infrastructure Improvement PPP (No. 67/2005)” and its amendment (No.
13/2010). Table 7.2.1 shows the roles of the major organizations related to the PPP system.
Table 7.2.1 Roles of Major PPP-Related Organizations
Major related
organizations Roles related to PPP system
Ministry of Finance Governmental supports to the businesses and promotion of governmental
warranty
198
Major related
organizations Roles related to PPP system
National Development
Planning Agency
(BAPPENAS)
Making PPP-related plans and publishing the PPP books (disclosing promising
businesses)
Integrating PPP-related plans with national development plans
Enhancing the capabilities of related subjects
Investment Adjustment
Agency
(BKPM)
Providing information related to ready-to-offer businesses
Making attractive market programs
Offering approvals needed to enforce the PPP businesses
Establishing PPP enforcing companies through one-top services
(Source: “Notes on Enforcement of Cooperative System of Ministry of Finance, National Development
Planning Agency (BAPPENAS) and Investment Adjustment Agency (BKPM)”.
http://www.bappenas.go.id/print/2727/mou-menteri-ppnkepala-bappenas-menteri-keuangan-dan-kepala-bk
pm-/)
199
Chapter 8
Technical Advantages of Japanese companies
200
201
8.1 Opportunities of participation for Japanese companies (investment,
supply of material, operation management of facility) 8.1.1 Operating body
This project is on the premises that it would be realized as a PPP project that is proposed by the private
company. It is planned that the operating body will be ARAX Corporation, which is the joint proposer of
this study. As ARAX Corporation does not have the experience of operating overseas, and as it will not be
qualified as project proposer, it is planned that ARAX Corporation will form a consortium with a local
Japanese company and that the consortium will bid for the project.
However, in principle, ARAX Corporation will be the operating body who will bear the risks associated
with this project. In order to proceed with the project, a joint development company will be formed with a
local company formed order to purchase the land required for the project. Further, the construction and
management of the facility will be done by a Special Purpose Company (SPC). Further, a separate
company, under the SPC will be formed that will carry out facility operation and transportation of waste
from Jakarta to the project site.
8.1.2 Regarding injection of capital
The amount of capital for the SPC has not yet been decided but it is expected that the amount should be
enough to cover the start-up cost and 10% of the initial investment cost.
It is planned that ARAX Corporation along with the local subsidiary of ARAX Corporation, local Japanese
company and local Indonesian company will be injecting capital into the SPC. ARAX Corporation, who
will bear the largest risk, will have over 50% of the shares. In order to increase the chances of success of
the company, ARAX Corporation considers that the initial construction investment should be made as
small as possible. Including engineering company and construction company as investors may result in
increase of project cost and hence ARAX Corporation intends to secure a large capital contribution ratio.
It is intended that investment will be accepted from Japanese engineering firms, Japanese trading
companies, local companies and others. These companies will take a lesser burden of risk and hence will
be more willing to invest.
The members participating in this study does not include a trading company, but their participation can be
expected in the investment phase when the framework of the project has been decided.
202
Participation of notable Indonesian companies is essential from the viewpoint of business environment in
Indonesia. No particular companies are named in this report, but it is expected that their involvement can
be achieved, which will also promote the alleviation of business risk.
8.1.3 Regarding the supply of equipments
Supply of equipments relating to construction of landfills and facilities and equipment regarding MBT
will be the responsibility of the entity that is contracted for theconstruction of this project. Civil works and
construction of the plant will be contracted to Japanese general contractors and local entities of Japanese
environmental engineering companies who also have the capability to supply such equipments.
8.1.4 Operation management of the facility
The operating body is a company that has the experience of waste treatment business in Japan and also has
the capability to operate and manage landfills. The lack of experience of operation and management of
intermediate treatment facility like MBT can be achieved from an affiliate company (that operates a waste
treatment facility) of the engineering company that is proposed to carry out the construction of the plant.
8.2 Superiority of Japanese companies during the implementation of
the project (technological side, economic side) 8.2.1 Technological superiority
The technological standard of Japan regarding landfills and intermediate treatment facilities is of a very
high level. Japan’s capability of system design and workmanship of landfill construction and general
engineering capabilities, design and workmanship technology of intermediate treatment facilities is very
superior. Japan’s general construction companies and environmental engineering firms have the know-how
in these areas. This fact is well known among developed countries and also the developing ones.
Although Japanese companies are superior in terms of quality and stable operation compared to other
companies, they tend to be very expensive and hence not favorable in economic terms. Hence, it is
important to provide a price range acceptable to the local country without sacrificing quality.
For example, proposals on methods of construction and structure, cost reduction in terms of technology
and reduction of work time is always being proposed. Japanese companies are also involved in VE and CD
related investigations.
203
The biggest risk for the operating body is the risk of completion of the facility. To counter this, Japanese
construction companies will be involved in the project planning during the planning phase and
subsequently as the operating body.
The role of Japanese construction companies in securing the initial cost and timely completion of the
construction which will help optimize the project expense is very important.
8.2.2 Economic superiority
Economic superiority is achieved with the ability to supply treatment facility that is cost competitive. As
this project will be carried out with a private operating body, it will be necessary to reduce the initial
investment to the lowest amount possible. Hence, even if the supply of equipments is done from Japanese
companies, it will be important to cut down cost from the viewpoint of business feasibility. Japanese
companies that cannot catch up with cost reduction measures, even if they are superior technologically,
cannot survive in the global market. This business will be promoted as a solution business and hence will
have to give high priority to providing service, but at the same time in prioritizing price. This factor will be
taken into consideration when moving on with the project and hence it will be important to provide a level
of service that is second to none.
The second economic superiority lies in the procurement of fund. If the initial investment is large, it will be
difficult to procure funding from within Indonesia. In fact, procurement of a large amount of year for more
than 5 years is almost impossible. Hence, by using the fund schemes of Japan to the maximum, it will be
possible to get a long term-low interest investment which makes it economically superior.
One important issue is the risk associate with exchange rates. If the operating body can take that risk, then
there will be no risk premium and there will be no requirement to bear a large interest. However, in
currency crisis time like those during devaluation, it will no longer be possible to pay-back loans and the
possibility of the business going bankrupt will become reality.
Further, it is desirable to include the participation of Japanese trading companies in this project. They not
only are knowledgeable on measures to currency exchange risk but also have the capability of fund
procurement and possess knowledge about public listing of companies and issuing bonds. Japanese trading
companies have a lot of experience of operating in Indonesia and their knowledge can be utilized.
In a way, this project has nonprice competition characteristics. It seems nearly impossible that Jakarta
provincial government will be able to secure a landfill within the province. Even if all the waste is
incinerated in Jakarta, 900 t of ash/d will have to be disposed off to other provinces. It also seems nearly
impossible to secure a landfill through competitive tendering. In such a scenario, it is possible to secure a
landfill project through the proposal-based PPP project. Setting of an appropriate rate for waste intake is a
prerequisite which will also impact the stability and economic characteristics of the project.
204
8.3 Measures required to promote order intakes by Japanese
companies In order for Japanese companies to win orders relating to this project, it is necessary to take the following
measures.
1. Strongly support the penetration to BOT projects under PPP scheme through JICA’s preliminary
study.
2. Even when PPP scheme is used, the possibility of winning a bid when it becomes a competitive
tender is largely reduced. Hence, as far as possible, support the induction of companies towards a
proposal-type PPP projects which gives them priority to contracts.
3. Even if the investment and loan of JICA is utilized, financing through local financial institutions
to reduce currency exchange risk (two step financing) adds a risk premium resulting in a very
high interest rate which will make the funding unusable. Utilizing the currency exchange risk
insurance offered by NEXI should be considered as an option.
4. Currency exchange risk can arise even when using funding from JBIC, but it can be alleviated by
using trade insurance.
205
Chapter 9
Financial Outlook
206
207
9.1 Fund source and funding procurement plan The planned investment for construction of the project is show below.
Table 9.1.1 Planned Construction Cost
Item 2013
(1,000 yens/y)
2014
(1,000 yens/y)
2015
(1,000 yens/y) Total
Invest-
ment
Land procurement *1 516,000 0 0 516,000
Preparation 0 20,000 0 20,000
Landfill 0
1,000 9,128,000 9,129,000Intermediate and leachate
treatment facility
0
Total 516,000 21,000 9,128,000 9,665,000
Funding
source
JICA investment and loan 0 0 6,390,000 6,390,000
Financial institution 0 0 1,825,200 1,825,200
JBIC finance 0 0 0 0
Self-funding 516,000 21,000 912,800 1,449,800
Total 516,000 21,000 9,128,000 9,665,000
*1: Under the scope of financial and economic analysis of this project
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
The projected total investment is 9.665 billion yen. Land procurement is expected to be done using the
private fund of the development company to be jointly formed by the operating body. The total necessary
investment for investments such as construction of facilities costs, excluding cost for land acquisition, is
9.149 billion yen. Out of this sum, 10% is expected to be self-funded while 70% will be financed by
investment and loan from JICA and the remaining 20% (2.4 billion yen) will be financed from Japanese
commercial banks and the Development Bank of Japan.
9.2 Feasibility of fund procurement It is assumed that this project will use a PPP scheme between JICA and Jakarta. Hence, it is evaluated that
it is possible to obtain 70% of the initial investment through JICA investment and loan. One issue that
needs consideration is how to tackle the issue of foreign exchange risk. Since it is impossible for JICA to
bear the risk arising from fluctuation of currency rate, the only remaining options are for either the business
operator to take the risk or to use financial institutions of Indonesia and ask them to bear the foreign
exchange risk. In case of the latter, an elevated premium interest rate to cover the risk can be expected
208
which will result in the loss of the advantage that was available from the low interest loan.
Other options include procurement of funds from Japanese banks, Development Bank of Japan and if
possible, Indonesian financial institutions. With Indonesian financial institutions, if the business operator
has land assets, it would be possible to get finance equivalent to about 3 times the price of the land.
9.3 Cash flow analysis. The project term will be 20 years. With regard to financing, as shown in 9.1, out of 9.665 billion yens for
initial investment, 70% would be financed by JICA investment loans (5 years of moratorium, repayment
period of 15 years, interest rate of 1.5%), 20% by long-term loans from the commercial banks (10 years of
repayment, interest rate of 5%) and the remaining 10% will be self-funded. All means of financing will be
payable in equal installments of interest and principal. In addition, contingency will be 10% of annual cost.
The cash flow is shown in Table 9.3.1. FIRR and EIRR has also been calculated. As a result of cash flow
analysis, in Case 1, there was no shortage of cash flow. In addition, FIRR was 12.2% and EIRR excluding
expenditure and revenue from operation was 6.68%, which both exceeded the long-term interest rate of
government bond of Indonesia (6.215%).
209
Tabl
e 9.
3.1
Proj
ect C
ash
Flow
(Sou
rce:
Pre
pare
d by
the
auth
ors o
f thi
s rep
ort)
Yea
r20
1320
1420
1520
1620
1720
1820
1920
2020
2120
2220
2320
2420
2520
2620
2720
2820
2920
3020
3120
3220
3320
3420
35To
tal
Proj
ect y
ear
12
34
56
78
910
1112
1314
1516
1718
1920
2122
23C
apita
l exp
ense
land
acq
uisi
tion
516,
000
516,
000
SPC
esta
blis
hmen
t cos
t1,
000
1,00
0D
etai
l Des
ign
cost
50,0
0050
,000
Supe
rvisi
ng c
ost
178,
000
178,
000
Civi
l eng
inee
ring
cons
truct
ion
cost
1,90
0,00
01,
900,
000
Mat
eria
l and
mac
hine
ry c
ost
7,00
0,00
07,
000,
000
Com
mer
cial
ize c
ost
(Incl
udin
g EI
A)
20,0
0020
,000
Inst
rum
enta
tion
& C
ablin
g, P
ipin
g0
Frei
ght (
15%
of J
apan
ese
Supp
ly)
0
Phys
ical
Con
tinge
ncy
0En
gine
erin
g (1
5%)
0VA
T0
Sub-
tota
l51
6,00
021
,000
9,12
8,00
09,
665,
000
Inte
rest
dur
ing
the
cons
truct
ion
0
Tota
l51
6,00
021
,000
9,12
8,00
00
09,
665,
000
Tipp
ing
fee
889,
907
889,
907
889,
907
889,
907
889,
907
889,
907
889,
907
889,
907
889,
907
889,
907
889,
907
889,
907
889,
907
889,
907
889,
907
889,
907
889,
907
889,
907
889,
907
889,
907
17,7
98,1
30
Han
d so
rting
recy
clab
le m
ater
ial s
ellin
g36
0,04
336
0,04
336
0,04
336
0,04
336
0,04
336
0,04
336
0,04
336
0,04
336
0,04
336
0,04
336
0,04
336
0,04
336
0,04
336
0,04
336
0,04
336
0,04
336
0,04
336
0,04
336
0,04
336
0,04
37,
200,
866
RDF
selli
ng50
6,25
550
6,25
550
6,25
550
6,25
550
6,25
550
6,25
550
6,25
550
6,25
550
6,25
550
6,25
550
6,25
550
6,25
550
6,25
550
6,25
550
6,25
550
6,25
550
6,25
550
6,25
550
6,25
550
6,25
510
,125
,100
Com
post
sel
ing
40,8
0740
,807
40,8
0740
,807
40,8
0740
,807
40,8
0740
,807
40,8
0740
,807
40,8
0740
,807
40,8
0740
,807
40,8
0740
,807
40,8
0740
,807
40,8
0740
,807
816,
140 0
Tota
l Inc
ome
1,79
7,01
21,
797,
012
1,79
7,01
21,
797,
012
1,79
7,01
21,
797,
012
1,79
7,01
21,
797,
012
1,79
7,01
21,
797,
012
1,79
7,01
21,
797,
012
1,79
7,01
21,
797,
012
1,79
7,01
21,
797,
012
1,79
7,01
21,
797,
012
1,79
7,01
21,
797,
012
35,9
40,2
36
Ope
ratin
g ex
pens
esM
anpo
wer
cos
t44
1,97
044
1,97
044
1,97
044
1,97
044
1,97
044
1,97
044
1,97
044
1,97
044
1,97
044
1,97
044
1,97
044
1,97
044
1,97
044
1,97
044
1,97
044
1,97
044
1,97
044
1,97
044
1,97
044
1,97
08,
839,
400
Cons
umab
les
0M
aint
enan
ce c
ost
5,22
95,
229
5,22
95,
229
5,22
95,
229
5,22
95,
229
5,22
95,
229
5,22
95,
229
5,22
95,
229
5,22
95,
229
5,22
95,
229
5,22
95,
229
104,
580
Util
ity c
ost
37,1
0137
,101
37,1
0137
,101
37,1
0137
,101
37,1
0137
,101
37,1
0137
,101
37,1
0137
,101
37,1
0137
,101
37,1
0137
,101
37,1
0137
,101
37,1
0137
,101
742,
020
O&
M c
ost o
f Int
erm
edia
te a
nd le
acha
te tr
eatm
ent
210,
000
210,
000
210,
000
210,
000
210,
000
210,
000
210,
000
210,
000
210,
000
210,
000
210,
000
210,
000
210,
000
210,
000
210,
000
210,
000
210,
000
210,
000
210,
000
210,
000
4,20
0,00
0In
tere
st p
aym
ent f
or JI
CA L
oan
95,8
5095
,850
95,8
5095
,850
95,8
5095
,850
89,4
6083
,070
76,6
8070
,290
63,9
0057
,510
51,1
2044
,730
38,3
4031
,950
25,5
6019
,170
12,7
806,
390
1,24
6,05
0
Inte
rest
pay
men
t for
priv
ate
long
term
loan
91,2
6091
,260
91,2
6091
,260
91,2
6082
,134
73,0
0863
,882
54,7
5645
,630
36,5
0427
,378
18,2
529,
126
00
00
00
866,
970
Inte
rest
pay
men
t for
sho
rt-te
rm lo
an0
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
0D
epre
ciat
ion
456,
000
456,
000
456,
000
456,
000
456,
000
456,
000
456,
000
456,
000
456,
000
456,
000
456,
000
456,
000
456,
000
456,
000
456,
000
456,
000
456,
000
456,
000
456,
000
456,
000
9,12
0,00
0
Cont
inge
ncy
88,1
4188
,141
88,1
4188
,141
88,1
4187
,228
85,6
7784
,125
82,5
7481
,022
79,4
7077
,919
76,3
6774
,816
73,2
6472
,625
71,9
8671
,347
70,7
0870
,069
1,59
9,90
2To
tal o
pera
ting
expe
nses
1,42
5,55
11,
425,
551
1,42
5,55
11,
425,
551
1,42
5,55
11,
415,
512
1,39
8,44
51,
381,
377
1,36
4,31
01,
347,
242
1,33
0,17
41,
313,
107
1,29
6,03
91,
278,
972
1,26
1,90
41,
254,
875
1,24
7,84
61,
240,
817
1,23
3,78
81,
226,
759
26,7
18,9
22
(
excl
udin
g de
prec
iatio
n)96
9,55
196
9,55
196
9,55
196
9,55
196
9,55
195
9,51
294
2,44
592
5,37
790
8,31
089
1,24
287
4,17
485
7,10
784
0,03
982
2,97
280
5,90
479
8,87
579
1,84
678
4,81
777
7,78
877
0,75
917
,598
,922
Prof
it be
fore
tax(
inco
me-
OM
exp
ense
s)37
1,46
137
1,46
137
1,46
137
1,46
137
1,46
138
1,50
039
8,56
741
5,63
543
2,70
244
9,77
046
6,83
848
3,90
550
0,97
351
8,04
053
5,10
854
2,13
754
9,16
655
6,19
556
3,22
457
0,25
39,
221,
314
Corp
orat
e in
com
e ta
x92
,865
92,8
6592
,865
92,8
6592
,865
95,3
7599
,642
103,
909
108,
175
112,
442
116,
709
120,
976
125,
243
129,
510
133,
777
135,
534
137,
291
139,
049
140,
806
142,
563
2,30
5,32
9Pr
ofit
afte
r ta
x27
8,59
627
8,59
627
8,59
627
8,59
627
8,59
628
6,12
529
8,92
531
1,72
632
4,52
633
7,32
735
0,12
836
2,92
937
5,73
038
8,53
040
1,33
140
6,60
341
1,87
441
7,14
642
2,41
842
7,69
06,
915,
986
Rec
over
y(re
venu
e/O
M c
ost)t
ax e
xmpt
ed62
.43%
62.4
3%62
.43%
62.4
3%62
.43%
62.8
7%63
.64%
64.4
2%65
.23%
66.0
5%66
.90%
67.7
7%68
.66%
69.5
8%70
.52%
70.9
2%71
.32%
71.7
2%41
.03%
41.2
7%R
ecov
ery(
reve
nue/
OM
cos
t)with
tax
Rec
over
y(re
venu
e/O
M c
ost e
xclu
ding
dep
reci
atio
n)91
.79%
91.7
9%91
.79%
91.7
9%91
.79%
92.7
5%94
.43%
96.1
7%97
.97%
99.8
5%10
1.80
%10
3.83
%10
5.94
%10
8.13
%11
0.42
%11
1.39
%11
2.38
%11
3.39
%87
.40%
86.6
1%R
ecov
ery(
reve
nue/
OM
incl
udin
g re
duct
ion
reve
nue)
185.
34%
185.
34%
185.
34%
185.
34%
185.
34%
187.
28%
190.
68%
194.
19%
197.
84%
201.
63%
205.
57%
209.
66%
213.
92%
218.
36%
222.
98%
224.
94%
226.
94%
228.
97%
231.
04%
233.
15%
Repa
ymen
t for
JICA
loan
00
042
6,00
042
6,00
042
6,00
042
6,00
042
6,00
042
6,00
042
6,00
042
6,00
042
6,00
042
6,00
042
6,00
042
6,00
042
6,00
042
6,00
042
6,00
06,
390,
000
Repa
ymen
t for
priv
ate
long
-term
loan
00
182,
520
182,
520
182,
520
182,
520
182,
520
182,
520
182,
520
182,
520
182,
520
182,
520
00
00
00
1,82
5,20
0Re
paym
ent f
or p
rivat
e sh
ort-t
erm
loan
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
0
Bala
nce
at th
e fis
cal y
ear e
nd73
4,59
673
4,59
673
4,59
673
4,59
655
2,07
613
3,60
514
6,40
515
9,20
617
2,00
618
4,80
719
7,60
821
0,40
922
3,21
023
6,01
043
1,33
143
6,60
344
1,87
444
7,14
645
2,41
845
7,69
07,
820,
786
Bala
nce
brou
ght f
orw
ard
734,
596
1,46
9,19
12,
203,
787
2,93
8,38
23,
490,
458
3,62
4,06
33,
770,
468
3,92
9,67
44,
101,
680
4,28
6,48
84,
484,
096
4,69
4,50
54,
917,
714
5,15
3,72
45,
585,
055
6,02
1,65
86,
463,
532
6,91
0,67
87,
363,
096
7,82
0,78
6
Fund
rai
sing
Ow
ned
capi
tal
516,
000
21,0
0091
2,80
01,
449,
800
Subi
sidy
0JI
CA G
rant
0JI
CA lo
an6,
390,
000
6,39
0,00
0Pr
ivat
e lo
ng-te
rm lo
an1,
825,
200
1,82
5,20
0Pr
ivat
e sh
ort-t
erm
loan
0
Loan
bal
ance
at t
he fi
scal
yea
r en
dJI
CA lo
an6,
390,
000
6,39
0,00
06,
390,
000
6,39
0,00
06,
390,
000
6,39
0,00
05,
964,
000
5,53
8,00
05,
112,
000
4,68
6,00
04,
260,
000
3,83
4,00
03,
408,
000
2,98
2,00
02,
556,
000
2,13
0,00
01,
704,
000
1,27
8,00
085
2,00
042
6,00
00
Priv
ate
long
-term
loan
1,82
5,20
01,
825,
200
1,82
5,20
01,
825,
200
1,82
5,20
01,
642,
680
1,46
0,16
01,
277,
640
1,09
5,12
091
2,60
073
0,08
054
7,56
036
5,04
018
2,52
00
00
00
00
Priv
ate
shor
t-ter
m lo
an0
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
210
As sensibility analysis, cash flow and FIRR was calculated when the tipping fee declines from 189,000Rp/t
(1,625.4 yen/t) to 149,000 Rp/t (1,284 yen/t). In this case, FIRR is as shown below. In this case also, there is no
shortage of cash flow.
Table 9.3.2 Sensibility analysis (decline of tipping fee)
Tipping fee CASE 1 FIRR B/C NPV Cash Flow
Current revenue 12.2% 1.24 5.8 billion yen No shortage
When tipping fee decreases 9.87% 1.11 3.6 billion yen No shortage
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
Further, as another sensibility analysis, cash flow, FIRR, NPV and B/C was calculated when the RDF selling price
decline from 375Rp/kg (3.2yen/kg) to 150Rp/kg (1.3yen/kg). In CASE 1, there is no shortage of cash flow as
shown in Table 9.3.3.
Table 9.3.3 Sensibility analysis (decline of RDF selling price)
Tipping fee CASE 1
FIRR B/C NPV Cash Flow
Current revenue 12.2% 1.24 5.8 billion yen No shortage
When tipping fee decreases 8.9% 1.03 2.3 billion yen No shortage
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
211
Chapter 10
Action Plan and Issues
212
213
10.1 Activities towards realization of the project
10.1.1 Preparation for acquiring land required for the project
Jakarta provincial government has purchased 96 ha of land at Ciangir of Tangerang Regency and in 2009
agreed on a MOU with Tangerang Regency to examine the details concerning he construction of an
intermediate treatment facility and a landfill site. However, Tangerang Regency later converted the
designation of the land use of the proposed area to “residential area”, which meant that a landfill could not
be constructed in that area. As a result, Jakarta is facing difficulties in finding an alternative land for
purchase. Meanwhile, Tangerang Regency has expressed that it can provide the area in Jatiwaringin as an
alternative site. With the support of the governor of Tangerang Regeny, ARAX Corporation is preparing to
purchase the land for the realization of this project.
10.1.2 Scheme on business structure and formation of a consortium of the operating body
In addition to preparations to acquire land as explained above, a consortium among relevant parties is
planned to be formulated as shown in Figure 10.1.1.
Under this scheme, Japanese and Indonesian investors will establish a local joint concern, which will
purchase the land for the project and enter into a contract of land lease with Jakarta As a prerequisite, it
would be necessary that the MOU between Jakarta and Tangerang Regency on constructing the treatment
and disposal facility at Ciangir be amended. After the amendment, the local enterprisesand the local joint
concern would establish a special-purpose company (SPC) and implement the BOT project on waste
management ordered by Jakarta.
Figure 10.1.1 Image of business structure and formation of consortium
(Source: Prepared by the Authors of this Report)
SPC(Special Purpose Company)
Japanese side investor
ARAX etc.
Tangerang county
Local joint concern
DKI Jakarta MOU
MSWprocessing service
A 20-year contractas BOT project
Tipping fee
Support
Landowners
Land sales contract
Indonesian side investor
Investment
Investment
Lease contract
PLN Recycling agency
Electricity sales contract
Valuable resource sales contract
Investment
214
10.2 Activities of Indonesian governmental agencies and
implementing bodies towards the realization of the project Current M/P on waste management of Jakarta is based on expansion, changes in treatment method, and
construction of facilities in three areas within Jakarta and two outside Jakarta. As shown in Table 3.1.5
(shown again as Table 10.1.1), in Sunter, the existing transfer station facility would no longer function and
instead a new intermediate treatment facility would be constructed. Regarding Cakung Cilincing, a private
entity contracted by Jakarta is conducting composting of wastes. In Marunda, as though there are plans to
construct new intermediate treatment facilities, there has not been any action in the last few years.
However, as already noted in Chapter 3 (3.1.2), only implementing the above measures will not stop the
increasing pressure on Bantar Gebang final disposal site and concerns for environmental impact and traffic
congestion will not be solved. Therefore, a final disposal site to the West side of Jakarta is urgently needed.
At the same time, there is not sufficient land that can be secured in Jakarta for construction of a new final
disposal site. Under this situation, Tangerang Regency is expressing that it is ready to provide land in Jati
Waringin area for construction of a new final disposal site and is assisting ARAX Corporation in
preparation of land acquisition.
Table 10.1.1 Waste Treatment Related Facilities in Jakarta
Cakung Cilincing Sunter Marunda Bantar Gebang(Future plan)
Tangerang Regency
Location Jakarta Jakarta Jakarta Bekasi, West Java
Tangerang Regency
Area 7.5ha 3.5ha 12ha 110.3ha Approximately 100ha
Land ownership Privately owned Government owned Privately owned Government
owned ---
Current conditions
Intermediate treatment facilities
Accept 400~500 t/d
Sorting and composting
Tipping fee: 149,000 Rp/t
Transfer station with compacting equipment Maximum
capacity: 6,000m3/d, 1,500 t/d
Volume compacting effect: ½
Currently no activities are conducted onsite (the landowner is searching for investors)
Compost Final
disposal Methane gas
collection and power generation
None
215
Cakung Cilincing Sunter Marunda Bantar Gebang(Future plan)
Tangerang Regency
Future plans and prospects
Upgrade by 2013 as follows: Accept
1,000~1,300 t/d Technology:
MBT (anaerobic digestion technology from Denmark)
The tipping fee is expected to rise to 189,000 Rp/t.
Currently undergoing actual design geared to expansion
Alter as follows: Accept 1,000 t/d Technology: Build
Waste-to-Energy (incineration) facilities
Project method: BOT
The tipping fee is expected to be 400,000 Rp/t.
As of January 2012, preparations are being made for national competitive bidding.
Capacity: 2,000 t/d
Technology: Waste-to-Energy (incineration)
Additional installation of MBT and methane fermentation facilities to the above facilities
Accept 3,000 t/d
Accept 1,500 t/d
(Source: Prepared by the Authors of this report)
10.3 State of presence of legal and financial restrictions in Indonesia 10.3.1 Governmental bodies related to regulation of waste treatment and environmental protection
The governmental bodies related to the development of facility at Jati Waringin of Tangerang Regency are
shown in Table 10.3.1.
Table 10.3.1 Governmental bodies related to the project
Governmental body Current situation Relationship with the Project
1 Jakarta Cleansing Department
Facing difficulties in planning the treatment of waste in short/mid term (financial difficulties and difficulties in securing land for landfill site)
Ordering entity of the project Formulate ordinances related to
environment and waste Hold information on waste
treatment on a short/mid term basis
2 Jati Waringin, Tangerang Regency
Providing support to ARAX Corporation for preparation of land acquisition
Formulate regulations and ordinances relating to environment
Hold information on future plans on land use, regional environment, and waste management
3 Ministry of Environment(KLH)
The Department for Environmental Pollution Assessment is responsible for household waste; The Department for Control and Regulation is responsible for hazardous waste.
Hold information on Environment related laws (especially on AMDAL), Laws related to waste treatment,
216
The responsibility for household waste has been transferred to the local governments due to decentralization,
KLH is the main authorization entity for regarding hazardous waste issues
4 Ministry of Public Works (KPU)
The Department for Residential Environment is promoting business relating to collection and disposal of waste.
Hold information on regulations, technical assistance, economical support and regarding waste treatment in the region
Hold information related to technical guidelines on waste treatment
5 Agency for the Assessment and Application of Technology
Research on the reuse of waste sludge is being carried out.
Holds information on appropriate treatment technologies
(Source: Prepared by the Authors of this report)
10.3.2 Governmental bodies relating to the promotion of PPP business
3 bodies as shown in Table 10.3.2 are responsible for the promotion of PPP infrastructure projects. The
Ministry of Finance is the main authority in the PPP network, and the BAPPENAS is the overall
coordinating body for PPP issues in general.
Table 10.3.2 Responsibility of Major Governmental Bodies on PPP
Govennmental
bodies Responsibilities relating to PPP
Ministry of
Finance
- Control budget relating to infrastructure
- Promote governmental support and state guarantee to projects
BAPPENAS
- Provide overall coordination regarding PPP related plans and publish the
PPP book
- Support integration of National Development Plan with plans relating to
PPP
- ・Build capacity of related bodies
Investment
Coordinating
Board
(BKPM)
- Provide information on ready-to-offer business projects
- Formulate attractive market program
- Issue permissions necessary for implementation of PPP projects
- Support establishment of PPP implementing as one-stop service
(Source: Memorandum on strengthening of cooperation system
by Finance ministry, BAPPENAS, BKPM)
BAPPENAS, related governmental entity, and the Ministry of Finance formulate a network for efficient
promotion of PPP regarding infrastructure projects.
217
Figure 10.3.3 PPP Network
(Source: Prepared by the Authors of this report, based on Hitotsubashi University, Report on Short-Term
Overseas Survey in Indonesia, JICA 2010)
In order for Indonesia to further prosper in terms of economic development, (foreign direct investment
‘FDI) is going to be very important. However, infrastructure development in Indonesia is lagging behind
other ASEAN countries. One of the main reasons is that Indonesian government lacks the financial
resources for the development of these facilities.
As shown in Figure 10.3.1, as opposed to 1,429 trillion Rp that is required for infrastructure development
in the 5 years period (2010–2014), funding that can be made available by the Indonesian government is
only 451 trillion Rp. Currently, the deficit is being supplemented not by foreign debt but by actions
towards PPP.
・Prepare PPP plans・Coordinate PPP network
・Set direct governmental support fund ・Formulate F/S・Formulate budget ・Decide on application of
PPP in projects
BAPPENAS
Ministry of Finance GovernmentalAgency in-Charge
PPP NETWORK
218
Figure 10.3.3 Current Situation regarding Budget for Infrastructure in Indonesia
(Source: Prepared by the Authors of this report, based on Hitotsubashi University, Report on Short-Term
Overseas Survey in Indonesia, JICA 2010)
10.3.3 Indonesia’s PPP infrastructure projects
(1) PPP Book
Every year, the Indonesian government discloses information on infrastructure PPP projects for which it
expects tender from foreign companies in a document called the PPP Book. In the list for 2011, 79 projects
are listed under the categories of “Ready to Offer Projects”, “Priority projects”, and “Potential Projects.
The total investment is approximately 534 hundred million dollars (Figure 10.3.2).
At present, PPP projects listed on the PPP-Book include Transportation ministry projects (airport, ports,
rail infrastructure, coal rail, urban traffic), Ministry of public works related projects (toll roads, water
supply and sewer, waste etc) and the owners are the government controlled electricity corporation (PLN)
and the respective governments.
Different project owners exist for the various projects listed in the PPP Book. For instance, the Ministry of
Transport is the owner projects regarding airport, ports, railways, coal railways, and urban transport.
Ministry of Public Works is the owner of projects on toll ways, water and sewage, and wastes. Other than
National Governmental bodies, entities such as governmental electric companies and local governments
are also owners of certain projects. Enterprises that wish to bid usually discuss with the project owner the
background, objective, and contents of the project.
In order to handle all the listed projects, organizations are being established to support ministries and local
government as well as financing mechanisms to support the finance of private entities. In regards to land
TOTAL: 1,429 trillion Rp
Deficit of budget (69%)
978 trillion Rp
Governmental budget (31%)
451 trillion Rp
Required budget for infrastructure development from 2010 to 2014
procurement, ministries and local gove
land before the competitive bidding of t
However, taking into consideration th
reality, regulations are currently being
time for an appropriate price which de
Figure 1
(Source: Ministry of National dev
219
ernmental bodies that implement PPP projects need
the project.
he fact that agreement on land purchasing may not be
g modified so that the land can be bought after a certa
etermined by a third party.
10.3.2 Extract of the PPP-Book 2011
velopment Planning /National Development Planning
d to procure the
reached in
ain period of
g Agency)
220
Currently, there are two projects listed under “Ready for Offer” category regarding solid waste and
sanitation. The comprehensive list of projects regarding waste and sanitation in the PPP Book can be
found in Table 10.3.3.
Table 10.3.3 Projects related to Waste and Sanitation in the PPP-Book
Potential Project: Solid and Waste Sanitation
1 Padang Solid Waste Management, West Sumatora
2 Cimahi Solid Waste Management, West Java
3 Solid Waste Management Improvement Project for Urban Climate Change
4 Solid Waste Management Improvement Project for CDM program
Priority Project: Solid Waste and Sanitation
1 Solid Waste final and Treatment -Bogor and Depok Area,West Jawa
2 Solid Waste final and Treatment -Bogor and Depok Area -Greater Bandong Area,
West Java
Ready for Offer Project: Solid Waste and Sanitation
1 Solid Waste Management Improvement Facility, West Jawa
2 Solid Waste Final Disposal and Treatment Facility -Purti Cempomojosongo,Surakarta
Municipal, Central Java
(Source: PPP Book 2011)
(2) Methods to bid for PPP projects
For all the infrastructure PPP projects, BAPPENAS acts as a supervisor and is responsible for disclosure
as competitive tender projects to companies within and outside Indonesia. Infrastructure related PPP
projects are open to an international bidding. All the infrastructure PPP projects are required to be put
under competitive bidding under Indonesia’s regulations.
There are two types of infrastructure PPP projects: a) Projects proposed by the project owner such as ministries or local governments; and
b) Projects proposed by private companies
The former is referred to as “solicited” projects. Regarding these projects, competitive bidding is carried out according to a set of procedures, and the bidding company prepares a proposal document
in order to participate in the bid.
The latter is referred to as “unsolicited” projects. With these projects, the proposing company carries out
a pre-feasibility study or a feasibility study, prepares a proposal accordingly to its results and proposes it
to the ministry or the local government. Thus, companies can conduct feasibility with their own funds,
prepare proposals, and request ministries and local governments to implement those projects even if
221
such projects are not included in documents such as Master Plans prepared by ministries or local
governments.
In this case, competitive bidding according to international standards is carried out. However, the
company that has carried out the pre-feasibility study and has submitted a proposal enjoys the following
advantages.
(1) The company will be given extra evaluation points
(2) The company will be under similar evaluation conditions as the top bidder. For instance, the
company would be able to propose a price that matches the price of the lowest bidder.
(3) If the company does not win the bid, the cost for pre-feasibility study will be reimbursed
10.3.4 Financial and economic feasibility
Jakarta provincial government will be the ordering entity for this project. It is a common practice for the
ordering entity to purchase the land for its project. However, for this project, the operating entity will be
purchasing the land and hence the financial and economic feasibility of Jakarta to purchase the land would
not be examined. Project cost was be calculated by considering the construction cost and O/M cost.
Balance calculation was done by considering the tipping fee that the facility would receive, the pay-back
conditions of the loan, foreign exchange rates, and inflation rate for a 20 year period in order to calculate
the .Internal rate of return (IRR).
One important issue is how much the Jakarta Cleansing Department would be able to actually pay as
treatment cost. It should be highlighted that the Cleansing Department is knowledgeable of various
treatment methods and related costs indicated in the SAPROF (2007) report conducted by JBIC. The
Cleansing Department is also utilizing the results of SAPROF study for its waste management planning.
Taking this situation into consideration, it can be assumed that the Cleansing Department would be able to
pay the tipping fee for a waste management system that is proposed in the SAPROF report.
Furthermore, as Jakarta has the experience of utilizing yen loans and also the experience of contracting out
projects to private companies, it can be evaluated that it has adequate capacity to manage and implement
the project.
10.3.5 Risks concerning infrastructure projects
The risks associated with infrastructure projects can be summarized as in Table 10.3.4. However, taking
into account the situation regarding waste management in Jakarta, it is believed that risks can be
minimized through cooperation with Japanese affiliated companies in the project implementation.
222
Table 10.3.4 Risk Associated with Infrastructure Projects
Type of Risks Details of the Risk and Measures to Minimize the Risk
Risk related to
construction
Risk that the project does not achieve the expected capacity or function
Conduct an extensive feasibility study to evaluate the associated risks
Risk associated
with procurement
of raw materials
Risk that raw materials and equipments that satisfies the required standards
cannot be procured
Procure raw materials and equipments from Japanese companies
present in Indonesia
Risk related to
providing of
service and
bargaining
Risk that there would be unexpected stagnation of transaction volume;
Risk that products would not circulate in the market.
Conduct adequate waste management planning
Environmental
risk
Risk that the project results adverse environmental and social impacts in the
host country
Study carefully the required countermeasures in the feasibility study
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)
10.4 Need for further analysis 10.4.1 Analysis of the introduction potential of transportation system
As explained in Chapter 3, location of the treatment and disposal facility in the eastern part of Jakarta itself
results in the improvement of transportation efficiency in this region. Further, by allotting a transfer station,
efficiency is expected to increase further. It will be effective to investigate the effective usage of the
pre-existing transfer station facilities at Sunter which is expected to be abolished due to the introduction of
an incinerator.
10.4.2 Possibility of increase in demand of RDF
It is expected that RDF produced from the proposed project will be used as a fuel source at cement plants
but it is beneficial to study any possibilities of increase in demand. Survey will be carried out to study the
potential of the usage at thermal power station located in the northern coastal region of Tangerang regency.
10.4.3 Demand for the treatment of waste other than Municipal waste from Jakarta
It is necessary to investigate the possibility of expanding the target wastes that the facility would treat and
dispose. This includes investigation of demand for waste treatment from Tangerang, South Tangerang and
investigation of demand and technical feasibility regarding treatment and disposal of MSW.
10.4.4 Possibilities for RDF power generation
223
In the future, there are possibilities that RDF power generation facilities would be constructed. If this is to
realize, a large sum of money would have to be procured for the construction cost (out of scope of financial
and economic analysis). The realization of such facilities would be promoted only after the operations
prove to be sustainable and financially sound. On the premises that benefits are gained through the project
cash flow, small-scale independent power plants may be established utilizing combustible residues that are
generated in the treatment process. In this case, it would be indispensable to carefully carry out the
feasibility study and to identify the future prospects of the business taking into account the purchasing
price of the electricity by the electricity company to determine the feasibility of the project.