Waste Amount and Composition Survey Lecture

Lecture 2
Waste Amount and Composition

Survey (WACS), Waste Flow and
Solid Waste Management Planning
September 7, 2010
Susumu SHIMURA
Kokusai Kogyo Co., Ltd.
1
Outline of the Lecture
1. Waste Amount and Composition Survey
(WACS)
2. How to identify the Current Waste Flow
WACS of the Waste Minimization and Recycling
promotion Project in the Republic of the Fiji Islands
How to identify the current waste flow
3. How to prepare a Future Waste Flow
Forecast of future waste amount and composition
Future waste flow of Lautoka City without M/P
Future waste flow of Lautoka City with M/P
4. Let make a waste flow of your city
!! You can ask any questions and raise any topics at any
time !!!
2
1. Waste Amount and Composition
Survey (WACS)?
1. Waste Amount Survey
2. Waste Composition Survey
Waste amount and composition is
basic data for SWM planning
Without the data no SWM planning
can be done, especially those
countries/cities where collection
service is not provided to the whole
population.
!! Show video !!
3
1.1 Waste Amount Survey
(1) Objectives
To obtain the current waste generation rate
(Gr) of each generation source (Gs); i.e.
households, restaurants, shops, markets,
schools, streets, hotels, offices, etc. => Gr =
g/unit/day
To understand present municipal solid waste
generation amounts (Ga) in the study area.
=> Ga = Gr x Number (of unit) of Gs
The data obtained is used to forecast future
generation amounts by setting future Gr and
future number of Gs
The following screens present WACS in Phnom Penh

Cambodia
4
(2) Generation source and number of sample
Samples Survey Total
Generation Source
Per Day Days Samples
High 20 7 140
Residential
Middle 20 7 140
(by income)
Low 20 7 140
Restaurant 5 7 35
Commercial
Other Shop 5 7 35
Market 2 7 14
School 2 7 14
Street 8 7 56
Hotel 2 7 14
Office 5 7 35
Collection Vehicle 1 7 7
Total 90 --- 630
The survey is carried out twice (two seasons), in

dry and rainy (or summer and in winter season in
case of Mongolia). The average was taken from the
two results.
90 sampling points are selected from each
representative sector for the survey
(3) Method
The WACS in each season is conducted for eight

days, but only the data from seven days be used for
the analysis.
Data from the first day was excluded assuming it
may have some waste accumulated from the
previous days, especially non-collection area. The
first day was also used to familiarize all related
parties on the sampling methods.
The plastic bags were distributed to sampling points
before the survey, except for large generation
sources like markets that had its waste collected by
large communal containers.
6
(4) Results (Generation rates): Phnom Penh
Household
Population by Generation Ratio (g/person/day)
Item
Income Level Dry season Rainy season
High Income Household 10% 668.5 646.2
Middle Income Household 30% 545.3 501.4
Low Income Household 60% 445.9 435.2
Weight Average --- 498.0 476.1
Others
Discharge Ratio
Item Unit
Dry season Rainy season
Restaurant g/table/day 1,940 1,387
Commercial
Other shop g/shop/day 4,566 4,437
Market waste g/stall/day 1,700 1,945
School g/student/day 18 21
Street Sweeping Waste g/km/day 47,235 59,510
Hotel g/room/day 199 263
Office g/office/day 2,946 4,174
Categorization of sources shall be done considering difference

of waste generation and composition
(5) Results (Generation rates): Ulaanbaatar in
Mongolia
Daily Generation
Generation Ratio
Amount
Number of (g/day)
(ton/day)
Generation Source Generation Unit
Source Winter Summer Winter Summer
season season season season
Apart 450,627 g/person/day 256 228 115.4 102.7

Household
Waste
Ger 415,964 g/person/day 951 203 395.6 84.4
Whole 866,591 g/person/day 590 216 511.0 187.1
Commercial Waste
(Restaurant)
41,812 g/chair/day 250 270 10.5 11.3
Commercial Waste
(Other Shop)
3,009 g/shop/day 1,200 1,640 3.6 4.9
Office Waste 105,376 g/employee/day 130 180 13.7 19.0
Market Waste 4,354 g/stall/day 850 1,720 3.7 7.5

School Waste 271,378 g/student/day 3 1.5 0.8 0.4
Hotel Waste 11,506 g/room/day 130 110 1.5 1.3
Road Cleaning Waste 2,662,662 g/m2/day 3 11.3 8.0 30.1
Total 552.8 261.6

(6) Apartment and Ger Area
Apart area has central

heating system => No coal
ash
Ger area has individual

heating system => Coal
ash
9
(7) Results (Generation amounts):
Phnom Penh
Number of Daily Generation Amount

Generation Ratio
Generation Source Unit Generation (ton/day)
Source Dry Rainy Dry Rainy
Average Average
season season season season
Household Waste g/person/day 1,199,414 498 476 487 597.3 570.9 584.1
Commercial Waste
g/table/day 27,808 1,940 1,387 1,664 54.0 38.6 46.3
(Restaurant)
Commercial Waste
g/shop/day 33,524 4,566 4,437 4,502 153.1 148.8 151.0
(Other Shop)
Market Waste g/stall/day 51.766 1,700 1,945 1,823 88.0 100.7 94.4
g/student/da
School Waste 385,013 18 21 20 6,9 8.1 7.5
y
Street Sweeping
g/km/day 56 47,235 59,510 53,373 2.6 3.3 3.0
Waste
Hotel Waste g/room/day 13,385 199 263 231 2.7 3.5 3.1
Office Waste g/office/day 368 2,946 4,174 3,560 1.1 1.5 1.3
Total 905.7 875.4 890.6
10
(8) Comparison of Waste Generation Rate
GNP per Capita
Generation Rate of Generation Rate
Population Study Year in 1998
Country/City Household Waste of MSW (A)
(Person) (IDA)US$/Year
Year US$/Year g/person/day g/person/day

Laos Vientiane 142,700 1991 330 753 970
Cambodia Phnom Penh 1,199,414 2003 268 498 556
Poland Poznan 590,500 1992 3,900 654 (470, 913)*2 NA
Lublin 352,500 1992 3,900 399 (336, 542)*2 NA
Paraguay Asuncion 510,500 1994 1,760 961 1,312

Nicaragua Managua 834,400 1994 390 664 802
Tanzania Dar es Salaam 2,030,000 1996 210 698 873
Nicaragua Leon 134,000 1996 390 736 762
Philippines Quezon 1,989,400 1997 1,050 423 524
Honduras Tegucigalpa 848,859 1998 730 375 566
Azerbaijan Baku 2,025,300 1999 849 in 2000 233 244
Adana 1,196,620 1999 3,160 498 696
Turkey
Mersin 634,850 1998 3,160 473 703
Mongol With ash 843,016 2004 552 in 2004 601 641

Ulaanbaatar Without ash 843,016 2004 552 in 2004 210 250
1.2 Waste Composition Survey
(1) Objectives
To understand the present composition of waste

according to the generation source.
to obtain data on the following physical and
chemical properties of wastes generated :
1. Apparent specific gravity => kg/ltr or ton/m3 => It
changes from discharge to final disposal. => See
next screen
2. Physical composition (wet base)
3. Water (moisture) content
4. Three contents (combustible matter, water and ash)
5. Chemical analysis (carbon, nitrogen, etc.)
The data obtained is used to forecast future waste
composition, which is necessary to establish future
disposal and recycling & treatment systems.
12
Change of Unit Wright in Each Stage SWM
Stage Items that require the calculation of capacity

Discharge Storage/discharge container
Collection Public container, collection vehicle volume
Just after the final disposal Final disposal site
Half a year after the final disposal Final disposal site
After the closure of the disposal site Final disposal site
Step Unit Weight (ton/m3)

Discharge UWw 0.25
Collection (compactor or container) UWc 0.35
Final disposal UWd 0.50
Half a year after final disposal UWd6m 0.80
A year after final disposal UWd1y 1.20

(2) Method (1): Physical Composition (wet base)
After transporting all the sample wastes to

the waste composition analysis point
(disposal site, etc.), the waste samples
from each representative sector are
gathered and mixed together.
The volume of the mixture is reduced by the
reducing method until the volume became
20-30 liters.
Then the waste is loaded into a plastic
bucket, which is tapped three times from a
height of 30 cm. The volume is measured
visually and the total weight is measured by
a platform balance. Finally the Apparent
Specific Gravity (ASG) is calculated.
14
(3) Method (2): Physical Composition (wet
base)
Then, the physical composition of waste was

sorted into the following 10 items (in JICA study):
1. kitchen waste
2. paper
3. textile
4. grass and wood
5. plastic
6. leather and rubber
7. metal
8. bottle and glass
9. ceramic and stone
10.miscellaneous (soil, etc.)
After the physical composition, the chemical
composition analysis is conducted.
15
Day
Physical 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th
Composition
1. Kitchen waste 3 components CN 3 CN 3 CN
components components
2. Papers 3 CN 3 CN 3 CN
components components components
(4) Method 3. Textiles 3 3 3
(3): Chemical
4. Grass and 3 CN 3 CN 3 CN
Composition wood (i.e., components components components
Analysis 5.
bamboo, etc.)
Plastics 3 3 3
6. Rubber and 3 3 3
leather components components components
7. Metals Moisture content Moisture Moisture
content content
8. Bottles and Moisture content Moisture Moisture
glasses content content
9. Soil, ceramics Moisture content Moisture Moisture
content content
10. Miscellaneous Moisture content Moisture Moisture
content content
(5) Results (Physical Composition )
Total
Classification Dry Rainy
Average
season season
Apparent Specific Gravity (ASG) Kg/l 0.25 0.24 0.25
Paper (%) 6.3 6.5 6.4
Rubber and Leather (%) 0.0 0.1 0.1
Combustible Kitchen Waste (%) 65.8 61.2 63.3
Wastes Textile (%) 2.3 2.7 2.5
Plastic (%) 17.1 13.8 15.5
Physical Grass and Wood (%) 3.0 10.5 6.8
Composition
(Wet Base) Sub-total (%) 94.5 94.8 94.6
Metal (%) 0.3 0.9 0.6
Incombustible Bottle and Glass (%) 1.3 1.1 1.2
Wastes Ceramic and Stone (%) 2.1 0.9 1.5
Others (%) 1.8 2.3 2.1
Sub-total (%) 5.5 5.2 5.4
Total (%) 100.0 100.0 100.0
The table above shows physical composition of MSW

(household, office, market, etc.) which is calculated based
on the weighted average (in proportion to the waste
generation amount of each generation source). 17
Middle Income Household
Classification for Chemical Analysis Three Contents Ultimate Analysis
Combustible Moisture Ash Total Carbon Nitrogen C/N Ratio
MIDDLE INCOME HOUSEHOLD
(6) Results
Combustible Kitchen waste 14.76 79.79 5.47 100 27.57 1.70 16.29
Waste Paper 39.03 56.52 4.46 100 36.86 1.06 35.24
(Chemical Textile 44.55 51.72 3.74 100
Composition ) Grass and Wood 40.33 53.43 6.25 100 26.90 1.66 16.23
Plastic 56.84 38.47 4.70 100
Rubber and Leather 37.25 18.08 44.67 100
Non-combustible Metal 15.00
Waste Bottle and Glass 6.23
Ceramic and Stone 29.57
Miscellaneous N/A*
MARKET
Combustible Kitchen waste 12.02 77.30 10.69 100 28.86 1.76 16.46
Waste Paper 38.46 56.13 5.41 100 34.67 0.91 49.06
Textile 34.00 63.87 2.14 100
Grass and Wood 34.62 59.37 6.01 100 27.66 1.48 19.13
Plastic 61.06 32.34 6.61 100
Rubber and Leather 57.08 14.01 28.92 100
Non-combustible Metal N/A*

Waste Bottle and Glass 15.18
Ceramic and Stone 5.81
Miscellaneous 36.36
(7) Comparison of Household Waste Composition
Mongol Ulaanbaatar
Turkey Cambodia Poland Paraguay Philippines Tanzania Honduras
In Winter
Country U
Physical Composition nit Lublin
Without Phnom Dar es
With ash Adana Without Asuncion Manila Tegucigalpa
ash Penh With ash Salaam
ash
Kitchen waste % 11.9 33.0 75.53 63.6 45.25 65.26 36.60 45.82 42.00 47.20
Paper % 4.3 12.1 9.88 4.6 13.67 11.11 6.40 15.39 3.10 11.50
Textile % 1.9 5.3 1.77 2.5 2.10 3.77 1.30 4.33 1.20 2.80
Plastic % 7.1 19.8 5.87 18.0 4.40 3.80 3.90 15.60 2.20 7.10
Grass & Wood % 0.5 1.4 1.62 6.0 1.61 2.30 22.20 7.45 25.30 11.60
Leather & Rubber % 0.3 0.7 0.29 0.1 2.67 1.83 0.70 0.80 0.90 2.20
Combustible Total 26.0 72.3 94.96 94.8 69.7 88.07 71.1 89.39 74.7 82.4
Metal % 1.3 3.7 0.53 0.7 3.31 3.05 1.30 5.47 2.00 1.90
Bottle & Glass % 4.4 12.2 3.33 0.6 5.23 6.51 3.10 2.69 3.50 3.50
Ceramic & Stone % 1.9 5.3 1.14 1.6 21.74 2.38 2.50 1.26 0.40 12.10
Miscellaneous % 2.3 6.5 0.04 2.3 - - 22.00 1.19 19.40 0.10
Ash 64.1 - - - - - - - - -
Incombustible Total 74.0 27.7 5.04 5.2 30.3 11.93 28.9 10.61 25.3 17.6
Total % 100.00 100.0 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
kg
ASG - 0.11 0.19 0.25 0.18 0.215 0.22 0.19 0.39 0.20
/l
(8) Comparison of MSW Composition
Cambo
Mongol Ulaanbaatar d
Turkey Poland Paraguay Philippines Tanzania Japan
In Winter i
a
Country U
Physical Composition nit
Without Phnom Dar es Tokyo
With ash Adana Poznan Lublin Asuncion Manila
ash Penh Salaam 1994
Kitchen waste % 12.5 31.4 64.41 63.3 33.96 61.11 37.40 45.35 45.03 25.11
Paper % 5.2 13.1 14.80 6.4 19.34 14.18 10.20 16.80 4.07 35.64
Textile % 2.0 5.0 1.62 2.5 7.27 3.10 1.20 3.88 1.10 3.44
Plastic % 7.8 19.5 5.92 15.5 7.89 4.41 4.20 15.62 2.01 15.16
Grass & Wood % 0.5 1.2 2.66 6.8 5.90 2.33 19.20 6.71 25.11 4.42
Leather & Rubber % 0.2 0.6 0.30 0.1 2.26 2.09 0.60 0.74 0.71 1.38
Metal % 1.5 3.8 1.40 0.6 3.76 3.29 1.30 5.21 1.65 6.43
Bottle & Glass % 5.5 14.0 3.08 1.2 15.16 6.69 3.50 3.37 2.90 5.46
Ceramic & Stone % 1.9 4.7 2.17 1.5 1.53 2.81 2.50 1.12 0.33 0.40
Miscellaneous % 2.7 6.7 3.64 2.1 2.93 - 19.90 1.20 17.09 2.56
Ash - - - - - - - - -
60.2
Incombustible Total 29.2 10.29 5.4 23.38 11.94 27.20 10.90 21.97 14.85
71.8
Total % 100.00 100.0 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
2. How to identify Current
Waste Flow
1. WACS of the Waste Minimization and
Recycling Promotion Project in the Republic
of the Fiji Islands
2. Basic Waste Flow
3. Waste Flow of Lautoka City
4. How to identify each Category of Waste Flow
5. Current Waste Flow of Lautoka City
The subject of the lecture is explained based on

the preparation of a Waste Flow for Lautoka City
of a Technical Cooperation Project of Waste
Minimization and Recycling Promotion Project in
the Republic of the Fiji Islands
21
2.1 WACS of the Waste Minimization and
Recycling Promotion Project in the
Republic of the Fiji Islands
1. WACS was conducted twice in dry and rainy
season.
2. Waste flow was based on the following
surveys:
WACS: Waste amount and composition survey
Qu-WACS: Questionnaire survey to households
and business establishments for the samples of
WACS
POS: Public opinion survey
FDAS: Final disposal amount survey
RAS: Recycling activity survey
Other field observation 22
2.2 Basic Waste Flow (1)
Waste of Other
Local Governments
Landfill of Lautoka
Basic Waste Flow
receives wastes from Other Wastes
Other LGs than MSW
Self-disposal
Illegal
Dumping Intermediate
MSW Treatment
Generation
Final
Discharge Collection
Disposal
On-site Recycling at Recycling at Recycling at

Recycling Discharge Point Treatment Facility Disposal Site
2.2 Basic Waste Flow (2)
Same as MSWM, a waste flow for a city or a region
differs each other and also how to identify (make) the
flow does.
Amount of MSW generation is deduced by WACS and it
of final disposal by final disposal amount survey (FDAS)
at landfill(s).
The other waste amount would be found by Qu-WACS,
POS, recycling activity survey (RAS), etc.
Definition of MSW differs each city or region.
Whether does the city or region have a treatment
facility of MSW or not is very important aspect.
Collection service coverage rate is also important for
the waste flow identification.
Note: Before conduct of the WACS, sample households and
business establishments are interviewed about their
waste management. If there are some discrepancies
between the results of Qu-WACS and POS, it of Qu-
WACS is used for waste flow analysis. 24
2.3 Waste Flow for Lautoka (1)
Waste Flow for Fiji

2.3 Waste Flow for Lautoka (2):
MSW
1. Lautoka city has only one disposal site, Vunato
disposal site (VDS) and it receives not only MSW
of Lautoka but also 15. Other wastes than MSW
(industry, etc.) and 14. Waste of other local
governments (LGs).
2. 18. Peri-urban waste is not responsibility of the
city but actually it is collected by the city.
3. MSW in Lautoka city is broadly categorized into 2.
Household waste, 3. Business (establishment)
waste, 4. Public area waste and 5. Green waste
(GW).
4. Although the GW is generated from 2. Household,
3. Business, 4. Public area, it is surveyed and
calculated separately due to considerable
generation amount. => It is not able to measure
26
the weight by using plastic bag.
2.4 How to identify each category of waste flow
(1): Household Waste (HHW) (1)
1. 2. Generation amount of the HHW (GaH) =
Generation rate of HHW (GrH) x Number of
generation sources, i.e. population (NGsH).
2.4 How to identify each category of
waste flow (2):
Household Waste (HHW) (2)
2. Two GrHs were obtained by WACS, i.e. GrH
for commercial area and it for residential.
3. The weighted average (according to the
population of the each area) of the two GrHs
is applied to the generation amount
calculation.
4. Although a lot of green waste (GW)
generated from each house due to large
garden area, it is excluded from household
waste flow. => Use other estimation method
5. 6. Self-disposal of HHW in this flow means
burning or burying of HHW other than GW.
6. Then self-disposal rate of HHW (SDR) is
decided as about 5.8 % according to the
answers of Qu-WACS, POS, etc. 28
waste flow (3):
7. 7. Littering rate of HHW (LR) is decided as about
1.1 % according to the answers of Qu-WACS, POS,
etc.
8. 11. On-site recycling is divided into On-site
Recycling (ONRE) (1) for composting of kitchen
waste and ONRE (2) for recyclables (valuables).
9. 11. On-site recycling rates of ONRE (1) and (2)
are decided as about 1.1 % and 1.6%
respectively according to the answers of Qu-
WACS, POS, etc.
10. 8. Discharge rate of HHW (DR) is calculated by
the formula: DR (92.0%) = 100% - SDR (5.8%) -
LR (1.1%) ONRE (1) (1.1%)
11. 9. Collection rate of HHW (CR) is calculated by
the formula: CR (90.4%) = DR (92.0%) ONRE
(2) (1.6%)
29
waste flow (4):
12.The current HHW flow is deduced as follows:
30
(5): Business Establishment Waste (BEW) (1)
1. 3. Generation amount of the BEW (GaB) =
Generation rate of BEW (GrB) x Number of
generation sources, i.e. office, etc. (NGsB)
waste flow (6):
Business Establishment Waste (BEW) (2)
2. Business Establishment Waste (BEW) includes
commercial, hotel, public and private office,
school, and market wastes.
3. Number of generation sources (NGsB) of each
business categories is mainly obtained from
business license data in 2007.
4. Although a lot of green waste (GW) generated
from some business establishments such as
hotels, it is excluded from BEW flow. => Use
other estimation method
5. 6. Self-disposal of BEW in this flow means
burning or burying of BEW other than GW.
6. Then self-disposal rate of BEW (SDR) is decided
as about 3.4 % according to the answers of Qu-
WACS, POS, etc. 32
waste flow (7):
7. 7. Littering rate of BEW (LR) is decided as none
according to the answers of Qu-WACS, POS, etc.
8. 11. On-site recycling is divided into On-site
Recycling (ONRE) (1) for composting of kitchen
waste and ONRE (2) for recyclables (valuables).
9. 11. On-site recycling rates of ONRE (1) and (2) are
decided as about 1.1 % and 3.4% respectively
according to the answers of Qu-WACS, POS, etc.
10. 8. Discharge rate of BEW (DR) is calculated by the
formula: DR (95.5%) = 100% - SDR (3.4%) - LR
(0.0%) ONRE (1) (1.1%)
11. 9. Collection rate of BEW (CR) is calculated by the
formula: CR (92.1%) = DR (95.5%) ONRE (2)
(3.4%)
12. Although 12. Off-site Recycling is planned, it is not
33
done at present. => Composting at the landfill
2.4 How to identify each waste flow (8):
13.The current BEW flow is deduced as follows:
Off-site
Recycling
On-site
2
On-site
1
34
2.4 How to identify each category of waste flow (9):
Public Area Waste (PAW) & Green Waste (GW) (1)
How to deal with Green Waste (GW)
Power Generator of
Pruning GW Sugar Mill Factory
Chipped GW
36
(10): Public Area Waste (PAW) & Green Waste
(GW) (2)
1. 4. Generation (Disposal) amount of the PAW is
estimated based on the results of FDAS and the
Incoming Waste Record of the Vunato disposal
site (VDS).
2. The Generation (Disposal) amount of the PAW
is categorized into Park waste, Drain waste and
Street sweeping waste according to the current
public area cleansing service of the Lautoka
city.
3. There is no recycling activity for the PAW at
present. Consequently generation amount of
PAW and collection and final disposal amount is
the same.
4. But green waste from park waste is planned to
be 12. Off-site recycling in future. 37
(11):
5. 5. Green Waste (GW) is those generated in Household
(HH) and Business Establishment (BE).
6. At first 9. Collection amount of GW (CA) is obtained by
the results of FDAS and the Incoming Waste Record of
the Vunato disposal site (VDS), i.e. CA = 3.0 ton/day.
7. Secondly 4. Generation amount of GW (GA) is
estimated by the ratio (23.6%) of HH and BE which
pays GW collection fee obtained by the POS, GA = CA
(3.0) / 0.236 = 12.7 ton/day.
8. Thirdly on-site recycling rate is decided as about
16.6 % according to the answer of POS. Then 11. On-
site recycling amount (RA) is calculated by the
formula of RA = 12.7 x 0.164 = 2.1 ton/day.
9. Finally 7. Self disposal amount (SA) is calculated by
the formula of SA = 12.7 - 3.0 - 2.1 = 7.6 ton/day.
Then the self disposal rate of GW is calculated as
59.8%.
38
2.4 How to identify each category of waste flow (12):
10. The current HHW flow is deduced as follows:
2
(13): Waste of Other LGs and Other Wastes
than MSW => See screen 7
1. 14. Waste of Other LGs is obtained by the results
of FDAS and the Incoming Waste Record of the
Vunato disposal site (VDS).
2. 15. Other Wastes than MSW is divided into 16.
Factory waste, 17. Hospital waste and 18. Peri-
urban waste.
3. 16. Factory waste and 17. Hospital waste are
obtained by the results of FDAS and the Incoming
Waste Record of the VDS.
4. However, 18. Peri-urban waste amount is
calculated by multiplying generation rate of peri-
urban household (GrH) with number of peri-
urban population with collection service of
Lautoka city (GsH).
40
2.5 Current Waste Flow of Lautoka City in
2008: Recycling rate is 8.5%
2008: Before Project
14. Waste other than LCC (Direct haulage)

15.2 ton/day
(100.0%)
16. Factory (Direct haulage)

8.0 ton/day
(90.9%)
15. Other waste 17. Hospital (Direct haulage)

8.8 ton/day 0.2 ton/day
(100.0%) (2.3%)
18. Peri-urban area (Direct haulage)

0.6 ton/day
(6.8%)
Lautoka City Council

2. Household waste 6. Self disposal
(39.3%) (18.7%)
3. Business waste 7. Littering

1. MSW Generation (18.6%) (0.4%)
48.1 ton/day
(100.0%) 4. Public area waste 8. Discharged waste 9. Disposal waste 10. Final Disposal (1) 19. Final Disposal (2)
7.6 ton/day 36.5 ton/day 35.9 ton/day 34.8 ton/day 58.8 ton/day
(15.8%) (75.9%) (74.7%) (72.4%)
5. Green waste
12.7 ton/day
(26.4%)
11. On-site Recycle 12. Off-site Recycle 13. Recycle at DS Recycle

3.0 ton/day 0.0 ton/day 1.1 ton/day 4.1 ton/day
(6.2%) (0.0%) (2.3%) (8.5%)
3. How to Prepare Future
Waste Flow
1. Forecast of Future Waste Generation and
Composition
2. Future Waste Flow of Lautoka City
without M/P implementation
(Improvement of MSWM)
3. Selection of Optimum Technical System
4. Mater Plan (M/P) & Future Waste Flow of
Lautoka City (with M/P implementation)
42
3.1 Forecast of Future Waste Generation
and Composition (1)
Prior to the formulation of SWM M/P
for LCC the following aspects are
forecasted:
1. Future Population
2. Economic Growth by GRDP (Gross Regional
Domestic Product) Increase of Lautoka City
Based on the above Future Waste
Amount and Composition is
forecasted.
43
and Composition (2): Population
Forecast
Future population of LCC is based on the
estimation shown in the Statistical News,
No.45, 2008, Census 2007 Results :
Population Size, Growth, Structure and
Distribution published by Fiji Islands Bureau
of Statistics on 15th October 2008.
Year Whole Fiji Lautoka city Ratio (2008=1)

2007 (Census) 837,271 43,473 0.992
2008 (Projected) 843,847 43,814 1.000
2012 (Projected) 872,800 45,317 1.034
2017 (Projected) 912,300 47,367 1.081
44
and Composition (3): GRDP Increase of
Lautoka
GRDP increase of Lautoka city is
estimated as follows:
1. From 2008 2011: 1.93 % of Fiji Island GDP
increase estimated by the Fiji Islands Bureau
of Statistics & Macroeconomic Committee
2. From 2012 2017: 2.00 % of JET (JICA
Expert Team) estimate
45
3.1 Forecast of Future Waste Generation and
Composition (4): Waste Generation
Amount (1)
Future waste generation amount (WGAx) is
forecasted to increase in proportion to the
increase in number of generation sources
(NGSx) : population in case of household
waste, number of students in case of school,
etc.
Accordingly, the future waste generation
amount is calculated by multiplying the
future generation rate (GRx) by the future
number of generation sources (NGSx) (WGAx
= GRx X NGSx).
The future waste generation rate (GRx) is
deemed to increase in proportion with
economic growth (GRDP). 46
Composition (5): Waste Generation Amount
(2)
The waste generation rate (GRx) of each

generation source may increase in
proportion to the growth of GDP per
capita.
The Japanese statistics, which were
recorded from 1963 to 1988 and are the
available data of its kind in the world,
show the trend of the rate due to the
development of the economy as follows:
1. At the time of developing economy (1963-1970):
Increase of GRx = 0.55 of GDP growth rate
2. At the time of developed economy (1975-1988):
Increase of GRx = 0.29 of GDP growth rate
Note: After 1990, generation rate has been constant,
about 1.1 kg/person/day due to promotion of 3Rs 47
Composition (6): Waste Generation Amount
(3)
1. Future Number of Generation Sources (NGSx)
Future NGSx for Households and School (students) will
increase in proportion to the increase of population.
Future NGSx for other sources than Households and
Schools will increase in proportion to the increase of
GRDP, i.e. 1.93 2.00 % per annum.
2. Future Generation Rate (GRx)
GRx will increase according to the economic growth
rate. The coefficient of 0.55 for (GRx/GDP growth rate)
obtained in Japan is applied to the forecast.
However, GRx for public area cleansing (PAC) and
green waste (GW) will not change.
Consequently, GRx of wastes other than PAC and GW
will increase 1.1 % per annum.
(1.93 to 2.00) x 0.55 = (1.06 to 1.10) => Say 1.1 % 48
Composition (7): Forecasted Waste Generation
Ratio
Unit 2008 2012 2017
Household g/person/day 432 451 476

g/restaurant/da
Restaurant y 17,500 18,270 19,303
Commercial
Other shop g/shop/day 3,130 3,268 3,452
Hotel g/room/day 165 172 182
Public and Private office g/office/day 2,480 2,589 2,735
School g/student/day 25 26 28
Market g/stall/day 1,988 2,147 2,370
Street sweeping g/m/day 86 86 86
Park g/m2/day 4.2 4.2 4.2
Drain g/ha/day 479 479 479

49
Composition (8): Forecasted Number of Waste
Generation Sources
Unit 2008 2012 2017
Household person 43,814 45,317 47,367
Restaurant restaurant 72 78 86
Commercial
Other shop shop 1,174 1,268 1,399
Hotel room 249 269 297
Public and Private office office 187 202 223
School student 2,460 2,544 2,659
Market stall 1,660 1,793 1,979
Street sweeping m 47,600 47,600 47,600
Park m2 665,700 665,700 665,700
Drain ha 1,462 1,462 1,462

50
Composition (9): Forecasted Municipal Solid
Waste (MSW) Generation Amount
Unit 2008 2012 2017
Household ton/day 18.9 20.4 22.5

Restaurant ton/day 1.3 1.4 1.7
Commercial
Other shop ton/day 3.7 4.1 4.8
Hotel ton/day 0.04 0.05 0.05
Public and Private office ton/day 0.5 0.5 0.6
School ton/day 0.1 0.1 0.1
Market ton/day 3.3 3.7 4.3
Street sweeping ton/day 4.1 4.1 4.1
Park ton/day 2.8 2.8 2.8
Drain ton/day 0.7 0.7 0.7
Green waste ton/day 12.7 12.7 12.7
Total ton/day 48.1 50.9 54.6
51
Composition (10): Forecasted Industrial and
Medical Waste Generation Amount
Industrial wastes coming to Vunato disposal site

is recorded at the site according to the
generation sources.
Medical waste is ash of infectious/ hazardous
wastes incinerated at Lautoka Hospital.
Unit : ton/day
Year Industrial waste Medical waste Total
2008 8.0 0.2 8.2
2012 8.6 0.2 8.8
2017 9.5 0.2 9.7
52
Composition (11): Future Waste
Composition
The future waste composition is forecasted by
comparing the results of the WACS with the waste
data on other countries. For Lautoka city the
forecast is mainly based on the following
assumptions:
1. The generation rates (amount) of wastes used for
containers and package, e.g., paper, plastics, bottles
and glass, metals, are assumed to increase in
accordance with economic growth rate (GRDP= 2%).
=> 1.1%
2. The generation amount of textile, leather and rubber
which are extremely low in the current generation
amount, are also assumed to rise in accordance with
the economic growth rate. However, the growth rate is
supposed as half that of the above mentioned waste.
=> 0.55%
3. Furthermore, the generation amount of grass and
wood (green waste and grass), ceramic and stone, 53 soil,
and others will not change. => 0.0%
Composition (12): MSW Composition Unit : %
Composition 2008 2012 2017
Kitchen Waste 30.1 31.5 36.1
Paper 12.9 13.5 15.4
Textile 1.5 1.4 1.1
PlasticPET) 1.2 1.4 1.6
PlasticFilm) 6.7 7.1 8.0
Grass and Wood 37.4 35.8 30.0
Rubber and Leather 0.2 0.2 0.2
Combustion 90.0 90.9 92.4
Metal 2.5 2.6 3.0
Bottle and Glass 1.5 1.6 1.9
Ceramic & Stone 2.7 2.4 1.4
Others 3.3 2.5 1.3
Non-combustion 10.0 9.1 7.6
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
3.1 Forecast of Future Waste Generation and Composition
(13): Comparison of Household Waste Composition
Mongol Ulaanbaatar
Turkey Cambodia Poland Paraguay Philippines Tanzania Honduras
In Winter
Country U
Physical Composition nit Lublin
Without Phnom Dar es
With ash Adana Without Asuncion Manila Tegucigalpa
ash Penh With ash Salaam
ash
Kitchen waste % 11.9 33.0 75.53 63.6 45.25 65.26 36.60 45.82 42.00 47.20
Paper % 4.3 12.1 9.88 4.6 13.67 11.11 6.40 15.39 3.10 11.50
Textile % 1.9 5.3 1.77 2.5 2.10 3.77 1.30 4.33 1.20 2.80
Plastic % 7.1 19.8 5.87 18.0 4.40 3.80 3.90 15.60 2.20 7.10
Grass & Wood % 0.5 1.4 1.62 6.0 1.61 2.30 22.20 7.45 25.30 11.60
Leather & Rubber % 0.3 0.7 0.29 0.1 2.67 1.83 0.70 0.80 0.90 2.20
Metal % 1.3 3.7 0.53 0.7 3.31 3.05 1.30 5.47 2.00 1.90
Bottle & Glass % 4.4 12.2 3.33 0.6 5.23 6.51 3.10 2.69 3.50 3.50
Ceramic & Stone % 1.9 5.3 1.14 1.6 21.74 2.38 2.50 1.26 0.40 12.10
Miscellaneous % 2.3 6.5 0.04 2.3 - - 22.00 1.19 19.40 0.10
Ash 64.1 - - - - - - - - -
Incombustible Total 74.0 27.7 5.04 5.2 30.3 11.93 28.9 10.61 25.3 17.6
Total % 100.00 100.0 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
kg
ASG - 0.11 0.19 0.25 0.18 0.215 0.22 0.19 0.39 0.20
/l
3.1 Forecast of Future Waste Generation and Composition
(14): Comparison of MSW Composition
Mongol Ulaanbaatar
Turkey Cambodia Poland Paraguay Philippines Tanzania Japan
In Winter
Country U
Physical Composition nit
Without Phnom Dar es Tokyo
With ash Adana Poznan Lublin Asuncion Manila
ash Penh Salaam 1994
Kitchen waste % 12.5 31.4 64.41 63.3 33.96 61.11 37.40 45.35 45.03 25.11
Paper % 5.2 13.1 14.80 6.4 19.34 14.18 10.20 16.80 4.07 35.64
Textile % 2.0 5.0 1.62 2.5 7.27 3.10 1.20 3.88 1.10 3.44
Plastic % 7.8 19.5 5.92 15.5 7.89 4.41 4.20 15.62 2.01 15.16
Grass & Wood % 0.5 1.2 2.66 6.8 5.90 2.33 19.20 6.71 25.11 4.42
Leather & Rubber % 0.2 0.6 0.30 0.1 2.26 2.09 0.60 0.74 0.71 1.38
Metal % 1.5 3.8 1.40 0.6 3.76 3.29 1.30 5.21 1.65 6.43
Bottle & Glass % 5.5 14.0 3.08 1.2 15.16 6.69 3.50 3.37 2.90 5.46
Ceramic & Stone % 1.9 4.7 2.17 1.5 1.53 2.81 2.50 1.12 0.33 0.40
Miscellaneous % 2.7 6.7 3.64 2.1 2.93 - 19.90 1.20 17.09 2.56
Ash - - - - - - - - -
60.2
Incombustible Total 29.2 10.29 5.4 23.38 11.94 27.20 10.90 21.97 14.85
71.8
Total % 100.00 100.0 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
3.2 Future Waste Flow of Lautoka City
without M/P implementation
(Improvement of MSWM) (1)
Waste generated in NTC will come to Vunato
disposal site (VDS) from 2009. => When NTC
will find its own DS, the M/P shall be modified.
In case of without M/P implementation, the
VDS will receive 273,500 ton of wastes by the
end of 2017. => It means total disposal
volume required will be 300,800 m3 (with
10% of cover soil). Consequently VDS needs
to mount up 2.2 m higher than present level.
57
3.2 Future Waste Flow of Lautoka City without
M/P implementation (1) Present (2008)
Recycling Rate: 8.5 %
2008: Before Project

15.2 ton/day
(100.0%)

8.0 ton/day
(90.9%)

(100.0%) (2.3%)

0.6 ton/day
(6.8%)

(39.3%) (18.7%)

48.1 ton/day
(15.8%) (75.9%) (74.7%) (72.4%)
5. Green waste
12.7 ton/day
(26.4%)
11. On-site Recycle 12. Off-site Recycle 13. Recycle at DS 58Recycle

(6.2%) (0.0%) (2.3%) (8.5%)
M/P implementation (2) 2012
Recycling Rate: 8.3 %
Without Project in 2012

34.8 ton/day
(100.0%)

8.7 ton/day
(91.6%)

(100.0%) (2.1%)

0.6 ton/day
(6.3%)

(40.3%) (18.0%)

50.7 ton/day
(100.0%) 4. Public area waste 8. Discharged waste 9. Disposal waste 10. Final Disposal 19. Final Disposal
(15.0%) (75.5%) (75.5%) (73.3%)
5. Green waste
12.7 ton/day
(25.1%)

3.1 ton/day 0.0 ton/day 1.1 ton/day 59
4.2 ton/day
(6.1%) (0.0%) (2.2%) (8.3%)
M/P implementation (3) 2017
Recycling Rate: 7.9 % => Rate of GW down
Without Project in 2017

38.8 ton/day
(100.0%)

9.6 ton/day
(91.4%)

(100.0%) (1.9%)

0.7 ton/day
(6.7%)

(41.4%) (17.1%)

54.4 ton/day
(100.0%) 4. Public area waste 8. Discharged waste 9. Disposal waste 10. Final Disposal 19. Final Disposal
(14.0%) (76.6%) (76.6%) (74.7%)
5. Green waste
12.7 ton/day
(23.4%)
11. On-site Recycle 12. Off-site Recycle 13. Recycle at DS 60Recycle

(5.9%) (0.0%) (2.0%) (7.9%)
3.3 Selection of Optimum Technical
System (1):
Technical System
An SWM technical system

consists of the following
technical subsystems:
1. Discharge and Storage system;
2. Collection and Haulage system;
3. Public Area Cleansing system
4. Intermediate Treatment and Recycling
system; and
5. Final Disposal system
61
3.3 Selection of Optimum Technical System (2):
Policies for Selection
Technical system proposals have to contribute to
the realization of the vision of the M/P.
The implementation of technical system proposals
have to be afforded by LCC and its citizen and be
justified in terms of regional economy.
The systems and technologies to be adopted should
be simple so that operation and maintenance will be
easy and inexpensive.
The foreign currency requirements for the purchase,
operation and maintenance of systems should be
minimized. The use of locally available materials
and services should be maximized.
The proposed technical system should be consistent
with the existing conditions and existing practices,
in order to easily cope with the system. 62
Discharge and Storage System (1)
Improper self-disposal (such as open burning,
discharge to open space) of MSW shall be
eliminated.
Waste separation of generation source into
the following four categories is promoted:
1. Kitchen waste
2. Green waste
3. Recyclable waste
4. Other wastes
If the on-site composting of kitchen waste is
possible, it is promoted by LCC with enough
technical support, etc. If not, the waste will
63
be discharged together with other wastes.
Discharge and Storage System (2)
If the on-site green waste recycling
(composting, etc.) is possible, it is promoted
by LCC with enough technical supports, etc.
If not, the generator shall ask LCC or its
contractor for the waste collection with
payment to the service.
Recyclable waste will be separately stored at
generation and collected by communities or
private recyclers or LCC service.
Other waste shall be discharged for LCC
waste collection service the same as present
one. However, discharge rules (day, time,
container, etc.) shall be strictly applied to. 64
Collection System (1)
Current collection
system (mixed
collection, curbside
collection, etc.)
with strict
enforcement of
discharge rule will
be continued.
Bulky and green
waste collection
service is charged
to the service user.
Recyclable waste
will be collected by
communities or
private recyclers or
LCC service. => to
be examined 3R Pilot
Project (PP)
Recyclable waste collection
in Ome City in Japan
Public Area Cleaning System
Public area cleansing service cost
share more than half expenditure of
SWM. => 53 %
The service cost will be able to
reduced by public cooperation.
To obtain public cooperation LCC will
conduct environmental education to
people in LCC.
How to obtain public cooperation will
be examined by 3R PP.
66
Intermediate Treatment and Recycling
System (1) => to be examined by 3R PP
Waste from Household and Business
Establishment shall be recycled as follows:
1. On-site recycling of Kitchen and Green waste
by composting, making fuel is promoted by
LCC with cooperation of community.
2. Recyclable waste will be separately stored at
generation and collected by communities or
private recyclers or LCC service.
3. Market waste may be used as raw materials
for composting by windrow system.
67
Intermediate Treatment and Recycling
System (2) => to be examined by 3R PP
Green and park waste collected by LCC
service shall be recycled by following
methods:
1. Chipping (on-site and VDS) by the chipper;
2. Large particles may be used as fuel for the
power generator of sugar mill factory or
bulking materials for composting of mill
mud or livestock manure; and
3. Small particles may be used as raw
materials for composting by windrow
system.
68
Example of Proposed Recycling System
On-site
Composting
Equipment
in Sri Lanka
Window
Type
Composting
at Manaus
Disposal
Site in
Brazil
Final Disposal System (1) => to be examined by Pilot
Project for Vunato Disposal Site Improvement (PP for VDS)
VDS will be able to use as the final disposal

site for LCC for more than 10 years.
Improvement of VDS to a ideal sanitary
landfill (SLF) requires a considerable amount
of money, especially installation of leachate
collection & treatment system, daily soil
cover.
Considering various constrain for the
realization of SLF, M/P aims at the
improvement of the VDS up to the strictly
controlled landfill (SCL) which will minimize
adverse affects of the VDS as much as
possible by using available resources of LCC.
70
Final Disposal System (2) => to be examined by Pilot
Project for Vunato Disposal Site Improvement (PP for VDS)
For realization of the strictly controlled

landfill (SCL), the following improvements
shall be achieved:
1. Boundary of VDS shall be defined physically
by embankment, buffer zone, etc.
2. Strict/fair control and management system
for incoming wastes shall be established by
utilizing a weighbridge.
3. Periodical soil cover shall be done.
4. Environmental monitoring system and
measures to be taken in case of emergency
(occur of adverse affects to surroundings,
etc.) shall be established.
71
Final Disposal System (3): PP for VDS (1)
1. Strengthening of the operation system
Establishment of the data management system of the
incoming waste
Estimation of the appropriate tipping fee
Preparation of the landfill plan
2. Establishment of the landfill method in the model
section
Improvement of the approach road
Improvement of the current (aerobic-evaporation type
landfill) method => Difficulty of soil cover
3. Minimizing environmental impact to the surrounding
area
Definition of the boundary
Construction of the buffer zone
Establishment of the environment monitoring system
Disposal section for the ash of medical waste 72
Landfill of Lautoka
73
Final Disposal System (4): Plan of PP for VDS (2)
74
Final Disposal System (5): Buffer zone and
movable approach road
75
3.4 Mater Plan (M/P) & Future Waste Flow (1):
Vision of the SWM M/P for Lautoka City (1)
To establish an Environmentally Sound

SWM System in LCC by 2017
The establishment of such a system will:

Maintain the urban environment and public
health of the City of Lautoka, which is the
center of economic and industrial activities
of the western region in Fiji, and contribute
to the sustainable development.
Motivate investment whereby the economic
development of the western region in Fiji
will be promoted.
76
3.4 M/P & Future Waste Flow (2):
Vision of the SWM M/P for Lautoka City (2)
In the environmentally sound SWM system,
the 3Rs (Reduce, Reuse and Recycle) of
waste are promoted and the following
situation should be established.
1. Waste reduction is encouraged at the generation
source such as households and business establishment.
2. Waste generated after the attempt of waste reduction
is reused or recycled as much as possible.
3. Only after the effort of waste reduction, reuse or
recycling, waste is properly collected, treated, and
finally disposed of in a proper manner without
negative environmental impacts.
4. Such a SWM system will be established by requiring
the governmental sector, private sector and general
public to bear adequate responsibilities under a
transparent and fair rule. 77
Targets of the M/P(1)
1. Target year:
2012: Launching recycling society (TCP)
2017: Maturing recycling society
2. Basic Idea: Target of 2017 will be achieved linearly
from 2009.
3. Target of Household Waste (HHW)
Self-disposal rate to HHW generation will decrease to
half in 2017. => From 5.8% to 3.1%.
Littering shall be eliminated in 2017. => From 1.1% to
0.0%.
Rate of On-site Recycling (1) by composting to HHW
generation will increase to about five times in 2017.
=> From 1.1% to 4.9%.
50% of recyclable (valuable) waste generated will be
recycled in 2017. Thus rate of On-site Recycling (2) to
HHW generation will increase from 1.6% to 7.6%. 78
4. Target of Business Establishment Waste (BEW)
Self-disposal rate to BEW generation will decrease to
half in 2017. => From 3.4% to 1.7%.
Rate of On-site Recycling (1) by composting to BEW
generation will increase to about five times in 2017.
=> From 1.1% to 5.2%.
50% of recyclable (valuable) waste generated will be
recycled in 2017. Thus rate of On-site Recycling (2) to
BEW generation will increase from 3.4% to 12.1%.
As for Off-site Recycling, 30% of Market Waste shall
be used for compost production in 2017.
5. Target of Public Area Waste (PAW)
Total waste generation amount of PAW will be
constant at 7.6 ton/day by 2017 because public area
will not change.
70% of Park waste shall be recycled in 2017.
Drain and Street Sweeping wastes management will
not changed by 2017. 79
6. Target of Green Waste (GW)
Total waste generation amount of GW will be
constant at 12.7 ton/day by 2017 because city
green area will not change.
On-site Recycling rate to GW generation will be
constant at 16.6% and amount is 2.1 ton/day by
2017.
Self-disposal rate to GW generation will decrease
to half in 2017. => From 59.8% (7.6 ton/day) to
29.9% (3.8ton/day).
Decreased GW shall be collected by the city with
payment. Then collection amount of GW shall
increase from 3.0 ton/day to 6.8 ton/day in 2017.
70% of GW collected by the city shall be recycled
in 2017. Thus rate of Off-site Recycling to GW
generation will increase from 0% to 37.8%
(4.8ton/day) in 2017. 80
Targets of the M/P (4)
2008 2012 2017
Amount Amount Amount
Items Rate (%) Rate (%) Rate (%)
(ton/day) (ton/day) (ton/day)
MSW Generation (ton/day) 48.1 100 50.7 100 54.4 100
Improper Disposal Amount and Rate
to Generation
0.2 0.4 0.1 0.2 0 0.0
Self-disposal Amount and Rate to
Generation excluding Green Waste
1.4 2.9 1.2 2.4 0.9 1.7
Self-disposal Amount and Rate to
Generation including Green Waste
9 18.7 7.4 14.6 4.7 8.6
Recycling Amount and Rate of
Household Waste to Generation
0.5 1.0 1.3 2.6 2.8 5.1
Recycling Amount and Rate of
Business Waste to Generation
0.4 0.8 1.2 2.4 3.3 6.1
Recycling Amount and Rate of Public
Area and Green Waste to Generation
2.1 4.4 4 7.9 8.9 16.4
Recycling Amount and Rate of at
Disposal Site
1.1 2.3 0.7 1.4 0 0.0
Recycling Amount and Rate of MSW
to Generation
4.1 8.5 7.2 14.2 15 27.6
81
Household Waste (HHW) in 2012
82
Household Waste (HHW) in 2017
83
Business Establishment Waste (BEW) in 2012
84
Business Establishment Waste (BEW) in 2017
85
Public Area Waste (PAW) & Green Waste
(GW) in 2012
86
Public Area Waste (PAW) & Green Waste
(GW) in 2017
Public Area and Green Waste
Flow (2012)
87
MSW in 2012
With Project in 2012
2. Household waste 6. Self disposal Recycle

20.4 ton/day 7.4 ton/day 7.2 ton/day
(40.3%) (14.6%) (14.2%)

50.7 ton/day
(100.0%) 4. Public area waste 8. Discharged waste 11. Disposal waste 13. Final Disposal
(15.0%) (76.9%) (72.4%) (71.0%)
5. Green waste
12.7 ton/day
(25.1%)
9. On-site Recycle 10. Off-site Recycle 12. Recycle at DS

(8.3%) (4.5%) (1.4%)
Recycling Rate 14.2%

88
MSW in 2017
2. Household waste 6. Self disposal Recycle

(41.4%) (8.6%) (27.6%)

54.4 ton/day
(100.0%) 4. Public area waste 8. Discharged waste 11. Disposal waste 13. Final Disposal
(14.0%) (78.7%) (63.8%) (63.8%)
5. Green waste
12.7 ton/day
(23.4%)
9. On-site Recycle 10. Off-site Recycle 12. Recycle at DS

(12.7%) (14.9%) (0.0%)
Recycling Rate 27.6%

89
All Waste in 2012

31.9 ton/day
(100.0%)
16. Factory waste

(Direct haulage)
8.7 ton/day
(91.6%)
15. Other waste 17. Hospital (ash)

(Direct haulage)
(100.0%) (2.1%)

0.6 ton/day
(6.3%)

(40.3%) (14.6%)

50.7 ton/day
(15.0%) (76.9%) (72.4%) (71.0%)
5. Green waste
12.7 ton/day
(25.1%)

(8.3%) (4.5%) (1.4%) (14.2%)
All Waste in 2017

30.6 ton/day
(100.0%)
16. Factory waste

(Direct haulage)
9.6 ton/day
(91.4%)
15. Other waste 17. Hospital (ash)

(Direct haulage)
(100.0%) (1.9%)

0.7 ton/day
(6.7%)

(41.4%) (8.6%)

54.4 ton/day
(14.0%) (78.7%) (63.8%) (63.8%)
5. Green waste
12.7 ton/day
(23.4%)

(12.7%) (14.9%) (0.0%) (27.6%)
4. Let make a waste flow of your
city
1. Prepare the waste flow of your city in

2009.
2. Prepare the waste flow of your city in
2015.
Easy Method
1. Use Gr of MSW & HHW of similar city => See
next screen
2. Apply non-collection area rate as SDR
3. Apply amount of clean-up waste for illegal
dumped waste
92
4.1 Preparation of waste flow in your city in 2010
(1): Daily Waste Generation Amount
Number of Generation Daily Generation
Discharge
Unit Generation Ratio Amount
Source
Sources (g/unit/day) (ton/day)
Household g/person/
432
Waste day
Commercial
g/ restaurant
Waste 17,500
/day
(Restaurant)
Commercial
Waste g/shop/day 3,130
(Other Shop)
Market Waste g/stall/day 1,988
School Waste g/student/day 25
Street
Sweeping g/km/day 86,000
Waste
Hotel Waste g/room/day 165
Office Waste g/office/day 2,480
Total
(2): Recycling, discharge, etc.
Items Rate Total Amount

(%) Generation ton/day
ton/day
Self Disposal
Illegal
Dumping
Discharge
Recycling
(3): Waste Flow in 2010
Self Disposal
ton/day
%)
Household Waste Illegal Dumping

ton/day ton/day
%) %)
Generation
ton/day
100.0 %) Waste from Discharge Final Disposal
Business activites
ton/day ton/day ton/day
%) %) %)
Recycling Recycling
ton/day ton/day
%) %)
95
4.2 Preparation of waste flow in your city in 2015 (1):
Increase of Waste Generation Rate (1)
Population growth rate: 3% per annum

GRDP growth rate: 5% per annum
Generation rate increase: 0.05 x 0.55 =
0.0275 => say 0.03
96
4.2 Preparation of waste flow in your city in 2015 (2):
Increase of Waste Generation Rate (2)
Generation Generation
Discharge Increase
Unit Ratio in 2009 Ratio in 2015
Source Rate
(g/unit/day) (g/unit/day)
Household g/person/
432 (1 + 0.03) ^5
Waste day
Commercial
g/ restaurant
Waste 17,500 (1 + 0.03) ^5
/day
(Restaurant)
Commercial
Waste g/shop/day 3,130 (1 + 0.03) ^5
(Other Shop)
Market Waste g/stall/day 1,988 (1 + 0.03) ^5
School Waste g/student/day 25 (1 + 0.03) ^5
Street
Sweeping g/km/day 86,000 86,000
Waste
Hotel Waste g/room/day 165 (1 + 0.03) ^5
Office Waste g/office/day 2,480 (1 + 0.03) ^5
Total
(3): Increase of Number of Generation Sources
Number of Number of
Generation Generation
Discharge Source Increase Rate
Sources Sources
in 2009 in 2015
Household Waste (1 + 0.03) ^5
Commercial Waste
(1 + 0.05) ^5
(Restaurant)
Commercial Waste
(1 + 0.05) ^5
(Other Shop)
Market Waste (1 + 0.05) ^5
School Waste (1 + 0.03) ^5
Street Sweeping
86,000
Waste
Hotel Waste (1 + 0.05) ^5
Office Waste (1 + 0.05) ^5
Total
(4): Daily Waste Generation Amount
Number of
Generation Daily Generation
Discharge Generation
Unit Ratio in Amount in 2015
Source Sources
2015 (ton/day)
in 2015
Household g/person/
Waste day
Commercial
Waste g/table/day
(Restaurant)
Commercial
Waste g/shop/day
(Other Shop)
Market Waste g/stall/day
School Waste g/student/day
Street
Sweeping g/km/day
Waste
Hotel Waste g/room/day
Office Waste g/office/day
Total
4.2 Preparation of waste flow in your city in
2015 (5): Recycling, discharge, etc.
Items Rate Total Amount

(%) Generation ton/day
ton/day
Self Disposal
Illegal
Dumping
Discharge
Recycling
100
(6): Waste Flow in 2015
Self Disposal
ton/day
%)
Household Waste Illegal Dumping

ton/day ton/day
%) %)
Generation
ton/day
100.0 %) Waste from Discharge Final Disposal
Business activites
ton/day ton/day ton/day
%) %) %)
Recycling Recycling
ton/day ton/day
%) %)
Thank you very much for
your attention
102

Waste Amount and Composition Survey Lecture

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Waste Amount and Composition Survey Lecture

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lecture 2

Waste Amount and Composition

The following screens present WACS in Phnom Penh

The survey is carried out twice (two seasons), in

The WACS in each season is conducted for eight

Categorization of sources shall be done considering difference

Apart 450,627 g/person/day 256 228 115.4 102.7

Office Waste 105,376 g/employee/day 130 180 13.7 19.0

Market Waste 4,354 g/stall/day 850 1,720 3.7 7.5

Road Cleaning Waste 2,662,662 g/m2/day 3 11.3 8.0 30.1

Total 552.8 261.6

Apart area has central

Ger area has individual

Number of Daily Generation Amount

Year US$/Year g/person/day g/person/day

Lublin 352,500 1992 3,900 399 (336, 542)*2 NA

Paraguay Asuncion 510,500 1994 1,760 961 1,312

Mongol With ash 843,016 2004 552 in 2004 601 641

To understand the present composition of waste

Stage Items that require the calculation of capacity

Step Unit Weight (ton/m3)

Collection (compactor or container) UWc 0.35

Final disposal UWd 0.50

Half a year after final disposal UWd6m 0.80

A year after final disposal UWd1y 1.20

After transporting all the sample wastes to

Then, the physical composition of waste was

Physical 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th

1. Kitchen waste 3 components CN 3 CN 3 CN

components components components

(4) Method 3. Textiles 3 3 3

Composition wood (i.e., components components components

components components components

leather components components components

7. Metals Moisture content Moisture Moisture

8. Bottles and Moisture content Moisture Moisture

glasses content content

9. Soil, ceramics Moisture content Moisture Moisture

10. Miscellaneous Moisture content Moisture Moisture

The table above shows physical composition of MSW

Classification for Chemical Analysis Three Contents Ultimate Analysis

Combustible Moisture Ash Total Carbon Nitrogen C/N Ratio

MIDDLE INCOME HOUSEHOLD

(Chemical Textile 44.55 51.72 3.74 100

Plastic 56.84 38.47 4.70 100

Rubber and Leather 37.25 18.08 44.67 100

Non-combustible Metal 15.00

Waste Bottle and Glass 6.23

Ceramic and Stone 29.57

Waste Paper 38.46 56.13 5.41 100 34.67 0.91 49.06

Textile 34.00 63.87 2.14 100

Plastic 61.06 32.34 6.61 100

Rubber and Leather 57.08 14.01 28.92 100

Non-combustible Metal N/A*

Ceramic and Stone 5.81

The subject of the lecture is explained based on

On-site Recycling at Recycling at Recycling at

Waste Flow for Fiji

14. Waste other than LCC (Direct haulage)

16. Factory (Direct haulage)

15. Other waste 17. Hospital (Direct haulage)

18. Peri-urban area (Direct haulage)