E001983 2

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
ARAX Corporation
Abbreviations
Abbreviation
3R
AMDAL
ANDAL
ASEAN
B3 waste
BAPEDAL
BAPPEDA
BAPPENAS
B/C
BH
BHC
BKPM
BOD
BOT
BPPT
CB
CD
CDM
CER
COD
C/N
CSR
DB
DKI Jakarta
DO
DDT
EIA
EIRR
EIS
FDI
FID
FIRR
F/S
GDP
GHG
HDPE
Description
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle
Analisis Mengenai Dampak Lingkungan (Environment Impact Assessment)
Analisis Dampak Lingkungan
(Environmental Impact Assessment Study)
Association of Southeast Asian Nations
Limbah Bahan Berbahaya Dan Beracun
(Hazardous and Toxic Waste)
Badan Pengendalian Dampak Lingkungan
(Environmental Impact Management Agency)
Badan Perencana Pembangunan Daerah
(Regional body for planning and development))
Badan Perenchanaan Pembanguan Nasional
(National Development Planning Agency)
Benefit/cost
Bohrium
Benzene Hexachloride
Badan Koordinasi Penanaman Modal
(Investment Coordinating Board))
Biological Oxygen Demand
Build Own Transfer
Badan Pengkajian Dan Penerapan Teknologi
(Agency For. Assessment And Application Of Technology)
Consensus Building
Cost Down
Clean Development Mechanism
Certified Emission Reduction
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Carbon to Nitrogen Ratio
Corporate Social Responsibility
Decibel
Propinsi Daerah Khusus Ibukota Jakarta
(Special Provincial District of Capital of Jakarta)
Dissolved Oxygen
Dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane
Environment Impact Assessment
Economic Internal Rate Of Return
Environmental Impact Statement
Foreign Direct Investment
Flame Ionization Detector
Financial Internal Rate Of Return
Feasibility Study
Gross Domestic Products
Greenhouse Gas
High Density Polyethylene
Abbreviation
Hz
IMF
IPP
ITF
JBIC
JI
JICA
JPY
KA-ANDAL
KLH
KLHS
KPU
KSNP-SPP
LNG
MBAS
MBT
M/D
M/P
MJ
MOU
MSW
MPA
MPL
MPN
NDIR
NEXI
NGO
NIMBY
NPC-WMSD
NTU
O&M
PDCA
PE
pH
PP
ppm
PPP
Pre-F/S
PU
RDF
Description
Hertz
International Monetary Fund
Independent Power Producer
Intermediate Treatment Facility
Japan Bank For International Cooperation
Joint Implementation
Japan International Cooperation Agency
Japanese Yen
Kerangka Acuan ANDAL
(Terms of Reference for ANDAL)
Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup
(Ministry Of The Environment)
Kajian Lingkungan Hidup Strategis
(Strategic Environmental Assessment)
Kementerian Pekerjaan Umum
(Ministry of Public Works)
Kebijakan dan Strategi Nasional Pengembangan Sistem Pengelolaan Persampahan
(National Policy And Strategy For Waste Management System Development)
Liquedified Natural Gas
Methylene Blue Active Substance
Mechanical Biological Treatment
Minutes of Discussion
Master Plan
Megajoule
Memorandum Of Understanding
Municipal Solid Waste
Master Plan Study for Establishing Metropolitan Priority Area for Investment and
Industry
Maximum Permissible Level
Most Probable Number
Non Dispersive Infra Red
Nippon Export And Investment Insurance
Non Government Organization
Not In My Back Yard
National Policy And Strategy For Waste Management System Development
Nephelometric Turbidity Units
Operation And Maintenance
Plan-Do-Check-Action
Polyethylene
Potential Hydrogen, Power Of Hydrogen
Polypropylene
Parts Per Million
Public Private Partnership
Pre-Feasibility Study
Departmen Pekerjaan Umum
(Ministry Of Public Works)
Refuse Derived Fuel
Abbreviation
RKL
Rp
RPL
SAPROF
SEA
SNI
SOP
SPA
SPC
SS
TCU
TDS
T-N
T-P
TPA
TPS
NIMBY
SAPROF
TDS
TPST
TSP
US
USD
VAT
VE
WJEMP
Description
Environmental Management Plan
Rupiah
Environmental Monitoring Plan
Special Assistance For Project Formulation
Strategic Environmental Assessment
Indonesian National Standard
Standard Operating Procedures
Transfer Station
Special Purpose Company
Suspended Solids
True Colour Units
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Final Disposal Site
Temporary Disposal Site
Not In My Back Yard
Special Assistance For Project Formulation
Total Dissolved Solids
Tempat Pengolahan Sampah Terpadu
Total Suspended Particles
United States
United States Dollars
Value-Added Tax
Value Engineering
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
Executive Summary
ii
(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
Daily treatment capacity 1,410 ton (1,185 + 225 ton), treatment method:
bio-treatment)
resources screening facilities, crushing facilities, belt conveyor, fermentation
facilities
tank,
buildings,
post-treatment
packaging facilities
iii
screening
facilities,
storage
facilities,
Item
RDF

Treatment capacity: 480 t/d
(quantity of product: 430 t/d
manufacturing
facilities
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
Land acquisition
1,000 yen
60,000,000
516,000
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
3,438,309,000
29,569,251
Commercialize cost
Total
Total (thousand USD)
381,539
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.
iv
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 Construction of a new
facility
will
concentrated into 1 final treatment
disposal site, causing mitigate load, reduce the
overload, and there is number of incoming vehicles
concern
over
air and improve air pollution.
pollution, etc. caused by Construction of a disposal

site in the West side of the
transporting vehicles.
regency will resolve the issue
of over-concentration on the
east side.
Society
Concentration
of The number of incoming Reduction in the amount of
incoming vehicles is vehicles will fall, leading to incoming waste will lead to
causing
traffic improvement
in
traffic reduced employment on the
congestion.
congestion.
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
Environment Air
There is air pollution The Project will have The increased number
vehicles
effect
of of
al Aspect
caused by smoke from the the
waste
autogenous ignition of improving the existing transporting
site, will increase the
waste at the existing disposal
disposal site. At one survey preventing autogenous overall amount of
site, the TSP value of 414 ignition to improve emissions while the
gNm3 far exceeds the the air environment. increased amount of
reference
value
(230 For the new disposal waste will increase
amount
of
site,
the
sanitary the
g-Nm3).
landfill method with emissions from heavy
Careful
no
autogenous machinery.
will be
ignition
will
be attention
required to deal with
adopted.
dust, etc. associated
with the landfill work.
Water The river water is polluted The activities of waste Treated leachate is
Qualit by the operation to wash pickers in the area discharge from the
y
recovered plastic bags, etc. should be guided to project site and its
load
and
human
sewage more environmentally environmental
produced by waste pickers sound activities to should be taken into
and others. For example, reduce the overall consideration.
the BOD value increases environmental load by
from 21 mg/litter in the the Project
Item
Present Conditions
Improvement Effects
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.
Soil
Polluti
on
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).
Noise
and
Vibrati
on
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.
Groun No ground subsidence has

d
been observed.
Subsid
ence
Odour
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.
*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.
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 impacts of the disposal The introduction of

site are observed, including the sanitary landfill
vi
Impacts
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.
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.
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.
As no component of
the Project is likely to
cause
ground
subsidence,
this
aspect
can
be
disregarded.
It is important to
regularly cover the
Item
Present Conditions
an ammonia concentration
level of 2.6 mg/litter on the
leeward side compared to a
mg/litter.
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 Effects Impacts

method should curtail dumped waste with
the bad odour.
soil to prevent the
occurrence of bad
odour.
Natura
l
Enviro
nment
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.
Social Aspect Reloca

tion of
Reside
nts
Local
Livelih
ood
There are some 10

temporary buildings used
for storage of valuables or
for resting.
843 waste pickers earn an
average of 22,450 Rp per
day from the recovery of
valuables.
Cultur
al
Assets
Landsc
ape
Indige
nous
People
and
Ethnic
Minori
ties
Work
Enviro
nment
There are no cultural assets

designated
by
the
government
There are rice fields in the
project site
There are no communities
of indigenous people or
ethnic minorities locally.
Sedim
ent
The work environment is

not quite safe because of
the piled up waste and
autogenous ignition of the
waste.
Transp The access road is used by
ort
some 115 dump trucks
vii
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.
No adverse impacts
on
the
natural
environment in need
of protection will
occur.
These
temporary
buildings will require
relocation.
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.
The construction of a
safe disposal site will
improve the work
environment.
The overall traffic

volume will increase
Item
Present Conditions
Improvement Effects
transporting waste and 145
other vehicles a day.
Impacts
due to a large number
of dump trucks and
other
vehicles
connected to the
operation at the new
disposal site.

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
Decree of the Minister of State for Environment No. 11/2006 about Types of
the Minister
Business or Activity Compulsory Equipped with Environmental Impact
of State for
Environment
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

Working Procedure of the EIA Commission.

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.
viii
(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.
ix
(7)
a)
Detailed Schedule to Realize the Projects and Possible Risks

Detailed Schedule to Realize the Projects
Detailed Schedule to Realize the Projects is as follows.
Table-6 Work Schedule

2012
1
2013
8
9 10 11 12 1
2014
8
9 10 11 12 1
2015
8
9 10 11 12 1
Pre Feasibility Study

Discussions with DKI Jakarta
on Project Implementation
Establishment of the Project
Development Company for
Land Acquisition
Starting Land Acquisition in
Tangerang
Revision of MOU on Waste
Reception Between Kab.
Tangerang and DKI Jakarta
Recommendation to JICA on
Project Preparation Study for
PPP Project
Implementation of the
Preparation Study for PPP
Project
Final Recommendation to DKI
Jakarta
Official Authorization/Approval
of the Project by DKI Jakarta
EIA and Application for
Development Permits of the
Project
Waste Management
Concession Agreement with
DKI Jakarta
Establishment of SPC
Approval of JICA Loan and
Investment
Facility Construction
Completion of Construction
(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
Risk that the project does not achieve the expected capacity or function
construction
Risk associated
with procurement
of raw materials
Conduct an extensive feasibility study to evaluate the associated risks

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
Risk that there would be unexpected stagnation of transaction volume;
providing of
Risk that products would not circulate in the market.
2016
8
9 10 11 12
Type of Risks
service and

Conduct adequate waste management planning
bargaining
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
(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)
Jati Waringin
(Source: Prepared by the Authors of this report based on Google Map)
xi
xii
Chapter 1
Overview of the Host Country and Sector
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

(Millions)
800,000
GDP of Indonesia (current USD)
600,000
400,000
200,000
1967
1969
1971
1973
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
Source: World Bank, World Development Indicators 2011
Figure 1.1.2 Comparison of trend of per capita GDP of Japan and Indonesia (Current USD)
30,000
25,000
20,000
Indonesia
15,000
Japan
10,000
5,000
0
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
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
Total Population of Indonesia

300,000,000
250,000,000
200,000,000
150,000,000
100,000,000
50,000,000
(Source : World Bank, World Development Indicators 2011
2010
2008
2006
2004
2002
2000
1998
1996
1994
1992
1990
1988
1986
1984
1982
1980
1978
1976
1974
1972
1970
1968
1966
1964
1962
1960
Figure 1.1.4 Population of various countries (top 10)

1,600,000
1,400,000
1,200,000
1,338,300
1,170,938
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
309,712
164,425
141,750
232,517 194,946 173,383
158,259
127,380
(Source : World BankWorld 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 countrys 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
General government gross debt (% of GDP)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
NOTE: Figures for 2011 onwards are estimates

(Source : IMFWorld Economic Outlook Database)
Table 1.1.1 Major financial indicators of Indonesia (2010)

Item
Unit
General government revenue
1,000,291.44
15.85
General government total expenditure
1,091,838.94
17.3
General government net
-91,547.50
lending/borrowing
-1.451
General government gross debt
1,685,990.70
Current account balance
Rp (Billions)
Percent of GDP
Rp (Billions)
Percent of GDP
Rp (Billions)
Percent of GDP
Rp (Billions)
26.714
Percent of GDP
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).
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
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
8
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
9
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
Government Ordinance on Prevention of Air Pollution (Government
ordinance
Ordinance No. 41, 1999)
Government Ordinance on Water Pollution Prevention and Water Quality
Management (No. 82, 2001)
Ministerial
Decree of the State Minister in Charge of Environment concerning
decree
Discharge Standards in Industrial Activities (No. 51, 1995)
(standard-related)
Wastewater Standards from Fixed Generation Sources (No. 13, 1995)
Decree of the State Minister in Charge of Environment concerning Noise
Standard (No. 48, 1996)
Vibration Standards (No. 49, 1996)
Decree of the State Minister in Charge of Environment concerning Odor
Standards (No. 50, 1996)
(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

1
Item
Sulfur dioxide
(SO2)
Time
1 hour
24 hours
1 year
Carbon monoxide 1 hour
(CO)
24 hours
Environmental
Standard
900 g/Nm3
365 g/Nm3
60 g/Nm3
30,000 g/Nm3
10,000 g/Nm3
10
Analysis Method
Parafuchsin
colorimetric
analysis
NDIR
(nondispersive
infrared method)
Test Method
Absorptiometer
NDIR
(nondispersive
infrared sensor)
Nitogen dioxide
(NO2)
1 hour
24 hours
1 year
Environmental
Standard
400 g/Nm3
150 g/Nm3
100 g/Nm3
Ozone (O3)
Hydrocarbons
(HC)
1 hour
1 year
3 hours
235 g/Nm3
50 g/Nm3
160 g/Nm3
24
150 g/Nm3
Particulate (PM10)
(Particle size
<10m)
Particulate
(PM2.5)
(Particle size
<2.5m)
TSP
No
Item
Time
hours
Analysis Method
Test Method
Salzmann suction Absorptiometer
Chemiluminescen
ce method
FID (flam
ionization
detection) method
Gravimetric
procedure
Absorptiometer
Gas
chromatography
High volume
sampler
24 hours
1 year
65 g/Nm3
15 g/Nm3
Gravimetric
procedure
High volume
sampler
24 hours
1 year
230 g/Nm3
90 g/Nm3
Gravimetric
procedure
High volume
sampler
Lead (Pb)
24 hours
1 year
2 g/Nm3
1 g/Nm3
Dustfall
30 days
10 t/km2/Bulan
Gravimetric
procedure
Extraction
procedure
Gravimetric
procedure
High volume
sampler
Atomic absorption
spectrophotometer
Cannister
10 Total fluorine (as

F)
24 hours
3 g/Nm3
Specific ion
Electrode
11 Fluor Indeks
30 days
40g/100cm2
Colorimetric
Impinger atau
continuous
analyzer
Limed Filter
Paper filter
hours
150 g/Nm3
Specific ion
Electrode
days
1mgSO3/100cm3
dari kertas limed
Perksida
Colourimetric
12 Khlorine&Khlorin 24
e
Dioksida
13 Sulphat Indeks
30
Impinger atau
continuous
analyzer
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.
11
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
Physics
Temperature
Solved residue
Suspended residue
Inorganic chemistry
pH
BOD
COD
DO
Total phosphate as P
NO3-N
NO3-N
Arsenic
Cobalt
Barium
Boron
Selenium
Cadmium
Chrome (VI)
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Zinc
Chloride
Cyanide
Fluoride
Nitrite as N
Sulfate
Free Chlorice
Sulfur as H2S
Microbiology
Fecal coliform
Total coliform
Unit
Celsius
mg/liter
mg/liter
Class
I
II
III
IV
3
1,000
50
3
1,000
50
3
1,000
400
5
2,000
400
mg/liter
mg/liter
6-9
2
10
6
0.2
10
0.5
0.05
0.2
1
1
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.02
0.3
0.03
0.1
0.001
0.05
600
0.02
0.5
0.06
400
0.03
0.002
6-9
3
25
4
0.2
10
1
0.2
1
0.05
0.01
0.05
0.02
0.03
0.002
0.05
0.02
1.5
0.06
400
0.03
0.002
6-9
6
50
3
1
20
1
0.2
1
0.05
0.01
0.05
0.02
0.03
0.002
0.05
0.02
1.5
0.06
0.03
0.002
5-9
12
100
0
5
20
1
0.2
1
0.05
0.01
1
0.2
0.005
2
MPN/100ml
MPN/100ml
100
1,000
1,000
5,000
2,000
10,000
2,000
10,000
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
12
Parameter
Radio activity
Gross A
Gross B
Organic Chemistry
Oil & fat
Detergent as
Methylene Blue
Active Substance
(MBAS)
Phenol compound as
phenol
BHC
Aldrin/dieldrin
Chlordane
DDT
Heptachlor and
heptachlor epoxide
Lindane
Methoxyclor
Endrin
Toxaphan
Unit
Class
I
II
III
IV
Bq/liter
Bq/liter
0.1
1
0.1
1
0.1
1
0.1
1
mg/liter
mg/liter
1
0.2
1
0.2
1
0.2
g /liter
g /liter
g /liter
g /liter
g /liter
g /liter
210
17
3
2
18
210
210
g /liter
g /liter
g /liter
g /liter
35
35
1
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
13
Environment, No. 52 of 1995)

Wastewater standards for hospital wastewater (Decree of the State Minister for Environment, No.
58 of 1995)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Table 1.2.6 Wastewater Standard Values in Indonesia

Standard Value (Unit: mg/litter)
Group 1
Group 2
Item
Plants that have high-level
Plants that have basic wastewater
wastewater treatment
treatment
Temperature
38
40
PH
6-9
6-9
SS
200
400
DSS
2000
4,000
BOD
50
150
COD
100
300
Cu
2
3
Zn
5
10
Fe
5
10
T-Cr
0.5
1
Cr+6
0.1
0.5
Mn
2
5
Ni
0.2
0.5
T-CN
0.05
0.5
Cd
0.05
0.1
Pb
0.1
1
T-Hg
0.002
0.005
Sn
2
3
As
0.1
0.5
Se
0.05
0.5
Co
0.4
0.6
S
0.05
0.1
F
2
3
Cl2
1
2
Hex (paraffinum
5
10
liquidum content)
Hex (animal and
10
50
vegetable oil
content)
Phenol
0.5
1
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.
14
Table 1.2.7 Noise Standards in Indonesia

Mode of land use/ Mode of activity
a. Mode of land use
1. Residential
2. Commercial
3. Offices
4. Green tract
5. Industrial
6. Government offices and public
facilities
7. Recreational facilities
8. Others
Airport
Station
Port
Cultural asset
b. Mode of activities
1. Hospital
2. School
3. Place of prayer
Noise level (DB)

55
70
65
50
70
60
70
*
*
70
60
55
55
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
Frequency(Hz)
4
5
6.3
8
10
12.5
16
20
25
31.5
40
50
63
Table 1.2.8 Vibration Standards in Indonesia

Vibration Level (x10-6m)
No impact
Slight impact
Unpleasant
100-500
500-1000
100
80-350
350-1000
80
70-275
275-1000
70
50-160
160-500
50
37-120
120-300
47
32-90
90-220
32
25-60
60-120
25
20-40
40-85
20
17-30
30-50
17
12-20
20-30
12
9-13
15-20
9
8-12
12-15
8
6-9
9-12
6
Hazardous
1000
1000
1000
500
300
200
120
85
50
30
20
15
12

f) Odor
Environmental standards concerning odor in Indonesia are prescribed according to Decree of the State
15
Table 1.2.9 Odor Standards in Indonesia

Item
Unit
Ammonia NH4
ppm
Threshold
value
2.0
Measurement method
Spectroscope
Indophenol method
Absorption
photometry
Gas
chromatography
Absorptiometer
Gas
chromatography
Gas
chromatography
Gas
chromatography
Methyl mercaptan CH3SH
ppm
0.002
Gas adsorption
Hydrogen sulfide H2S
ppm
0.02
Methyl sulfide (CH3)2 S
ppm
0.01
aMercuric sulfocyanide
method
bGas adsorption
Gas adsorption
Styrene (C6H5CHCH2)
ppm
0.1
Gas adsorption

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
1
Water content
2
Temperature
3
Color
4
Odor
5
Particle Size
6
Water binding ability
7
pH
8
Strange particle
Macro Element
9
Organic material
10 Nitrogen
11 Carbon
12 Phosphor (P2O5)
13 C/N-ratio
14 Potassium (K2O)
Micro Element
15 Arsenic
16 Cadmium (Cd)
17 Cobalt (Co)
18 Chromium (Cr)
19 Copper (Cu)
20 Mercury (Hg)
21 Nickel (Ni)
22 Lead (Pd)
Unit
Minimum
%
Celsius
Mm
%
0.55
58
6.80
*
%
%
27
0.40
9.8
0.10
10
0.20
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
16
Maximum
50
Ground water temp.
Blackness
Oil odor
25
7.49
1.5
58
32
20
*
13
3
34
210
100
0.8
62
150
No Parameter
23 Selenium (Se)
24 Zinc (Zn)
Other Element
25 Calcium
26 2 Magnesium (Mg)
27 Iron (Fe)
28 Aluminum (Al)
29 Manganese (Mn)
Bacterial
30
Fecal Coli
31
Salmonella sp.
Unit
mg/kg
mg/kg
Minimum
*
*
%
%
%
%
%
Maximum
*
*
*
*
*
MPN/g
MPN/g
2
500
25.5
0.6
2
2.2
0.1
1,000
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
17
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).
18
Figure 1.3.1 Trend of population of Jakarta
Population in Jakarta (in thousands)

9,800
9,590
9,600
9,400
9,200
9,060
9,140
9,220
9,000
8,800
8,600
8,400
8,360
8,430
8,500
8,570
8,640
8,700
8,760
8,200
8,000
7,800
7,600
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
(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)
19
Figure 1.3.3 Ratio of production value of various regions of Indonesia
Sulawesi
Lesser 5%
Sunda
Islands
Borneo
3%
9%
Island New
Guinea
Maluku
Islands
2%
Sumatra
23%
Java
58%
(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.
20
Chapter 2
Study Methodology
21
22
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 sites 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
23
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 projects 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&Mthe 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.
24
Figure 2.2.1 Flow of the Study
CurrentTreatment Condition &

Planning
(Current Status Analysis)
Clarification of the Project Scope
Clarification of this Project Position
Boring & Measuring Surveys
Organizing Survey Results
Future & Demand Forecasts
Climate Data
Waste Composition
Examination for Design Concept of Facilities

& Application of Equipment Standards
Establishment of Treatment Systems'

Alternative Plan(s) & Examiation of its Validity
Estimation of the Project

Cost
Examination for Side of

Environmental & Social
Considerations
Financial Analysis CF Analysis
Environmental
Surveys
The Project Evaluation
(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 teams 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
25
has been received abundant orders from major Japanese construction companies.
Figure 2.2.2 Organization of the study team

Local team
Liaison office (based in Jakarta)
EX Research Institute Ltd. (Sakai)
Supervise, examination of treatment

sytem, analysis of constraints of
project implementation, analysis of
environmental and social aspects,
Collection of laws and regulations and

analysis of capacity of implementing
organization
Subcontract PT. INFRATAMA YAKTI

Collection of project cost, land survey,
collection of information on social and
environmental analysis
ARAX Corporation
Delegate Identification of scope of project,

project scheme and financing scheme
Company directed by Mr Matsuzaki, advisor of ARAX Corporation
Ryowa International
Delegate
Collection of laws and regulations and

analysis of capacity of implementing
organization
Subsidiary
Arai Total Institution Co.,Ltd.
Cost estimate of operation and
Local corporation
Cooperation
JFE Engineering Corporation
PT.JFE-ENGINEERING INDONESIA
Conceptual design and cost estimate

of plant, cost estimate of operation
Information of local information
Cooperation
Shimizu Corporation Jakarta Office

Estimate of local costs
Supervision
Subcontract
PT. TIGENCO GRAHA PERSADA

Boring survey

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.
26
Table 2.2.1 Members of the study team

Name
Post, Organization
Issue in charge
President and
Masato OHNO
Head of International Consulting Division,
Project supervisor

Kazuhiro
NAKAISHI
Senior Researcher,
Project manager
Environmental Engineering Division,
Planning of treatment
facility
Senior Researcher,
Osamu NAHATA
Planning of landfill

Akira
HASEYAMA
Satoshi
SUGIMOTO
Sayako KIMURA
Taiji
TSURUTANI
Yasushi SAKAI
Identification of current
Senior Researcher,
status
of
waste
management and analysis

of environmental impact
Senior Researcher,
International Consulting Division,
Researcher, International Consulting Division,
Economic and fiscal

analysis
Social and environmental
considerations
Technical advisor,
International Consulting Division,
Technical adviser

Representative of Indonesian liaison office,
Local coordination
Takashi
Chief, Public relations department,
SAKAMOTO
ARAX Corporation
Yasuo
Administrative manager,
YAMAMOTO
ARAX Corporation
matters
Hironari
Technical division,
Waste disposal
YOSHIKURA
Arai Total Institution Co.,Ltd.
Tsutomu
Adviser,
NISHIWAKI
ARAX Corporation
Horyu
Adviser, ARAX Corporation
MATSUZAKI
Director, PT. Ryowa International
Tomoki
UEMATSU
Takao
YAMAZAKI
Project coordination
Research in financial
technologies
Overseas research
Manager, Sales & Marketing Dept.,

Overseas Business Sector,
JFE Engineering Corporation
Adviser of local
operations
Cost estimate for plant
engineering
Senior Manager,
International Division, Jakarta Office,
Shimizu Corporation
27
Local cost estimate
2.3 Schedule of the Surveey

Schedule of the survey is shown in Fiigure 2.3.1. Four times of the on-site studies are schheduled starting
from September 2011.
Figure 2.3.1 Work Schedule

Aug
Field Surveys in
Indonesia
Sep
Oct
(Sep 7-13)
(Oct 10-23)
Nov
Dec
Jan 2012
(Nov 27-Dec 13)
Feb
(
(Feb
7-11)
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

Field surveys were performed 4 timees. Outline of the field survey is shown below.
Tablle 2.3.1 Outline of Field Surveys

Period
1st
2011/9/7
visit
Contents
Peoples met
Visit to JETRO,
J
visit to waste related Mr.
Kensuke
President
facilities
Saito,
Directtor,
Vice
JETRO
Jakarta center
2011/9/8
Discussions with Tangerang Regency, Mr. Agus, Directorr of Cleansing
-2011/9/9
informatioon collection at Statistics Office
Dept
Mr. Akip, Direcctor of Land
Planning
2011/9/12
Discussions with Tangerang Regency, Mr. Agus, Directorr of Cleansing

visit to Baantar Geban final disposal site
Dept
Mr. Akip, Direcctor of Land
Planning
2011/9/13
Consultatiion with vice Governor and the Mr.

Cleansingg Department of Jakarta DKI
28
Sarwo
Handhayani,
Vice-Governor annd Head of
Period
Contents
Peoples met
Jakarta Regional Development
Planning Board
Mr.
Iwan
Henry Wardhana,
Director of Jakarta Cleansing

Department
2nd
2011/10/10
Meeting within the study group
2011/10/11
Consultation
visit
with
the
Jakarta
DKI Mr.
Cleansing Department
Iwan
Henry Wardhana,

Department
Visit to the Sunter Temporary Facility
Manager of the facility (name

unidentified)
2011/10/12
Visit to the Bantar Gebang Final Disposal Pt. Godang Tuajaya Jo Pt.
Site
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 Mr. Agus, Director of Cleansing

project site
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-
Discussion
with
subcontractors
and
- 2011/10/18
preparation of contract
2011/10/19
2011/10/20
Consultation with Tangerang Regency
Visit to the Duri Kosambi Wastewater Planning

Treatment Facility
2011/10/21
Interview with the General Manager of
PT.WIRA
Cakung Cilncing
SARANA
GULFINDO
Mr. Budhisentoso Kertadjaja
29
Period
Contents
Peoples met
General Manager
3rd visit 2011/11/27
Meeting within the study group and
-2011/11/28
organization of information collected
2011/11/29
Consultation with Tangerang
Mr. Agus, Director of Cleansing

Dept
Planning
2011/11/30
Consultation with Ministry of Public Mr. Sjukrul Amien, Director of

Works
Environmental
hygiene,
Mr.
Rudy Arifin, Deputy Director

Report to JETRO
Mr.
Kensuke
President
Saito,
Director,
Vice
JETRO
Jakarta center
Consultation with Jakarta DKI Cleansing Mr.
Department
2011/12/1
Eko,
and
Mr.
Iwan,
Cleansing Dept of Jakarta DKI
Consultation with Governor of Tangerang Tangerang Regency Governor

Regency
Consultation with Ministry of Public Mr. Mohammet
Works
2011/12/2
Report to the Japanese Embassy
Mr. Yasukawa, First Secretary

Mr. Yoshizawa, Councilor
Mr. Keino, Second Secretary.
Consultation
with
the
Jakarta
DKI Mr.
Iwan
Henry Wardhana,

Department
Report to the JICA Jakarta office

2011/12/5
Ms. Kitamura, Adviser
-2011/12/6
2011/12/7
Consultation
with
Jakarta
Cleansing Mr.
Department
Iwan
Henry Wardhana,

Department
2011/12/8
Visit to plastic recycling facility in Jakarta Ms. Mei, owner of recycling

facility
2011/12/9
Visit to the project site
collected
2011/12/12
Visit to Tangerang Regency

30
Mr. Yoyon, Director General of
Period
Contents
Peoples met
Land Planning
2011/12/13

collected
4th visit 2012/02/07-
Report of the final report to relevant
- 2012/02/11
parties in Indonesia and exchange of

information
(Prepared by the authors of this report)
31
32
Chapter 3
Justification, Objectives and Technical Feasibility of the
Project
33
34
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.
35
Figure 3.1.1 Business Scheme of the Project
Table 3.1.1 Project scale and component facilities

Item
Target wastes
Scale
Facilities Managed
composi final
-tion
disposal site

MSW (Municipal solid wastes) discharged in Jakarta
1,500 t/d
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)
Daily treatment capacity 1,410 t (1,185 + 225 t), treatment method:
resources screening facilities, crushing facilities, belt conveyor,
fermentation tank, buildings, post-treatment screening facilities,
storage facilities, packaging facilities
Treatment capacity: 480 t/d (quantity of product: 430 t/d
MBT
(mechanical
bio-treatme
nt) facilities
RDF
manufacturi
ng facilities
Compost
Treatment capacity: 410 t/d (334 t/d + 76 t/d) (quantity of product:
facilities
165 t/d
Project period
20 years
Project ordering mode
BOT project (ordering entity: Jakarta)
36
Figure 3.1.1 Detailed treatment flow of the project
(Sourcee: Prepared by the authors of this report)
Figure 3.1.2 Map of th

he project site (Jati Waringing, Tangerang Regency)
Jatiwaringin
Jakarta DKI
(West Jakarta City)
Ciangir
(Source: Prepared by the authorrs of this report based on land use map for Tangerangg Regency)
37
Figure 3.1.4 Detailed map of the project site (Jati Waringing, Tangerang Regency)
Area considered for

the project site (100ha
within this area)
Land owned by
Tangerang City for
new disposal site
Existing disposal site of

Tangerang Regency (includes
planned area for expansion)
(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
38
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.
39
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
AGenerated 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
District
1
2
3
4
5
Central Jakarta
North Jakarta
West Jakarta
South Jakarta
East Jakarta
Total
Population
898,883
1,645,312
2,278,825
2,057,080
2,687,027
9,567,127
Waste generated
(t/d)
1,173.33
1,113.78
1,442.22
1,003.11
1,406.89
6,139.33
Waste generation Household waste

ratio
generation ratio
(g/person/d)
(g/person/d)
1305.32
676.94
632.88
487.64
523.59
3,560.81
641.71
372.19
Household
waste
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report based on Outline of Cleansing Activities 2010)
Table 3.1.3 Waste Generation Ratio in Jakarta
District
1
2
3
4
5
Central Jakarta
North Jakarta
West Jakarta
South Jakarta
East Jakarta
Total
Population
898,883
1,645,312
2,278,825
2,057,080
2,687,027
9,567,127
Waste generated
(t/d)
1,173.33
1,113.78
1,442.22
1,003.11
1,406.89
6,139.33
Waste generation
ratio
(g/person/d)
1305.32
676.94
632.88
487.64
523.59
3,560.81
641.71
Household
waste
Household waste
generation ratio
(g/person/d)
372.19
(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
40
temporary phenomenon and it will be necessary to watch future movements.
Figure 3.1.5 Population and Generated Waste Amount Projection
Population (thousands)
10000
Actual population in 2010
9588
8756
9000
8981
9169
9263
9258
8386
8000
Projection (SAPROF 2008)
7000
6000
5000
2000
2006
2010
2015
2020
2025
Waste generated (t/day)

10000
Actual amount in 2010

9000
8210
7845
8000
7402
6894
7000
6400
6538
6139
6000
5000
2000
2006
2010
2015
2020
2025
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report based on the findings of the 2008 SAPROF Study)
41
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

1000
Waste generated (g/d) per capita
900
800
763
768
747
700
640
600
Actual amount in 2010

887
847
807
500
2000
2006
2010
2015
2020
2025
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report based on the 2008 SAPROF study findings)
BWaste 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)
Type of waste
Volumem
1 Organic
2 Inorgnic
Total
1
2
3
4
5
15,451.58
12,454.47
27,906.05
3
Type of waste
House hold waste
Marcket waste
Commercial waste
Industrial waste
Waste from cleaning roads, parks, etc
Volumem
Percentage%
55.37
44.63
Percentage%
16,185.51
2,790.61
4,185.91
4,185.91
558.12
27,906.06
42
58
10
15
15
2
100
Figure 3.1.7 Breakdown of Waste by Generation Source in Jakarta (2010)

Share (%)
Industrial waste
15
Commercial waste
15
Waste from cleaning

roads, parks, rivers
58
Market
waste
Household waste
10
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)

1:52
:%
0.81
Organic
waste)
44.63%
55.37%
(kitchen
1.06
4.65
1.91
0.19
Inorganic
0.61
20.57
0.07
13.25
Paper
Plastic
Wood
Cloth, fiber
Rubber/artificial leather
Metal
Glass
Bulky waste
Hazardous waste
Rock, sand, ETC
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%
43
CWaste 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
Location
Jakarta
Jakarta
Jakarta
Area
7.5ha
3.5ha
12ha
Land
ownership
Privately owned
Government owned
Intermediate
treatment
facilities
Accept
400~500 t/d
Sorting and
composting
Tipping fee:
149,000 Rp/t
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.
Transfer station with

compacting equipment
Maximum capacity:
6,000m3/d,
1,500 t/d
Volume compacting
effect:
Current
conditions
Future
plans and
prospects
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.
Privately
owned
Currently no
activities are
conducted
onsite (the
landowner is
searching for
investors)
(Future plan)
Bantar Gebang Tangerang
Regency
Bekasi, West
Tangerang
Java
Regency
Approximatel
110.3ha
y 100ha
Government
--owned
Compost
None
Final
disposal
Methane gas
collection
and power
generation
Capacity:
2,000 t/d
Technology:
Waste-to-En
ergy
(incineration
)
As of January 2012,
preparations are being
made for national
competitive bidding.
Currently
undergoing actual
design geared to
expansion
44
Additional
installation
of MBT and
methane
fermentation
facilities to
the above
facilities
Accept
3,000 t/d
Accept
1,500 t/d
Figure 3.1.9 Flow of Waste Treatment in Jakarta (Expression on a Top View Map)
45
Figure 3.1.10 Flow of Waste Treatment in Jakarta

Household 58%
3,561
Recycling
Temporary
storage yard
Market 10%
614 t/d
Office 15%
921 t/d
Plant 15%
921 t/d
Bantar Gebang TPA5,062 t/d
Road, park and river,
etc. cleansing
2%
123 t/d
(Private sector treatment

company)
PPLI
PT.WGI
RT Dong Woo
Sunter SPA605 t/d
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
Fluctuation coefficient of waste brought to Bantar Gebang Final Disposal Site
1.20
1.15
1.10
1.10
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.03
1.02
1.01
0.97 0.99
1.00
0.95
0.97
0.96
1.00
0.87
0.90
0.85
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
46
DOrganization 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
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
GDP
USD/person
Waste generation ratio
(g/person/day)
Waste generation ratio
(g/person/day)
Japan (Tokyo)
Indonesia (Jakarta)
3,000 (1970s)
3,000 (2010)
700 (Tokyo, 1970s)
640 (2010 Jakarta)
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)
47
Indicators 2011 and data for Tokyo Metropolitan Government)

As was shown in the aforementioned figure (page 2), Indonesias current GDP level of approximately
3,000USD is equivalent to Japans level in the 1970s, and it has been assumed that this will display
similar behavior to Japans 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
= Waste generation ratio in Jakarta in 2010
= 640
1,000
Waste generation ratio in Japan in

1990s
Waste generation ratio in Japan in
1970s
Formula
3-1
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
1000
750
1000
Tokyo
750
142% increase
500
250
Waste generated (g/day) per capita
Waste generated (g/day) per capita
1970
250
20 years
Assumed to experience
similar growth with Japan
500
1000
700
Jakarta 700
Actual amount
142% increase
Projection
0
1970
1990
20 years
1990
(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).
48
Figure 3.1.13 Population Forecast in Jakarta Until 2030

Population (thousands)
10950
11060
11170
11280
11390
11510
11620
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
10830
2024
10720
10610
10500
10380
10270
10160
9940
9820
9710
9600
9490
9220
9140
9060
8760
8700
8640
8570
8500
8430
9000
8360
12000
9590
y = 112.09x + 8142.9
R = 0.9265
Regression formula
10050
15000
6000
Actual value
3000
Projected value
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
(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 citys 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
49
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
50
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
51
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.
Case 1
The Project
Case 2
Table 3.1.8 Comparison between the Project and Other Options

Transfer and secondary
Intermediate treatment
Final disposal
transport
MBT
facilities,
composting
facilities,
RDF manufacturing Semi-aerobic
Not included (primary
facilities
structure managed
transportation by Jakarta)
MBT
facilities,
composting final disposal site
facilities
52
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 Bureaus 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
53
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 0.350.5 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
c.
Depreciation related to RDF power generation plant construction cost: 30 million yen/t
1Rp = 0.0086yen)
(365 days20 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: 1t0.1 (ash generation ratio)1,200yen/t = 120yen/t
g.
Balance: (ab)c(defg) = deficit of 80yen/t
54
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).
55
Figure 3.2.1A Conditions for Comparison of Transportation Improvement Effect in Case of

Project Implementation without the Transfer Station
Transport under this project
Without transfer station
Existing plans for transport

(Planned incinerration facility)
20km
ITF-Sunter
1hour
34km
2.1hours
31km
2hours
Jakarta Barat
TPA-Jati Waringin
TPA-Bantar Gebang
Table 3.2.1B Comparison of improvement in transport when this project is implemented without
transfer station
Jati Waringin
Jakarta
Barat
Sunter
Duri Kosambi
Bantar Gebang
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report based on data from Google Map)
The various conditions are summarized in Table 3.2.1.
56
Table 3.2.1 Conditions for Examining the Transportation Improvement Effect in the Case where
the Project is Implemented without the Base Station
Primary transport
Secondary transport
Item
Loaded capacity
Loaded unit volumetric capacity
Vehicles purchase cost
Depreciation period
Light diesel oil cost
Fuel consumotion
Number of personnel
Personnel expenses
Vehicle purchase cost
Depreciation period
Light diesel oil cost
Fuel cost
Number of personnel
Personnel expenses
Incineration cost
Ratio of maintenance cost compared to purchase cost
This project tipping fee
Unit
m3
t/m3
Million Rp/vehicle
Years
Rp/liter
km/ liter
People
Rp/man-months
Million Rp/vehicle
Year
Rp/liter
km/ liter
Persons
Rp/man-month
Rp/t
Rp/t
Value
7
0.25
550
10
4,300
3
6
1,540,000
2,200
10
4,300
2
1
2,002,000
360,000
0.2
189,000

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
57
Table 3.2.2 Results of Estimation of Transportation Improvement Effect Due to Project

Implementation (No transfer station)
Primary transport
Item
Project
Waste
(t/day)
Loading capacity
(t/vehicle)
Total distance
km)
Total vehicles
No.
Cost of vehicles
Million Rp/day)
Maintenance
Million Rp/day)
Fuel
Million Rp/day)
Personnel
Average daily
transport cost
Unit cost of
transport
Loading or
treatment
Cost for landfill
Million Rp/day)
1,500
1.75
34
2.1
3,600
58,286
450
67.808
13.562
83.543
136.701
Million Rp/day)
301.614
Unit cost
(1,000Rp/t)
Primary transport
Total time
(km
hours
hours)
Secondary transport
Existing plans
Project
Total
Existing plans
1,500
1.75
20
1
1,714.30
34,286
215
32.397
6.479
49.143
65.313
150
20
31
2
30
465
4
2.411
0.482
1
0.263
153.332
4.156
(1,000Rp/t)
(1,000Rp/t)
Project
Existing plans
301.614
157.488
201
105
189
360
390
465
(1,000Rp/t)

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).
58
Figure 3.2.2A Conditions for Comparison of Transportation Improvement Effect in Case of

Project Implementation with the Transfer Station
Existing plans for transport
(planned incineration facility)
Transport under this project

(with transfer station)
SPA Duri
Kosambi
(Under study)
30km
5km
20km
0.25hour
Jakarta Barat
1.9hours
ITF-Sunter
1hour
31km
2hour
TPA -Jati Waringin
TPA -Bantar
Figure 3.2.2A Comparison of improvement in transport when this project is implemented with
transfer station
Jati Waringin
Jakarta
Barat
Sunter
Duri Kosambi
Bantar Gebang
(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report based on data from Google Map)
The various conditions are summarized in Table 3.2.3.
59
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
Loaded capacity
m3
Loaded unit volumetric capacity
t/m3
Vehicles purchase cost
Million Rp/vehicle
Years
Primary Depreciation period
transport Light diesel oil cost
Rp/liter
Fuel cost
km/L
Number of personnel
People
Personnel expenses
Rp/man-months
Vehicle purchase cost
Million Rp/vehicle
Depreciation period
Year
Rp/liter
Secondary Light diesel oil cost
transport Fuel cost
km/L
Number of personnel
Persons
Personnel expenses
Rp/man-month
Reloading cost
Rp/t
Incineration cost
Rp/t
Ratio of maintenance cost compared to
purchase cost
This project tipping fee
Rp/t
Value
7
0.25
550
10
4,300
3
6
1,540,000
2,200
10
4,300
2
1
2,002,000
90,000
360,000
0.2
189,000

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
60
Table 3.2.4 Results of Estimation of Transportation Improvement Effect Due to Project

Implementation (With transfer station)
Primary transport
Item
Project
Waste
(t/day)
Loading capacity
(t/vehicle)
Total distance
km)
Total vehicles
No.
Cost of vehicles
Million Rp/day)
Maintenance
Million Rp/day)
Fuel
Million Rp/day)
Personnel
Average daily
transport cost
Unit cost of
transport
Loading or
treatment
Cost for landfill
Million Rp/day)
1500
1.75
5
0.25
428.6
8571
54
8.137
1.627
12.285
16.404
Million Rp/day)
38.453
Unit cost
(1,000Rp/t)
Primary transport
Total time
(km
hours
hours)
Secondary transport
Existing plans
Project
Total
Existing plans
1500
1.75
20
1
1714.3
34286
215
32.397
6.479
49.143
65.313
1500
20
30
1.9
285
4500
36
21.699
4.34
9.675
2.369
150
20
31
2
30
465
4
2.411
0.482
1
0.263
153.332
38.083
4.156
Project
Existing plans
76.536
157.488
(1,000Rp/t)
51
105
(1,000Rp/t)
90
(1,000Rp/t)
189
330
360
465
(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
61
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
62
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.
63
(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
64
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
Decomposition/evaporation
625 t/d
Organic wastes
Product
790 t/d
165 t/d
Composting
For sales and

cover soil
Biogas
Decomposition/evaporation
3
75,537 Nm /d
Fermentation residue
Organic wastes
790 t/d
170 t/d
Methane
Fermentation
277 t/d
Composting
2,480 m /d
Returning
dillution water
Product
Supernatant
1,414 m /d
3
1,066 m /d
Effluent
65
107 t/d
For sales and

cover soil
Table 3.2.5 Cost Comparison of Composting and Methane Fermentation Process of Organic Wastes
Item
Revenue
Expenditure
Construction cost
Life of facility
Annual depreciation
Operation,
maintenance,
management cost
Total expenditure
Balance
Composting Process
0*1 1,000 yen/y
3,950,000 1,000 yen
20 years
197,500 1,000 yen/y
Methane Fermentation Process *3

402,814*2 1,000 yen/y
15,800,000 1,000 yen
20 years
790,000 1,000 yen/y
276,500 1,000 yen/y

474,000 1,000 yen/y
-474,000 1,000 yen/y
790,000 1,000 yen/y

1,580,000 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
66
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
Wet weight
Ash
Combustible
Moisture
item
component
content
ratio
content
Organic(kitchen
50%
70.0%
10.0%
20.0%
waste)
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
1%
35.0%
5.0%
60.0%
textile
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)
67
Table 3.3.2 Planned waste composition ratio (dry weight ratio) of household waste
Composition
Planned
Combustible
Moisture
Ash content
content
item
value
content
Organic(kitchen
15.0%
35.00%
5.00%
10.00%
waste)
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
0.7%
0.35%
0.05%
0.60%
textile
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%
Table 3.3.3 Waste composition ratio (wet-weight ratio) of market waste

Composition
wet-weight
item
Organic(kitchen
waste)
Plastic
ratio
Moisture
content
Ash content
Combustible
content
70%
70.0%
10.0%
20.0%
5%
20.0%
17.0%
63.0%
Paper
5%
40.0%
6.1%
53.9%
Wood
Clothes and
textile
Metal
5%
35.0%
4.0%
61.0%
5%
35.0%
5.0%
60.0%
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%
68
Table 3.3.4 Planned waste composition ratio (dry-weight ratio) of market waste
Composition
Planned
item
Organic(kitchen
waste)
Plastic
value
Moisture
content
Ash content
Combustible
content
21.0%
49.00%
7.00%
14.00%
4.0%
1.00%
0.85%
3.15%
Paper
3.0%
2.00%
0.31%
2.70%
Wood
Clothes and
textile
Metal
3.3%
1.75%
0.20%
3.05%
3.3%
1.75%
0.25%
3.00%
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%
43.7%
56.25%
17.74%
26.03%
Sum/Total
Moisture
content
56.3%
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.
69
Figure 3.3.1 Treatment system flow (case 1)

household
waste
Bag Breaker
Manual Sorting
MBT
Magnetic
Separator
Mechanical
sorting
Fermentation
Composting
(Productiion)
Soil amelioration
Residue
RDF Productiion
Recyclable
Cement Factory
Selling
Final Disposal
MBT
market
waste
Bag Breaker
Magnetic
Separator
Mechanical
sorting
Fermentation
Composting
(Productiion)
Soil amelioration
Figure 3.3.2 Treatment system flow (case 2)

household
waste
Bag Breaker
Manual Sorting
MBT
Magnetic
Separator
Mechanical
sorting
Fermentation
Composting
(Productiion)
Soil amelioration
Residue
Recyclable
Selling
Final Disposal
MBT
market
waste
Bag Breaker
Magnetic
Separator
Fermentation
Mechanical
sorting
Composting
(Productiion)
Soil amelioration

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.
70
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).
71
Table 3.3.5 Standard of treated and pre-treatment leachate from landfills

Item
Pre-treatment
Treated leachate quality
5.09.0
6.09.0
Planned under the

project
6.09.0
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
leachate quality
pH
Stanadrd
(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.
72
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)

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%.
73
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
Decomposition ratio of
Decomposition heat of
solid component
solid component
Kitchen waste
30
18.8MJ/kg
Other organic waste
20
11.5MJ/kg
Item

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
Waste intake and

storage
Major equipments,
devices
Building (Concrete
floor)
Bag shredding
Bag breaker
Manual segregation
Magnetic
segregation
Fermentation
Conveyer
Magnetic segregation
3m Width60m8 rows
Building (concrete
floor)
Wheel loader
Length 260mWidth 500m

Space for 14 days storage: 14,760t
Volume of packet 1.5m3 compost turning
capacity about 200m3 per hour, 30 in number
200m1m width1 row
500m1m width1row
Treatment amount 261.88m3/h (16h treatment)
Process
2
3
4
6
7
Mechanical
segregation
RDF manufacture
(only for CASE 1)
Conveyer No 1
Conveyer No 2
Mechanical
segregation
Compacting and
bailing
Specification
Total equipment inspection: 7days/inspection =
Retention days: 7 days/inspection
Treatment capacity: 80m3/h
Treatment capacity: 3.75.5kW
480 t/d
74
No
Major equipments,
devices
Building (Concrete
Floor not required)
Process
Compost
manufacture
Specification
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.
The treatment system flow expressed above is shown in the figure below as reference.
Reference: Detailed Treatment System Flow of Principal Facilities

(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.
75
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
Banking Material
Gradient
Height
Good particle size sand (SW)
Less than 5m
11.511.8
Gravel or sand mixed with gravel
515m
11.812.0
(GM) (GC) (GW) (GP)
Less than
11.812.0
Poor particle size sand (SP)
10m
Less than
11.511.8
10m
Rocks (including earth)
1020m
11.812.0
Sandy soil (SM) (SC), hard clayey Less than 5m
11.511.8
soil, hard clay (hard diluvial clayey
510m
11.612.0
soil, clay, Kanto loam, etc.)
Remarks
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
Soft clayey soil
Less than 5m
11.812.0
types.
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)
76
Table 3.3.9 Cutting Slope Gradient

Cutting
Ground Soil Quality
Height
Hard rock
Soft rock
Sand
Gradient
10.310.8
10.511.2
Unconsolidated sand with poor

particle size distribution
11.5
Less than 5m
510m
Sandy soil
Less than 5m
Unconsolidated
510m
Gravel
or Consolidated soil with good Less than 10m
sandy
soil particle size distribution
1015m
mixed with
Less than 10m
Unconsolidated soil with poor
rocks
particle size distribution
1015m
Consolidated
10.811.0
11.011.2
11.011.2
11.211.5
10.811.0
11.011.2
11.011.2
11.211.5
Clayey soil
Less than 10m
10.811.2
Note) 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).
Landfill Case
CASE 1
CASE 2
Landfill Case
CASE 1
CASE 2
Landfill Case
CASE 1
CASE 2
Table 3.3.10 Design Landfill Capacity Calculation Sheet

Waste targeted for
Weight (t/d)
Landfill period (y) Design total weight
landfill
(t)
Noncombustible
123
897,900
waste
Noncombustible
20
waste
and
438
3,197,400
combustible waste
Unit volume
weight (t/m3)
0.5
0.5
Model design
landfill capacity
(m3)
2,500,000
8,780,000
Design waste
capacity (m3)
1,795,800
6,029,800
Covering soil
capacity (m3)
628,530
2,238,180
Total capacity (m3)

2,424,330
8,632,980
Remarks
Basically adopt zonal landfill divided into 4 sections.
Basically adopt zonal landfill over 3 terms (5 years per term)
and 4 sections.
77
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,
78
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
0
0
0
4
mm
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
4
0
0
5
2
mm
Soil Embankment
mm
1 :2 .
mm
mm
0
0
5
2
0
0
0
5 0
0
3
0
0
5
2
1 :2 .
5
Cover soil
mm
:2 . 5
mm
mm

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
79
Waste
c)
Landfill work
Figure 3 shows the flow of landfill work.
Figure 3.3.7 Flow of Landfilling operation

Carry in
Measurement
landfilling operation
Dumping
Installation
hauling road
Placement
Shredding
Surface compaction
of
End of day`s work
(Daily earth cover)
Slope
construction
Intermediate cover
Completion of a compartment
Final cover
End of landfilling
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
80
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 107cm/s are built with a compaction intensity of
95%, and that these be sandwiched between an upper cohesive soil layer of 1 x 107cm/s and a lower
soil layer of 1 x 105cm/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.
81
Figure 3.3.8 Basic Structure of Landfill

Ordinary soil 30cm
Solid waste
Ordinary soil 30cm k=104cm/s
Geotextile
Gravel 15cm
Original compactedsoil 15cm k=107cm/s
Clay 25cm
Clay 25cm
Original compactedsoil 15cm k=105cm/s
(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 Ministers
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.
82
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.
83
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.
84
Table 3.3.11 Permeability Test Results

Bor.No
Depth (m)
Coefficient of
Remarks
Permeability (m/s)
1
1.502.00
4.0610-10
3.504.00
5.9710-10
5.506.00
8.8610-10
7.508.00
5.9410-10
0.501.00
1.0510-9
5.506.00
3.9810-8
7.508.00
10.5011.00

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
85
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
doesnt 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=1/360frA
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.
86
Table 3.3.12 Peak Runoff Coefficient Indicated by Mononobe (Japan Society of Civil Engineers,
1999)
Terrain condition
fp
Precipitous upland
0.750.90
Tertiary upland
0.700.80
Undulating land and forestland
0.500.75
Flat cultivated land
0.450.60
Irrigated paddy
0.700.80
Upland river
0.750.85
Flatland stream
0.450.75
Major river with catchment basin of which
0.500.75
at least half is flatland

(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.
87
Table 3.3.13 Flow Calculation Table

Channel
Catchmen
t area
No.
ha
Runoff
Rainfall
Runoff
coefficient intensity
amount
Channel cross section
gradient
flow
flow rate
m3/s
W(mm) B(mm) H(mm)
m/s
m3/s
mm/h
Channel Roughnes Average Allowable

Remarks
Case 1
1
4.8
0.6
142
1.136
1,600
600
1,000
5.0
0.015
1.588
1.270
9.6
0.6
142
2.272
2,100
1,100
1,000
5.0
0.015
2.081
2.497 1+2
4.8
0.6
142
1.136
1,600
600
1,000
5.0
0.015
1.588
1.270
9.6
0.6
142
2.272
2,100
1,100
1,000
5.0
0.015
2.081
2.497 3+4
19.2
0.6
142
4.544
2,800
1,800
1,000
5.0
0.015
2.687
4.729 2+4
4.8
0.6
142
1.136
1,600
600
1,000
5.0
0.015
1.588
1.270
14.4
0.6
142
3.408
2,500
1,500
1,000
5.0
0.015
2.436
3.703 1+2
24.0
0.6
142
5.680
3,100
2,100
1,000
5.0
0.015
2.925
5.850 2+3
28.8
0.6
142
6.816
3,400
2,400
1,000
5.0
0.015
3.155
7.067 3+4
4.8
0.6
142
1.136
1,600
600
1,000
5.0
0.015
1.588
1.270
9.6
0.6
142
2.272
2,100
1,100
1,000
5.0
0.015
2.081
2.497 5+6
19.2
0.6
142
4.544
2,800
1,800
1,000
5.0
0.015
2.687
4.729 6+7
28.8
0.6
142
6.816
3,400
2,400
1,000
5.0
0.015
3.155
7.067 7+8
57.6
0.6
142
13.632
4,200
2,700
1,500
5.0
0.015
3.520
13.939 4+8
Case 2

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 200~300 mm for arterial
lines and 150 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 100 mm or less shouldnt be used because
they tend to become blocked, the pipes installed in the Project will have diameter of 150 mm.
88
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 isnt 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
89
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.
1
360
A (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
Rainfall permeation (m3/s)
Catchment area
Landfill
r=142mm/h
(ha)
Minimum block
f=0.44
4.00
0.694

c2) Drainage capacity of leachate collection and drainage pipes
Runoff amount
QAV
(m3/sec)
Flow velocity
V
n
R2/3I1/2
(m/sec)
Where,
A: Catchment area (m2)
90
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

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
700
Slope collection and drainage pipes
200
Slope collection and drainage pipes
200
Vertical collection and drainage pipes

600
91
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.
92
Table 3.3.17 Design Basic Conditions
Item
Value and/or Formula
Catchment area (A)

Basic particulars
Permissible
Remarks
100 ha
34.40 m3/s
discharge
flow
Runoff coefficient (f)
0.79
10.0 minutes
Arrival time (t)

Rainfall waveform
Rear concentrated type

24 hours
Rainfall continued time

Probability rainfall
Rainfall conditions
Rainfall
1/30 year probability rainfall
intensity
formula
111.100
t
0.287
3/5
1
frA
360
Q: Flow rate (m3/s)
Q
Inflow formula
fRunoff coefficient
rrainfall intensity (mm/h)
ACatchment area (ha)

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:
1
frA 1 / 360 0.7 177.0 100.034.43/
360
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

93
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
10.0
0.7
90.0
0.8
100.0
0.79
Before development / Field, cultivated

land, paddy
After development / Land developed
for residential use
Total

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.
VS
v A
Where,
V S : Amount of sedimentation (m3)

3
v : Amount of sedimentation per unit developed area (=150m /ha/y)
A : Developed area (=100.0 ha)
VS
150 100.0
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.
94
Table 3.3.19 Basic Structural Conditions

Basic Structural
Item
Remarks
Conditions
Regulating reservoir
crest height
+2.50
Abnormal flood level
+2.35
Design flood level
+1.60
Initial water level
+0.50m
Rim height
+0.50
Discharge hole
H1100B24000
Total capacity
79,450m3
Sedimentation
15,000m3
Possible regulating
Sedimentation level
Cross-sectional area 26.40m2
34,823m3
capacity
Table 3.3.20 Calculation Results

Item
Calculation Results
22,298(m )
Maximum water level
+1.209(m)
flow
Possible regulating capacity 34,823m3
Maximum capacity
Maximum discharge
Remarks
OK
Design flood flow +1.600m
Allowable discharge flow 34.40m3/s
25,717(m /s)
OK
OK

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
134.1
t
0.306
r100
3/5
=102.7mm/h
95
- Cross-sectional calculation
Spillway design flow will be as follows:
1
f r A 1 .5
360
1
0.87 102.7 100.0 1.5
360
37.229 m 3 sec
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 =0.75m,
L Q (1.8 H 3 2 ) 37.229 (1.8 0.753 2 ) 31.843m

B
31.843 4 7.96 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 38.0m.
Therefore, the discharge culvert opening will measure 9.0 m per side.
96
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).
97
Table 3.3.21 Table

T
of Flood Regulation Calculations (1)
Time
Rainfall
Intensity
Peak Rainfa
all
Intensity
y
Time of Peak
Rainfall
Inflow
98
Balancing
reservoir
Reservoir
capacity
Water
level
O
Outflow
Outflow/
time unit
Table of
o Flood Regulation Calculations (2)
99
Table of
o Flood Regulation Calculations (3)
100
(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
Determination of planned influent quantity of
Chronological setting of daily leachate amount
leachate treatment facility
Chronological calculation of storage amount of leachate controlling facility
Determination of capacity of leachate controlling facility
(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.
101
Table 3.3.22 Table of Specifications in the Leachate Treatment Plan

Design particulars
CASE-1
CASE-2
(2)
(1)
Rainfall data
2001 to 2010 (10 years)
Average daily rainfall (mm)
5.0
Landfill area (ha)

Leachate
coefficient
(average)
16.0
Currently
being
landfilled
Already
landfilled
3
Maximum leachate flow (m /d)

Daily treatment
amount (m3/d)
Amount of increase
(m3/d)
Regulating capacity
(m3)
Amount of increase
(m3)
32.0
48.0
0.44
0.27
Average leachate flow (m3/d)
Calculatio
n results
16.0
(3)
250
250
470
690
1,110
1,110
2,060
3,020
400
400
750
1,100
350
350
45,000
80,000
117,000
35,000
37,000
45,000

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.
1
I C1 A1 C2 A2
1000
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.
102
B) Target disposal site area (CASE-116.0ha, CASE-248.0ha)

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)
Block being
landfilled
(1)
Season
CASE-1
CASE-2
Area (A)
Already
landfilled
block
(2)
Total( )
4.00
12.00
16.00
(1)
4.00
12.00
16.00
(2)
4.00
28.00
32.00
(3)
4.00
44.00
48.00
Leachate Coefficient (C)

Already
Block being
landfilled
landfilled
block
(1)
(2)
0.44
0.27

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.
103
Table 3.3.24 Rainfall Data Statistical Table
Observed days: 3,652 days

Total rainfall: 18,320 mm
Maximum year: 2010
104
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:
18,320mm
5.0 mm dd
3,652d
Accordingly, the average leachate amount is as follows.

CASE-1
1
5.0
1000
0.44 40,000 0.27 120,000
250.0 m 3
d
CASE-2
Q1
1
5 .0
1000
0.44 40,000 0.27 120,000
250.0 m 3
d
Q2
1
5 .0
1000
0.44 40,000 0.27 280,000
466.0 m 3
d
Q3
1
5 .0
1000
0.44 40,000 0.27 440,000
682.0 m 3
d
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:
663.8mm
22.1 mm dd
30d
Therefore, the maximum leachate amount is calculated as follows.

CASE-1
1
22.1
1000
0.44 40,000 0.27 44,000
1,105.0 m 3
d
CASE-2
Q1
1
22.1
1000
0.44 40,000 0.27 120,000
Q2
1
22.1
1000
0.44 40,000 0.27 280,000
Q3
1
22.1
1000
0.44 40,000 0.27 440,000
The above results are compiled into the following table.
105
d
1,105.0 m 3
2,059.7 m 3
d
3,014.4 m 3
d
Table 3.3.25 Design Influent Flow Calculation Results

Annual average daily
precipitation
Target precipitation
CASE-1
(1)
CASE-2
(2)
(3)
Average leachate
flow amount
Maximum leachate
flow amount
Average leachate
flow amount
Maximum leachate
flow amount
Average leachate
flow amount
Maximum leachate
flow amount
Average leachate
flow amount
Maximum leachate
flow amount
Maximum monthly
precipitation
converted to daily
amount
250m3/d
1,110m3/d
250m3/d
1,110m3/d
470 m3/d
2,060m3/d
690 m3/d
3,020m3/d

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.
106
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 will be as follows:
I O
Therefore, the amount stored V (d) at the end of the optional day (d) will be calculated by the
following formula:
V d 1
V
V d 1 I d
V d
Od
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

I
V
V(1)
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:
1
I C1 A1 C2 A2
1000
Where,
107
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)

Maximum year (2010)
Maximum
Treatment
Daily treatment
leachate
Case
facilities
3
amount (m /d)
regulation
operating rate
3
capacity (m )
(%)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
60,355
55,855
51,388
47,388
43,388
39,388
35,388
31,388
28,960
27,310
158.0%
126.4%
105.3%
90.3%
79.0%
70.2%
63.2%
57.5%
52.7%
48.8%
Note) Treatment facilities operating rate = Total amount of treated water/Total daily treatment
amount
108
Figure 3.3.12 Daily Treatment Amount and Regulating Capacity (CASE 1)
Maximum regulating capacity(m3)
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
200
250
300
350
400
450
500 550 600 650

Daily treatment amount(m3/d)

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.
109
Figure 3.3.13 Changes in Stored Amount over Time assuming Daily Treatment Capacity of 400 m3/d
Chronology(Yearly data for the maximum year)

50000
45000
50
40000
Regulating amount (m3)
35000
Daily precipitation amount (mm/d)
(CASE 1)
100
30000
25000
150
20000
Daily
Daily
precipitation
precipita
(mm/d)
tion
amount
400m3/d
ay
200
15000
10000
250
5000
0
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
300
Days
Table 3.3.27 In/Out Calculation Results (CASE 2)

Maximum Year (2010)
Treatment
Maximum
Daily Treatment
Case
facilities
leachate
3
Amount (m /d)
operating rate
regulating
(%)
capacity (m3)
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
110
Figure 3.3.14 Daily Treatment Amount and Regulating Capacity (CASE 2-(2))
Maximum regulating amount(m3)
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
Maximum
year (m3)
40,000
20,000
0
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900 950
Daily treatment amount(m3/d)
Figure 3.3.15 Changes in Stored Amount over Time assuming Daily Treatment Capacity of 750 m3/d
(maximum year 2010) (CASE 2-(2))
Chronology(Yearly data for the maximum year)

100000
0
50
Regulating amount (m3)
80000
70000
100
60000
50000
150
40000
200
30000
20000
250
Daily precipitatin amount (mm/d)
90000
10000
0
1 15 29 43 57 71 85 99 113127141155169183197211225239253267281295309323337351365
300
Days
111
Daily
Daily
precipitation
Precipitatin
(mm/d)
amount
750m3/day
Table 3.3.28 In/Out Calculation Results (CASE 2-(3))

Maximum Year (2010)
Maximum
Treatment
Daily Treatment
Case
leachate
facilities
3
Amount (m /d)
regulating
operating rate
capacity (m3)
(%)
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
Figure 3.3.16 Daily Treatment Amount and Regulating Capacity (CASE 2-(3))
140,000
120,000
(m3)
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
900
950
1000
1050
1100
1150
1200
(m3/)
112
1250
1300
1350
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))
200000
180000
50
160000
140000
120000
100000
150
80000
(mm/)
(m3)
100
Daily
precipitation
(mm/d)
1100m3/
200
60000
40000
250
20000
0
300
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


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-2
CASE-1
3
(1)
(2)
(3)
Daily treatment amount (m /d)
400
400
750
1,100
Amount of increase(m3/d)
350
350
45,000
80,000
117,000
35,000
37,000
Regulating capacity (m3)

3
Amount of increase(m /d)
45,000

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.
113
(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
114
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
Jati Waringin
Tangerang Regency
Jakarta DKI
(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 hasnt 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.
115
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.
Landfill case
CASE 1
CASE 2
Landfill case
CASE 1
CASE 2
Landfill case
CASE 1
CASE 2
Table 3.3.30 Design Landfill Capacity Calculation Sheet

Target landfill waste
Weight (t/d)
Landfill period (y)
Noncombustible waste
Noncombustible waste and
combustible waste
Unit volumetric
weight (t/m3)
0.5
0.5
Model design landfill
capacity (m3)
2,500,000
8,780,000
123
20
438
Design waste
capacity (m3)
1,795,800
6,029,800
Cover earth
capacity (m3)
628,530
2,238,180
Design total weight

(t)
897,900
3,197,400
Total capacity (m3)

2,424,330
8,632,980
Remarks
Basically adopt zonal landfill divided into 4 sections.
Basically adopt zonal landfill over 3 terms (7 years per term) and
4 sections.

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.
116
Figure 3.3.19 Semi-aerobic Landfill Structure

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
117
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
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
2
Soil Embankment
0
0
0
4
0
0
5
2
1 :2 .
0
0
5
2
0
0
0
5 0
0
3
0
0
5
2
1 :2 .
5
Cover soil
:2 . 5
Waste

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.
118
Figure 3.3.21 Flow of Landfill Work

Carry in
Measurement
< landfilling operation >
Dumping
Installation
hauling road
Placement
Shredding
Surface compaction
of
(Daily earth cover)
Slope
construction
End of day`s work
Intermediate cover
Completion of a compartment
Final cover
End of landfilling

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.
119
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)

Director
Management office of
landfill site
1 member
Administrative
matters
2 members
Measurement
4 members (10 members)
Management of
facilities
2 members
Landfill work
10 members (20 members)
NOTE: Figures in parentheses show CASE 2

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
120
Table 3.3.31 Personnel Expenses

Unit: /y
CASE 1
Item
CASE 2
Unit cost
Num
Personnel
Num
Personnel
(yen)
ber of
expenses
ber of
expenses
staff
staff
Plant manager
3,250,000
3,250,000
3,250,000
General affairs supervisor
1,560,000
3,120,000
3,120,000
910,000
3,640,000
10
9,100,000
1,040,000
4,160,000
4,160,000
650,000
10
6,500,000
20
13,000,000
Weighing supervisor
Facilities maintenance supervisor
Member in charge of landfill work
Total
20,670,000
32,630,000

b) Landfill work cost: Heavy machinery lease charge, fuel cost, cover earth cost, etc.
Table 3.3.32 Landfill Work Cost

Unit: /y
Cost
Item
CASE 1
Remarks
CASE 2
Heavy
Bulldozer, back-how, dump truck, tire roller
machinery lease
21,600,000
43,200,000
charge
Fuel cost
0 Light diesel oil
Include in the heavy
machinery lease charge.

Cover earth cost
15,501,000
Total
37,101,000
68,378,000 Earth-fill dam

111,578,000
Reference quantities (/y)

Earth-fill dam
3
Intermediate cover
Total (m3)
(m )
Impermeable liner
(m2)
soil (m )
CASE-1
10,000
25,300
35,300
1,300
CASE-2
40,800
128,200
169,000
5,400

c) Inspection and repair costs: Landfill
121
Table 3.3.33 Inspection and Repair Cost

Unit: /y
Item
Length
of
CASE 1
gas
extraction pipes
Drainage channels
CASE 2
Remarks
CASE 1: 108 locations
388,800
1,166,400
880,000
2,350,000 Slope steps
installation
Drainage
channel
3,960,000
7,920,000 10% increase for cost of expendable
cleaning, etc.
items
Total
5,228,800
11,436,400

(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
ContentCapacityFacility Component, etc.

Landfill area: 16ha , landfill volume: 250m3, semi-aerobic landfill
Controlled 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
Bag
Shredder
Scale equipment, administration building
Bag shredder, building, conveyer belt
Manual Sorting
MBT
(Mechanical
Daily
treatment
capacity
1,410t(1,185
225
ton),
treatment
Biological
method:recyclable segregation facility, shredding facility, conveyer belt,
Treatment)Facility
fermentation tankbuilding, segregation facility, storage facility
RDF
Capacity 480 t/d(product amount 430 t/d)
Manufacturing
Facility
Composting Facility
Capacity 410 t/d(334 + 76 t/d) (product amount 165 t/d)

122
Figure 3.3.23 Land use planning (CASE 1)
123
Figure 3.3.24 Land use planning (CASE 2)
124
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
Land acquisition
CASE 1
1,000Rp
CASE 2
1,000yen
1,000Rp
1,000yen
60,000,000
516,000
60,000,000
516,000
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
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
3,438,309,000
29,569,251
3,384,436,000
29,106,158
Preparation
Fund
procurement
cost
Total
Total in USD (1,000
USD)
Item
Land acquisition
Preparation
Initial investment
O&M
Fund
381,539
375,563
in local currency
in Japanese yen
In local currency
in Japanese yen
1,000Rp
1,000yen
1,000Rp
1,000yen
60,000,000
60,000,000
2,325,000
2,325,000
491,770,000
4,900,000
1,016,472,000
2,400,000
1,614,651,000
1,509,870,000
procurement
2,113,020
2,512,442
cost
Contingency
Tax
Total
93,017,500
799,951
90,100,500
774,865
268,061,000
44,354,000
2,529,824,500
7,812,971
2,723,121,500
5,687,307

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
125
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.
demand from other than the cement factories.
Also, it is discussed to seek RDF
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.
creates major impact to the neighborhood.
126
In this case, it
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.
127
128
Chapter 4
Evaluation of Environmental and Social Impacts
129
130
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).
131
(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.
132
Table 4.1.1 Environmental Air Analysis Results

Item
Unit
SO2
CO
NO2
O3
TSP
CO2
g/Nm3
g/Nm3
g/Nm3
g/Nm3
g/Nm3
g/Nm3
Analysis Results
Windward
Leeward
(Southeast) (Northwest)
124
117
558
269
22
6
20
10
101
414
108
223
Reference
Value
365
100,000
150
235
230
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
g/Nm3
TSP
500
400
300
TSP
20
100
0
Southeastern Side
Northwestern Side
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.
133
Table 4.1.2 River Water Analysis Results

Item
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Residue on evaporation
pH
BOD
COD
DO
T-P
Nitrate nitrogen
Soluble cobalt
Boron
Soluble cadmium
Cr6+
Soluble copper
Soluble lead
Soluble zinc
Soluble iron
Fluorides
Chlorides
Soluble manganese
Nitrite
Fecal coliforms
Total coliforms
Analysis Results
Upstream
Downstream
232
346
173
193
Unit
mg/liter
7
21
40
0
0.1
0.05
0.03
0.5
< 0.0003
0.04
0.01
< 0.004
0.1
1.1
0.4
36
0.8
0.02
2,640
28,500
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
7
48
77
0
0.1
1
0.04
0.4
< 0.0003
0.05
0.01
< 0.004
0.1
0.6
0.4
53
0.4
0.04
1,000
12,500
Reference
Value
2,000
400
5-9
12
100
0
5
20
0.2
1
0.01
1
0.2
2
2,000
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
BOD
mg/L
COD
mg/L
60
100
80
40
60
40
20
20
0
Upstream
Downstream
134
Upstream
Downstream

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.
River
Flow direction
Shed
Inflow of waster water to the river

Scattered bags, etc. from the shed
Scattered bags, etc.
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.
Toilet
Sampling site
Flow direction
Photo 4.1.3 View of the river water sampling site on the upstream side
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
135
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
TDS
Turbidity
Taste
Temperature
Colour
Fe
F
Cd
CaCO3
Cl
Cr6+
Mn
NO3NO2pH
Coliforms (MPN)
Unit
Sample No. 1
mg/liter
Nephelometric
Turbidity
Units (NTU)
Celcius
True
colour
units
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
MPL/100ml
Analysis Results
Sample No. 2
Reference
Value
726
9
906
0.5
Sample No.
3
1,422
12
Tasteless
27.9
Tasteless
27.9
Tasteless
27.5
Air temperature
<4
3
15
0.2
0.3
< 0.003
0.04
0.4
< 0.003
0.2
0.2
< 0.003
194
0.14
0.04
< 0.08
0.02
6.560
500
0.14
0.1
< 0.08
< 0.0009
6.6
50
407
0.14
0.1
< 0.08
0.01
7.3
43
1,000
5
Tasteless
0.1
1.5
0.005
500
600
0.05
0.5
10
1
6.5-8.5
50
*The reference values in the above table are those applicable to Class A water: usable for drinking
water without treatment
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.
136
Table 4.1.4 Odour Analysis Results

Item
NH3
CH3SH
H 2S
(CH3)2S
C6H5CHCH2
Unit
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
mg/liter
Analysis Results
Windward
Leeward
1.2
2.6
0.003
0.005
0.03
0.04
0.005
0.008
0.008
0.006
Reference
Value
2.0
0.002
0.02
0.01
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.
Item
Arsenic
Barium
Boron
Cadmium
Chrome
Copper
Cyanogen compounds
Fluorine
Lead
Mercury
Nitrate + nitrite
Nitrite
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Table 4.1.5 Leachate Analysis Results

Analysis Results
Unit
Sample No. 1
Sample No. 2
mg/liter
0.1
0.01
mg/liter
<0.001
<0.001
mg/liter
3.2
0.6
mg/liter
<0.007
<0.007
mg/liter
0.1
0.1
mg/liter
0.02
0.2
mg/liter
0.03
0.02
mg/liter
5.5
6.4
mg/liter
0.04
0.01
mg/liter
0.01
0.004
mg/liter
7.5
2.1
mg/liter
0.9
0.1
mg/liter
0.1
0.1
mg/liter
0.03
0.01
mg/liter
0.5
0.1
Reference
Value
0.1
0.05
0.5
2
0.05
2
0.1
0.002
0.05
*The reference values are those applicable to Group 1 factories with an advanced effluent treatment
system.
reference values are those set forth by Ministerial Decree No. 51 (1995) of the Ministry of Environment on
Effluent Standards for Industry.)
137
Photo 4.1.4 Leachate accumulating at the disposal site

*Leachate and waste are mixed up together.
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,
138
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.
139
Figure. 4.1.4 Flow of

o Recovered Valuables (in case of PET bottles)
Waste pickers
Middlemen
Vendors
They collect valuable resources

from the disposal site and sell
them to middlemen without
separating.
They separate
s
and clean
valuable items and sell them to
vendors.
They purchase only specific

valuable
items,
conduct
further separation, cleaning,
crushing and drying where
necessary, and sell them to
recycling companies.
Mixed valuable
resources (e.g.
PET bottles, cans,
plastic bags)
PET bottles
Recycling
companies at
home and
abroad
T
They
use PET
boottle fragments
too manufacture
teextile products,
ettc.
PET bottle fragmen

nts
(Source: Prepared by the

t authors of this report based on the interview resullts)
The interviews with the largest middleemen operating in Jatiwaringin revealed the quantitiies of valuables
recovered from the Jatiwaringin disposal site and the middlemens purchase prices as shownn in Table 4.1.6.
Waste pickers earn some 18,925,000 Rp/d
R
from the recovery of valuables at the disposal site.
s
Each waste
picker earns an average of 2,450 Rp/d.
Table 4.1.6 Quantities and Valuees of Valuables Recovered from the Jatiwaringin Disposal
D
Site
Type
Quantity
R
Recovered
(kg/d)
7,000
Sales Price (Rp/kg)

1,400
Total salees to (Rp/d)

9,800,000
1,000
1,000
2,000
50
1,400
1,400
1,400
700
1,400,000
1,400,000
2,800,000
35,000
20
50
1,000
20
143
1,000
500*
500*
3
50
14,336
1,400
700
1,400
1,400
1,400
1,400
400
250
1,400
1,400
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
(kg/d)
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
Sales to middlemen
(Source: Prepared by the authorrs of this report based on the interview results with middlemen)
m
140
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 isnt implemented,
and the following paragraphs examine problems from the viewpoint of environmental and social
consideration.
141
(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.
142
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 doesnt 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
143
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.
144
(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.
145
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 Construction of a new
concentrated into 1 treatment facility will
final disposal site, mitigate load, reduce
causing overload, and the number of incoming
there is concern over air vehicles and improve
pollution.
pollution, etc. caused air
of
a
by
transporting Construction
disposal site on the
vehicles.
west side of the regency
will resolve the issue of
over-concentration on
the east side.
Society
Concentration
of The
number
of Reduction
in
the
incoming vehicles is incoming vehicles will amount of incoming
causing
traffic fall,
leading
to waste will lead to
congestion.
improvement in traffic reduced employment on
congestion.
the disposal site.
Table 4.3.2 Present Environmental and Social Conditions and Improvement Effects and Impacts of
Item
Environmental Air
Aspect
the Project (in areas near the Project site)

Present Conditions
Improvement Effects
There is air pollution The Project will have
caused by smoke from the effect of improving
the autogenous ignition the existing disposal
preventing
of waste at the existing site,
disposal site. At one autogenous ignition to
the
air
survey site, the TSP improve
value of 414 gNm3 environment. For the
far
exceeds
the new disposal site, the
landfill
reference value (230 sanitary
method
with
no
g-Nm3).
autogenous
ignition
will be adopted.
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.
Impacts
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.
Treated leachate is
discharged from the
existing disposal site
and its environmental
load should be taken
into consideration.
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.
Waste
At
present,
the As the Project will take With the completion of
Jatiwaringin disposal place at land adjacent the Project, the area
146
Item
Present Conditions
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.
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
mg/liter was detected
at three boreholes,
including one located
in the upstream).
Noise and While there are no

Vibration
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.
Improvement Effects
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.
*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.
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.
Ground
Subsidence
No ground subsidence
has been observed.
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
mg/liter.
Although the bottom
The introduction of the

sanitary
landfill
method should curtail
the bad odour.
Bottom
147
Improvement
of
Impacts
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.
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.
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.
As no component of
the Project is likely to
cause
ground
subsidence, this aspect
can be disregarded.
It is important to
regularly cover the
dumped waste with
soil to prevent the
occurrence of bad
odour.
the As
an
increased
Item
Present Conditions
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.
Natural
There is a mangrove
Environment 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.
Sediment
Social Aspect
Relocation
of Residents
Local
Livelihood
There are some 10

temporary
buildings
used as dwellings, etc.
843 waste pickers earn
an average of 22,450
Rp per day from the
recovery of valuables.
Cultural
Assets
There are no cultural

assets designated by
the government
Landscape
River fields extend
over the project site
Indigenous
There
are
no
People and communities
of
Ethnic
indigenous people or
Minorities
ethnic
minorities
locally.
Work
The work environment
Environment is not quite safe
because of the piled up
waste and autogenous
ignition of the waste.
Transport
The access road is used
by some 115 dump
trucks
transporting
waste and 145 other
vehicles a day.
Improvement Effects
treated water to be
discharged to the river
should reduce the
burden on the river,
etc.
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.
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.
These
temporary
buildings will require
relocation.
There will be some
shifts of the local
production
and
industrial activities due
to the reduction of
farmland.
The construction of a
safe disposal site will
improve the work
environment.
148
Impacts
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.
No adverse impacts on
the
natural
environment in need of
protection will occur.
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.
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

[Alternative 1]
[Project]
Incineration (waste power
MBT + Managed final
generation) + Managed final
disposal site
disposal site
Incineration ash (including
Products from
Compost
fly-ash)
intermediate
Treatment residue
Treatment
residues
treatment
(noncombustible waste, etc.)
Leachate, exhaust gases,
Main
incineration ash (including
environmental
Leachate from disposal site
fly-ash) from disposal site
loads
Noteworthy
environmental
load substances
Environmental
improvement
effects
Social effects
Problems
BOD, COD, T-N, etc.
[Alternative 2]
Methane fermentation +
RDF + Managed final
disposal site
Biogas
RDF
Digestion
fluid
(including residues)
Leachate from disposal
site
Digestion fluid
concentration
HCl,NO2, CO, dioxins, heavy High
metals in flay-ash
organic wastewater
There is a large volume

reduction effect.
Compost can be effectively Compared to other options, Fuels such as biogas and
time
required
for RDF, etc. can be
utilized
as
covering the
treatment is short.
obtained.
material.
Electric power can be
obtained.
Employment
creation,
improvement
in
labor Securing of electric power
Securing of fuels
environment
Caution is required in
implementing
dioxin
countermeasures concerning
exhaust gases and incineration
ash
There are uncertainties
regarding
effective
The energy collection
Plastic bags, which are
utilization of digestion
effect is worse than in the
currently
collected
for
fluids and its treatment
alternative proposals.
recycling, have high potential
may increase costs.
for being incinerated with a
view to securing heating
value. This runs counter to the
goal of collecting resources.
149
In addition to incinerators, it
is possible that costs will rise
due to maintenance of exhaust
gas treatment facilities and
power generating facilities.
Compared to the alternative
proposals,
the
environmental load is lower If incineration facilities are
and maintenance costs are constructed, it is better in
terms
of
transportation
less.
efficiency to build them close
The obtained compost can to the city where wastes are
be used as cover soil for generated.
Applicability to
is
required
in
improving
Jatiwaringin Care
the Project
terms
disposal site (switch to environmental
sanitary landfilling) or it concerning exhaust gases and
can
be
returned
to dioxins.
farmland, etc. Due to the It is possible that maintenance
diversity of such uses, a costs will increase.
large contribution can be
made to the local area.
Overall
assessment
Good
Moderate
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.
Moderate

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.
150
Table 4.3.4 Likely Main Stakeholders in the Project

Central
Ministry of Environment
Government
Ministry of Public Works
Local
Government of Jakarta Raya (Governor, Cleansing Department)
Governments
Government
of
Tangerang
District
(Governors
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.

151
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
Decree of the Minister of State for Environment No. 11/2006 about Types of
the Minister
Business or Activity Compulsory Equipped with Environmental Impact Analysis
of State for
Environment 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

Working Procedure of the EIA Commission.

Establishment of Commission for the EIA Evaluation in Regency/City.
(Source: Ministry of Environment, Indonesia)
152
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
Applied to Projects
Applied to Policies, Plans and
Decision Making
Programs
Structure Nature
Applied to Operation
Strategitic, Abstract, Conceptual
Output
Detail
Abstract
Considered Range of Project Location/Site Decision, Design, Area,
Rule,
Technology,
Alternatives
Construction and Operation
Economy, Finance
Time Scale
Short to Medium
Medium to Long
Impact Capacity
Detailed Impact over Specified Impact over more Broad Range
Area
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 Achievement on Issues of
significant
Environmental
Sustainability, Review of
Negative Impact
Sources
causing
Environmental Burden
Fundamental
Evaluation, Compliance with Regulations Sustainable Standards and
Benchmark
and
Custom
Practices
Achievement of Goals
regarding Best Practices
(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
Policy
Plan
SEAKLHS
Project
AMDAL
Project
(Source: Peraturan Menteri Negara Lingkungan Hidup Nomor 27 Tahun 2009, Tentang Pedoman
Pelaksanaan Kajian Lingkungan Hidup Strategis)
153
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

Quantity
Scientific Justification
No
Kinds of activity
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
b.
TPA in Tidal Area
- Area of TPA or
- Total Capacity
c.
d.
e.
10 ha
10,000t
5 ha
5,000t
Transfer Station
- Total Capacity
1,000t/d
Integrated waste Management

- Total Capacity
500t/d
Management by using Incinerator

- Total Capacity
500t/d
Potential impacts are air pollution,

community health risk, odor,
illness vector and leachate
pollution
Fly ash and bottom ash, biogas

emission (H2S, NOx, SOx, COx
and dioxine)
Decree of the State Minister for Environment of the Republic of Indonesia concerning the Types of
Businesses
or
Activities
Required
to
Prepare
(KEP-11/MENLH/3/1994)
154
an
Environmental
Impact
Assessment
f.
Composting Plant
- Capacity
Potential impacts are air pollution,

community health risk, odor,
illness vector
and leachate
pollution
100t/d
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
Description
Original
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

SourcesGlobal Environmental Forum Overseas Environmental Measures of Japanese
Companies(Indonesia)
155
March, 1998
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

Project Owner
Government
Project Owner
Private Sector
(Not BKPM
Project Owner
Government
(BKPM related)
National Investment
Coordinating Agency
Responsible
Ministry/ Agency
AMDAL Committee in the

responsible Ministry/Agency
Screening the project

based on BAPEDAL
standard
Screening (whether or not there is

major impact)
AMDAL not
required
AMDAL
required
Small-scale or
it is possible to use
technology to minimize
impact.
KA-ANDAL reviewed by
Committee in 12 days
Recording as the project that is

environmentally managed in
accordance with Standard Operating
Procedure(SOP)
ANDAL/RKL/RPL
reviewed by Committee in
45 days
Approval for the project
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)
156
Figure 4.4.3 Process of AMDAL Implementation
Project Owner (Proponent)

Submission of
KA-ANDAL
AMDAL Commission
Acception of KAANDAL submission
Evaluation of KA-ANDAL
Review Revision
Submission of
ANDAL, RKL,
Decision making for KAANDAL approval
Requesting to prepare
ANDAL, RKL, RPL
Approval confirmation of
ANDAL, RKL, RPL
Evaluation of
ANDAL, RKL,
ReviewRevision
Approval Authority
Approval confirmation of
KA-ANDAL
Receiving the
approval
Approval for the project
(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)
157
Figure 4.4.4 Procedure of Public Participation and Information Disclosure

Project Owner (Proponent) Responsible Authority
Related Local Residence
Project
announcement
KA-ANDAL
preparation
Announcement of
EIA
Confirmation of
comments &
Confirmation of project
& EIA implementation
Comments & opinions
Discussion
Evaluation of
KA-ANDAL
Comments & Opinions
ANDAL, RKL, RPL

preparation
ANDAL, RKL, RPL
preparation
Approval for the
project
from environmental
(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.)
158
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
1 location each on the
Environmental Air
SO2, CO, NO2, 2 times per year
windward and leeward
consideration
TSP
sides
Particulate fallout
Wind
direction
and velocity
Treated leachate effluent
pH, BOD, COD, 4 times per year
SS, T-N, T-P, (depending on the
monthly
heavy metals, etc. item,
implementation may
be desirable)
Water
quality
pH, BOD, COD, 4 times per year

SS, T-N, T-P,
heavy metals, etc.
Bottom
sediment
Noise
Heavy
metals, 4 times per year
nitrate-nitrogen,
nitrite-nitrogen,
chloride
ion,
electric
conductivity
Heavy metals, etc. 1 time per year
and Noise
and 1 time per year
159
Water from 1 river

location each upstream
and downstream from the
disposal site discharge
point
2 neighboring wells
Bottom sediment from 1

river
location
each
upstream and downstream
from the disposal site
discharge point
1 location on the site
Item
vibration
Odor
Natural
environment
Ecosystem,
etc.
Social
consideration
Relocation
of residents
Livelihood
Monitoring Item
vibration on the
site and access
road
Frequency
Ammonia,
1 time per year
hydrogen sulfide,
etc.
Changes in the 1 time per year
ecosystem before
and
after
construction
Relocated number, Before start of work
amount
of
guarantee
Survey
of 1 time per year
employment and
income using the
interview method,
etc.
160
Location
boundary
1
location
on
incoming road
the
1 location each on the

windward and leeward
sides
Target area
Target area
Target area
Chapter 5
Financial and Economic Evaluation
161
162
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 JICAs investment and loan, and the rest is financed
from the market and own resources. JICAs 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%.
163
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
a) Geological Survey
b) Environmental Impact
Study
c) Development Permission
d) Basic Design for
Facilitaion
Total (1,000 Rp)
Total (thou. yen)
Total (1,000 USD)
Amount
(1,000 Rp)
465,000
Amount
(thou. yen)
4,000
581,000
5,000
116,000
1,000
1,163,000
10,000
2,325,000
20,000
258
20,000
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.
164
Table 5.1.2 List of the Initial Cost

Amount (CASE 1)
Thousand
1,000 Rp
yen
Item
i)
Amount (CASE 2)
Thousand
1,000 Rp
yen
Remarks
Local
currency
Local
40,000
currency
Local
178,000
currency
Formation of SPC
116,000
1,000
116,000
ii) Execution Design
5,814,000
50,000
4,651,000
20,698,000
178,000
20,748,000
220,909,000
1,900,000
572,402,000
4,922,660
Table
5.1.2AB
814,000,000
7,000,000
465,000,000
4,000,000
Table
5.1.2C
1,061,537,000 9,129,000 1,062,917,000

1,061,537,000 9,129,000
118,102
9,141,660
iii) Construction Management

iv) Civil Engineering and
Construction (mainly, final
disposal site, leachate
control reservoir, and
stormwater reservoir)
v) Equipment (mainly,
intermediate treatment
facility and leachate
treatment facility)
Total (1,000Rp)
Total (1,000USD)
1000
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
363,000
363,000
m3
m3
53,000
m3
310,000
20,000
21,800
129,000
11,200
m3
m2
m2
m2
m2
6,000
131,600
m2
Amount
Remarks
(JPYx1,000)
<347,283>
174
63,162 BH1.0
535
194,205
21t Bulldozer, Fill
with excavated soil,
including slope
473
25,069 ditches
Cost at Disposal
124
38,440 Field only
174
3,480
236
5,144
100
12,900
436
4,883 20mm thickness
<435,634>
3,733
22,398
Including a
Protection Layer
2,576
339,001 t=500
30,600
m2
2,426
Earthworks
Excavation
Soil Transportation
Embankment
Soil Disposal
Cut Slope Trimming
Fill Slope Trimming
Bottom Grading
Hydroseeding
Leachate Control Works
Membrane Anchor
Bottom Membrane Lining
Side Slope Membrane
Lining
165
Rate
(JPY)
74,235
Class
Item
Rate
(JPY)
Quantity
Unit
880
880
100
4
4
800
3,130
m
m
m
place
place
m
m
11,971
13,414
15,878
261,312
1,493,213
6,782
4,753
Buried Drain Pit

Pumping facility in Pit
2
2
place
place
186,652
3,733,032
Regulating tower
1
1
set
set
79,262,215
3,994,344
Storm Drainage Works

Concrete U-channel
Concrete U-channel
Concrete U-channel
Catchpit
Slab for channel crossing
Buried Drain
Buried Drain
Sewage
Works
Catchment Basin
Arterial Pipe Drain
Branch Pipe Drain
Gas Vent at Slope
Gas Vent Pipe
Administration Facilities
Access road
Wheel washing bay
Monitoring well
Track scale
Administration building
1
800
4,040
860
108
place
m
m
m
place
846,154
38,824
13,414
7,590
97,059
2,200
59,729
1
4
1
1
set
place
set
set
2,426,471
248,869
4,759,615
29,615,384
Ancillary
Works
Gate
Chain link fencing
Total Amount of Direct Works
1
4,000
set
m
373,303
6,222
set
151,189,000
Temporary Works
Site expense, tax, etc.
Total Amount
Sewage Plant
Grand Total Amount

166
Amount
(JPYx1,000)
<142,338>
10,534
11,804
1,587
1,045
5,972
5,425
14,876
Remarks
U-16006001000
U-210011001000
U-280018001000
300
150
Excluding Pumping
373 Facility
7,466
Including Box
79,262 Culvert 4.5x2x20m
3,994
<103,106>
846
31,059
54,192
6,527
10,482
<169,198>
H=6.0m
700
200
200
600
Asphalt Pavement,
131,403 W=8.0m
with a high pressure
washer, excluding
2,426 power supply
995 L=20m
4,759
29,615 340m2
<25,261>
373
24,888 H=1.8m
1,222,820
10% of Direct
122,282 Works
30% of Above
403,530 Total
1,748,632
<151,189>
All (including
expense, etc.) for
151,189 Basing only
1,899,821
Table 5.1.2B: Cost of Civil Engineering and Construction

(Initial Cost for Final Disposal Site) (CASE 2)
Rate
Amount
Class
Item
Quantity
Unit
Remarks
(JPY)
(JPYx1,000)
Earthworks
<1,043,098>
3
Excavation
1,126,000
m
174
195,924 BH1.0
Soil Transportation
1,126,000
m3
535
602,410
21t Bulldozer, Fill
with excavated soil,
including slope
Embankment
117,000
m3
473
55,341 ditches
Cost at Disposal
Soil Disposal
1,009,000
m3
124
125,116 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 thickness
Leachate Control Works
<1,283,829>
Membrane Anchor
11,900
m
3,733
44,422
Including a
Protection Layer
Bottom Membrane Lining
404,100
m2
2,576
1,040,961 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-16006001000
Concrete U-channel
440
m
13,414
5,902 U-210011001000
Concrete U-channel
440
m
14,808
6,515 U-250015001000
Concrete U-channel
440
m
15,878
6,986 U-280018001000
Concrete U-channel
440
m
17,421
7,665 U-310021001000
Concrete U-channel
880
m
18,279
16,085 U-340024001000
Concrete U-channel
100
m
19,424
1,942 U-420027001500
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
16,276 300
Buried Drain
9,390
m
4,753
44,630 150
Excluding Pumping
Buried Drain Pit
6 place
186,652
1,119 Facility
Pumping facility in Pit
6 place
3,733,032
22,398
Including Box
1
set
79,262,218
79,262 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
93,177 700
Branch Pipe Drain
12,120
m
13,414
162,577 200
Gas Vent at Slope
2,160
m
7,590
16,394 200
Gas Vent Pipe
324 place
97,059
31,447 600
Administration Facilities
<264,765>
Asphalt Pavement,
Access road
3,800
m
59,729
226,970 W=8.0m
with a high pressure
washer, excluding
Wheel washing bay
1
set
2,426,471
2,426 power supply
167
Class
Item
Quantity
Monitoring well
Track scale
Administration building
Rate
Amount
Remarks
(JPY)
(JPYx1,000)
248,869
995 L=20m
4,759,615
4,759 340m2
29,615,385
29,615
Unit
4
1
1
place
set
set
Ancillary
Works
Gate
Chain link fencing
Total Amount of Direct Works
1
4,000
set
m
373,303
6,222
set
393,212,000
<25,261>
373
24,888 H=1.8m
3,167,447
10% of Direct
316,744 Works
30% of Above
1,045,257 Total
4,529,448
<393,212>
All (including
expense, etc.) for
393,212 Basing only
4,922,660
Temporary Works
Site expense, tax, etc.
Total Amount
Sewage Plant
Grand Total Amount

Table 5.1.2C: Cost of Equipment

(Initial cost for intermediate treatment facility)
No
1
Main
Process
equipment/machine
Bag breaker*
Bag breaker
Capacity: 80m3/h
Manual sorting
Conveyor
3m width 60m8
2
3
4
5
6
Specifications
CASE 1
(thousand yens) (thousand yens)
rows
Magnetic sorting*
Magnetic sorter
Fermentation
Shovel loader
200,000
200,000
100,000
100,000
200,000
200,000
200,000
200,000
600,000
300,000
2,500,000
3,800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
5,000,000
2,000,000
30 1.5m3 buckets
Mechanical sorting
Mechanical sorter
Capacity: 261.88m3/h
RDF manufacturing
Presser, bailer
480t/d
(only for CASE )
Building
CASE
Facilities to accept and store waste,

manufacture compost and other
Total
*: Indicated in Japanese yen (for both CASE 1 and CASE 2)

Table 5.1.2D Cost of Equipment
168
(initial cost for intermediate treatment facility, all in Japanese yens

Main facility
(i)
Fee (1,000 yens)
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
2,000,000
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
169
Table 5.1.3 List of the O&M Cost (Annual)

CostCASE 1
Item
Landfill
1,000 Rp
CostCASE 2
1,000 yen
1,000 Rp
1,000 yen
Labor
2,403,000
20,670
3,794,000
32,630
Utility
4,314,000
37,101
12,974,000
111,578
608,000
5,229
1,330,000
11,436
7,325,000
63,000
18,098,000
155,644
18,291,000
157,300
18,291,000
157,300
30,698,000
264,000
21,488,000
184,800
24,419,000
210,000
13,953,000
120,000
73,408,000
631,300
53,732,000
462,100
80,733,000
694,300
71,830,000
617,744
Facility
Maintenance
Subtotal
Labor (for work
other
Intermediate
than
manual sorting)
(for
treatment and Labor
manual sorting)
leachate
treatment
Operation
and
maintenance
Subtotal
Grand Total
Total (1,000 USD)
8,959
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
7,971

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.
170
Table 5.1.4 A Labor Cost (for final disposal site)

Unit cost
(yen)
Item
Plant manager
Staffs in charge of general affairs
Staffs in charge of Weighing
Staffs in charge of facilities
maintenancer
Staffs in charge of landfill work
Total
No. of
staff
3,250,000
1,560,000
910,000
1,040,000
650,000
CASE 1
Personnel
expenses
1
3,250,000
2
3,120,000
4
3,640,000
4
4,160,000
10
6,500,000
20,670,000
(Unit; yen/y)
CASE 2
Personnel
expenses
1
3,250,000
2
3,120,000
10
9,100,000
4
4,160,000
No. of
staff
20
13,000,000
32,630,000
Table 5.1.4B Labor Cost

(for intermediate treatment and leachate treatment facility; apply for both CASE 1 and CASE 2)
Unit
(1,000 yen/y per
person)
Item
Manager of facility
Shovel loader operator
No. of
staff/group
No. of
group
Total
no. of
staff
Labor cost
(1,000 yen/y)
1,040
10
20
20,800
650
70
210
136,500
Total
157,300
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
1,200
264,000
CASE 2
220
280
840
184,800
171
a.
Utility
Cost related to utility is shown in Table 5.1.5.
Table 5.1.5 Utility

Item
Heavy
machinery
lease charge
Fuel cost
Cover earth cost
Total
Annual cost (yen/y)

CASE 1
CASE 2
21,600,000
0
15,501,000
37,101,000
Remarks
Bulldozer, back-how, dump truck,

tire roller
0 Light diesel oil Include in the
heavy machinery lease charge.
68,378,000 Earth-filled dam
111,578,000
43,200,000
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
Length
of
gas
extraction pipes
Drainage channels
installation
Drainage channel
cleaning, etc.
Total
CASE 1
388,800
880,000
3,960,000
5,228,800
CASE 2
Remarks
1,166,400
2,350,000 Slope steps
7,920,000 10% increase for cost of expendable

items
11,436,400
172
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
Plastics
Metals (Iron,
Aluminum)
Glass
Compost (from
household waste)
Compost (from
market waste)
RDF
CASE 1
Output
Input
CASE 2
Yield of Input
Output
Yield of
collection
collection
ratio
ratio
68
35%
195
68
35%
12
90%
13
12
90%
t/d
t/d
195
13
t/d
t/d
26
301
9
139
35%
46%
26
301
9
139
35%
46%
t/d
68
26
38%
68
26
38%
t/d
430
430
100%
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.
173
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
OM Cost
1,000 yen/y
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

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
OM cost
1,000 yen /y
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

(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.
174
Table 5.2.4 Initial Investment Cost

Item
Land procurement cost
CASE
1,000Rp
CASE
1,000 yens
1,000Rp
1,000 yens
60,000,000
516,000
60,000,000
516,000
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
3,438,309,000
29,569,251
3,384,436,000
29,106,158
Preparation
Total
Total in USD
1,000USD
381,539
375,563
175
Table 5.2.5 Total initial investment cost, annual treatment volume, and annual revenue and expenditure (for each item and its sum)CASE
Unit: 1,000yen/y
Year
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Waste treatment
volume (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
Revenue
Tipping 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 sorted

recyclables
Sales of PDF
Sales of compost
360,043
506,255
40,807
360,043
506,255
40,807
360,043
506,255
40,807
360,043
506,255
40,807
360,043
506,255
40,807
360,043
506,255
40,807
360,043
506,255
40,807
360,043
506,255
40,807
360,043
506,255
40,807
360,043
506,255
40,807
360,043
506,255
40,807
360,043
506,255
40,807
360,043
506,255
40,807
360,043
506,255
40,807
360,043
506,255
40,807
360,043
506,255
40,807
360,043
506,255
40,807
360,043
506,255
40,807
360,043
506,255
40,807
360,043
506,255
40,807
10,125,100
816,140
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
0
35,940,236
Operating year
Total revenue
176
Expenditure
Labor cost (for final
disposal site, manual
sorting, operator, etc.)
Consumables
Maintenance of final
disposal site
Utility of final disposal
site
O&M for intermediate
and leachate treatment
facilities
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
2035 Total
441,970
7,200,866
8,839,400
0
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
104,580
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
742,020
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
0
Total balance
(exluding
depreciation, interst
rate, 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
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
CASE 1
FIRR
No shortage:
Refer to Table 5.2.7
NPV
B/C
12.2%
5.8 billion yen
1.24
6.8%
1 billion yen
1.07
Shortage:
Refer to Table 5.2.8
CASE 2
(In order to keep FIRR at 7%, tipping fee was

raised by 16% (i.e. 219,240Rp/t, 24USD/tor
1,885 /t))
*Discount rate was set at 6%

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).
177
178
Loan balance at the fiscal year end

JICA loan
Private long-term loan
Private short-term loan
Fund raising
Owned capital
Subisidy
JICA Grant
JICA loan
Balance at the fiscal year end

Balance brought forward
6,390,000
1,825,200
0
6,390,000
1,825,200
6,390,000
1,825,200
0
734,596
734,596
6,390,000
1,825,200
0
734,596
1,469,191
91.79%
185.34%
Repayment for JICA loan

Repayment for private long-term loan
Repayment for private short-term loan
62.43%
91.79%
185.34%
456,000
88,141
1,425,551
969,551
456,000
88,141
1,425,551
969,551
62.43%
5,229
37,101
210,000
95,850
91,260
371,461
92,865
278,596
441,970
5,229
37,101
210,000
95,850
91,260
1,797,012
889,907
360,043
506,255
40,807
2017
441,970
1,797,012
889,907
360,043
506,255
40,807
2016
Recovery(revenue/OM cost)tax exmpted

Recovery(revenue/OM cost)with tax
Recovery(revenue/OM cost excluding depreciation)
Recovery(revenue/OM including reduction revenue)
912,800
9,128,000
9,128,000
50,000
178,000
1,900,000
7,000,000
2015
371,461
92,865
278,596
21,000
21,000
516,000
21,000
516,000
20,000
1,000
2014
516,000
516,000
2013
Profit before tax(income-OM expenses)

Corporate income tax
Profit after tax
Operating expenses
Manpower cost
Consumables
Maintenance cost
Utility cost
O&M cost of Intermediate and leachate treatment
Interest payment for JICA Loan
Interest payment for private longterm loan
Interest payment for short-term loan
Depreciation
Contingency
Total operating expenses
(excluding depreciation)
Total Income
Tipping fee
Hand sorting recyclable material selling
RDF selling
Compost seling
Civil engineering construction cost

Material and machinery cost
Commercialize cost(Including EIA
Instrumentation & Cabling, Piping
Freight (15% of Japanese Supply)
Physical Contingency
Engineering (15%)
VAT
Sub-total
Interest during the construction
Total
Supervising cost
Project year
Capital expense
land acquisition
SPC establishment cost
Detail Design cost
Year
6,390,000
1,825,200
0
734,596
2,938,382
0
0
0
91.79%
185.34%
62.43%
371,461
92,865
278,596
5,229
37,101
210,000
95,850
91,260
0
456,000
88,141
1,425,551
969,551
441,970
1,797,012
889,907
360,043
506,255
40,807
2019
6,390,000
1,642,680
0
552,076
3,490,458
0
182,520
0
91.79%
185.34%
62.43%
371,461
92,865
278,596
5,229
37,101
210,000
95,850
91,260
0
456,000
88,141
1,425,551
969,551
441,970
1,797,012
889,907
360,043
506,255
40,807
2020
5,964,000
1,460,160
0
133,605
3,624,063
426,000
182,520
0
92.75%
187.28%
62.87%
381,500
95,375
286,125
5,229
37,101
210,000
95,850
82,134
0
456,000
87,228
1,415,512
959,512
441,970
1,797,012
889,907
360,043
506,255
40,807
2021
5,538,000
1,277,640
0
146,405
3,770,468
426,000
182,520
0
94.43%
190.68%
63.64%
398,567
99,642
298,925
5,229
37,101
210,000
89,460
73,008
0
456,000
85,677
1,398,445
942,445
441,970
1,797,012
889,907
360,043
506,255
40,807
10
2022
5,112,000
1,095,120
0
159,206
3,929,674
426,000
182,520
0
96.17%
194.19%
64.42%
415,635
103,909
311,726
5,229
37,101
210,000
83,070
63,882
0
456,000
84,125
1,381,377
925,377
441,970
1,797,012
889,907
360,043
506,255
40,807
11
2023
4,686,000
912,600
0
172,006
4,101,680
426,000
182,520
0
97.97%
197.84%
65.23%
432,702
108,175
324,526
5,229
37,101
210,000
76,680
54,756
0
456,000
82,574
1,364,310
908,310
441,970
1,797,012
889,907
360,043
506,255
40,807
12
2024
4,260,000
730,080
0
184,807
4,286,488
426,000
182,520
0
99.85%
201.63%
66.05%
449,770
112,442
337,327
5,229
37,101
210,000
70,290
45,630
0
456,000
81,022
1,347,242
891,242
441,970
1,797,012
889,907
360,043
506,255
40,807
13
2025
Table 5.2.7 Project Cash Flow (CASE 1)
889,907
360,043
506,255
40,807
14
2026
3,834,000
547,560
0
197,608
4,484,096
426,000
182,520
0
101.80%
205.57%
66.90%
466,838
116,709
350,128
5,229
37,101
210,000
63,900
36,504
0
456,000
79,470
1,330,174
874,174
441,970
1,797,012
6,390,000
1,825,200
0
734,596
2,203,787
0
0
0
91.79%
185.34%
62.43%
371,461
92,865
278,596
456,000
88,141
1,425,551
969,551
5,229
37,101
210,000
95,850
91,260
441,970
1,797,012
889,907
360,043
506,255
40,807
2018
3,408,000
365,040
0
210,409
4,694,505
426,000
182,520
0
103.83%
209.66%
67.77%
483,905
120,976
362,929
5,229
37,101
210,000
57,510
27,378
0
456,000
77,919
1,313,107
857,107
441,970
1,797,012
889,907
360,043
506,255
40,807
15
2027
2,982,000
182,520
0
223,210
4,917,714
426,000
182,520
0
105.94%
213.92%
68.66%
500,973
125,243
375,730
5,229
37,101
210,000
51,120
18,252
0
456,000
76,367
1,296,039
840,039
441,970
1,797,012
889,907
360,043
506,255
40,807
16
2028
2,556,000
0
0
236,010
5,153,724
426,000
182,520
0
108.13%
218.36%
69.58%
518,040
129,510
388,530
5,229
37,101
210,000
44,730
9,126
0
456,000
74,816
1,278,972
822,972
441,970
1,797,012
889,907
360,043
506,255
40,807
17
2029
2,130,000
0
0
431,331
5,585,055
426,000
0
0
110.42%
222.98%
70.52%
535,108
133,777
401,331
5,229
37,101
210,000
38,340
0
0
456,000
73,264
1,261,904
805,904
441,970
1,797,012
889,907
360,043
506,255
40,807
18
2030
1,704,000
0
0
436,603
6,021,658
426,000
0
0
111.39%
224.94%
70.92%
542,137
135,534
406,603
5,229
37,101
210,000
31,950
0
0
456,000
72,625
1,254,875
798,875
441,970
1,797,012
889,907
360,043
506,255
40,807
19
2031
1,278,000
0
0
441,874
6,463,532
426,000
0
0
112.38%
226.94%
71.32%
549,166
137,291
411,874
5,229
37,101
210,000
25,560
0
0
456,000
71,986
1,247,846
791,846
441,970
1,797,012
889,907
360,043
506,255
40,807
20
2032
852,000
0
0
447,146
6,910,678
426,000
0
0
113.39%
228.97%
71.72%
556,195
139,049
417,146
5,229
37,101
210,000
19,170
0
0
456,000
71,347
1,240,817
784,817
441,970
1,797,012
889,907
360,043
506,255
40,807
21
2033
426,000
0
0
452,418
7,363,096
426,000
0
0
87.40%
231.04%
41.03%
563,224
140,806
422,418
5,229
37,101
210,000
12,780
0
0
456,000
70,708
1,233,788
777,788
441,970
1,797,012
889,907
360,043
506,255
40,807
22
2034
0
0
0
457,690
7,820,786
426,000
0
0
86.61%
233.15%
41.27%
570,253
142,563
427,690
5,229
37,101
210,000
6,390
0
0
456,000
70,069
1,226,759
770,759
441,970
1,797,012
889,907
360,043
506,255
40,807
23
2035
179

JBIC
Fund raising
Owned capital
Subisidy
JICA Grant
JBIC loan

Repayment for JBIC loan

0
0
21,000
21,000
0
0
516,000
516,000
6,398,000
1,828,594
0
6,398,000
1,828,594
9,140,660
914,066
6,398,000
1,828,594
0
584,932
584,932
6,398,000
1,828,594
0
584,932
1,169,864
82.85%
125.60%
170.86%
457,000
80,514
1,342,658
885,658
457,000
80,514
1,342,658
885,658
82.85%
11,436
111,578
120,000
95,970
91,430
170,576
42,644
127,932
374,730
11,436
111,578
120,000
95,970
91,430
1,513,233
1,112,383
360,043
0
40,807
374,730
1,513,233
40,807
1,112,383
360,043
2017
125.60%
170.86%
0
0
9,140,660
2016

21,000
516,000
9,140,660
40,000
178,000
4,922,660
4,000,000
2015
170,576
42,644
127,932
21,000
20,000
1,000
2014
516,000
516,000
2013

Profit after tax
Operating expenses
Manpower cost
Consumables
Maintenance cost
Utility cost
Interest payment for JBIC Loan
Depreciation
Contingency
Total Income
Tipping fee
RDF seling
Compost seling

Commercialize cost
Engineering (15%)
VAT
Sub-total
Total
Supervising cost
Project year
Capital expense
land acquisition
Detail Design cost
Year
6,398,000
1,828,594
0
584,932
1,754,795
0
0
0
125.60%
170.86%
82.85%
170,576
42,644
127,932
457,000
80,514
1,342,658
885,658
11,436
111,578
120,000
95,970
91,430
374,730
1,513,233
1,112,383
360,043
0
40,807
2018
6,398,000
1,645,735
0
402,072
2,741,800
0
182,859
0
125.60%
170.86%
82.85%
170,576
42,644
127,932
11,436
111,578
120,000
95,970
91,430
0
457,000
80,514
1,342,658
885,658
374,730
1,513,233
1,112,383
360,043
0
40,807
2020
5,971,467
1,462,875
0
-16,918
2,724,881
426,533
182,859
0
127.04%
172.82%
83.47%
180,633
45,158
135,475
11,436
111,578
120,000
95,970
82,287
0
457,000
79,600
1,332,601
875,601
374,730
1,513,233
1,112,383
360,043
0
40,807
2021
5,544,933
1,930,016
0
650,000
1,000,000
350,000
-1,028,847
1,696,034
426,533
182,859
0
124.78%
169.74%
82.49%
164,728
41,182
123,546
11,436
111,578
150,000
89,572
73,144
0
457,000
81,046
1,348,506
891,506
374,730
1,513,233
1,112,383
360,043
0
40,807
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
10
2022
5,118,400
1,747,156
0
-30,338
1,665,696
426,533
182,859
0
122.22%
166.26%
78.49%
96,073
24,018
72,054
11,436
111,578
150,000
83,174
96,501
0
507,000
82,742
1,417,161
910,161
374,730
1,513,233
1,112,383
360,043
0
40,807
11
2023
4,691,867
1,564,297
0
-17,517
1,648,179
426,533
182,859
0
124.56%
169.44%
79.45%
113,168
28,292
84,876
11,436
111,578
150,000
76,776
87,358
0
507,000
81,188
1,400,066
893,066
374,730
1,513,233
1,112,383
360,043
0
40,807
12
2024
4,265,333
1,381,438
0
-4,696
1,643,483
426,533
182,859
0
126.99%
172.75%
80.43%
130,263
32,566
97,697
11,436
111,578
150,000
70,378
78,215
0
507,000
79,634
1,382,971
875,971
374,730
1,513,233
1,112,383
360,043
0
40,807
13
2025
3,838,800
1,133,578
0
-56,875
1,586,609
426,533
247,859
0
129.52%
176.19%
81.44%
147,358
36,839
110,518
11,436
111,578
150,000
63,980
69,072
0
507,000
78,080
1,365,876
858,876
374,730
1,513,233
1,112,383
360,043
0
40,807
14
2026
6,398,000
1,828,594
0
584,932
2,339,727
0
0
0
125.60%
170.86%
82.85%
170,576
42,644
127,932
11,436
111,578
120,000
95,970
91,430
0
457,000
80,514
1,342,658
885,658
374,730
1,513,233
1,112,383
360,043
0
40,807
2019
Table 5.2.8 Project Cash Flow (CASE 2)
3,412,267
885,719
0
-41,371
1,545,237
426,533
247,859
0
132.71%
180.53%
82.69%
168,029
42,007
126,021
11,436
111,578
150,000
57,582
56,679
0
507,000
76,200
1,345,205
838,205
374,730
1,513,233
1,112,383
360,043
0
40,807
15
2027
2,985,733
637,859
0
-25,869
1,519,368
426,533
247,859
0
136.07%
185.10%
83.98%
188,698
47,175
141,524
11,436
111,578
150,000
51,184
44,286
0
507,000
74,321
1,324,535
817,535
374,730
1,513,233
1,112,383
360,043
0
40,807
16
2028
2,559,200
390,000
300,000
300,000
1,000,000
700,000
-35,116
1,484,252
426,533
247,859
0
134.04%
182.35%
83.21%
176,368
44,092
132,276
11,436
111,578
180,000
44,786
31,893
0
507,000
75,442
1,336,865
829,865
374,730
1,513,233
1,112,383
360,043
0
40,807
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
17
2029
2,132,667
325,000
300,000
150,995
1,635,248
426,533
65,000
0
132.08%
179.68%
79.50%
114,038
28,510
85,529
11,436
111,578
180,000
38,388
19,500
30,000
557,000
76,563
1,399,195
842,195
374,730
1,513,233
1,112,383
360,043
0
40,807
18
2030
1,706,133
260,000
240,000
98,955
1,734,203
426,533
65,000
60,000
133.77%
181.97%
80.11%
124,651
31,163
93,489
11,436
111,578
180,000
31,990
16,250
30,000
557,000
75,598
1,388,582
831,582
374,730
1,513,233
1,112,383
360,043
0
40,807
19
2031
1,279,600
195,000
180,000
111,864
1,846,067
426,533
65,000
60,000
136.59%
185.82%
81.11%
141,863
35,466
106,398
11,436
111,578
180,000
25,592
13,000
24,000
557,000
74,034
1,371,370
814,370
374,730
1,513,233
1,112,383
360,043
0
40,807
20
2032
853,067
130,000
120,000
124,774
1,970,841
426,533
65,000
60,000
139.54%
189.83%
82.15%
159,076
39,769
119,307
11,436
111,578
180,000
19,194
9,750
18,000
557,000
72,469
1,354,157
797,157
374,730
1,513,233
1,112,383
360,043
0
40,807
21
2033
426,533
65,000
60,000
137,684
2,108,525
426,533
65,000
60,000
70.11%
194.02%
0.00%
176,289
44,072
132,217
11,436
111,578
180,000
12,796
6,500
12,000
557,000
70,904
1,336,944
779,944
374,730
1,513,233
1,112,383
360,043
0
40,807
22
2034
0
0
0
150,593
2,259,118
426,533
65,000
60,000
68.57%
198.40%
0.00%
193,502
48,376
145,127
11,436
111,578
180,000
6,398
3,250
6,000
557,000
69,339
1,319,731
762,731
374,730
1,513,233
1,112,383
360,043
0
40,807
23
178,000
40,000
1,000
516,000
300,000
2,478,594
0
6,398,000
2,501,066
11,677,660
2,259,118
300,000
2,478,594
6,398,000
2,345,712
781,904
3,127,616
17,047,052
27,137,052
1,549,730
10,090,000
120,000
1,144,832
1,247,610
3,030,000
2,231,560
228,720
7,494,600
0
30,264,669
816,140
7,200,866
22,247,663
11,677,660
11,677,660
0
0
20,000
6,000,000
4,922,660
2035 Total
Issues that should be considered when calculating economic internal rate of return (EIRR) are as follows:
a.
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
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.
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/kg430t/d2.4MJ/t2.4kg-CO2/kg(3.6MJ/kg3.6MJ/kWh0.2-200kWh/t)430t/d
0.5kg-CO2/kWh645t-CO2/d
180
In monetary terms: 860t-CO2/d500yen/t-CO2365d160 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
Present revenue
When tipping fee
declines
CASE 1
FIRR
B/C
22.4%
1.24
1.16
19.4%
NPV
28 billion yen
14 billion yen
Cash flow
OK
OK

(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
Present revenue
When RDF
selling price
declines
CASE1
FIRR
12.2%
B/C
1.24
1.03
NPV
5.8 billion yen

2.3 billion yen
8.9%
181
Cash flow
OK
OK
182

JICA loan
Fund raising
Owned capital
Subisidy
JICA Grant
JICA loan

6,390,000
1,825,200
0
6,390,000
1,825,200
6,390,000
1,825,200
0
593,341
593,341
6,390,000
1,825,200
0
593,341
1,186,681
72.36%
165.92%

49.21%
72.36%
165.92%
456,000
88,141
1,425,551
969,551
456,000
88,141
1,425,551
969,551
49.21%
5,229
37,101
210,000
95,850
91,260
183,121
45,780
137,341
441,970
5,229
37,101
210,000
95,850
91,260
1,608,672
701,567
360,043
506,255
40,807
2017
441,970
1,608,672
701,567
360,043
506,255
40,807
2016

912,800
9,128,000
9,128,000
50,000
178,000
1,900,000
7,000,000
2015
183,121
45,780
137,341
21,000
21,000
516,000
21,000
516,000
20,000
1,000
2014
516,000
516,000
2013

Profit after tax
Operating expenses
Manpower cost
Consumables
Maintenance cost
Utility cost
Depreciation
Contingency
Total Income
Tipping fee
RDF selling
Compost seling

Engineering (15%)
VAT
Sub-total
Total
Supervising cost
Project year
Capital expense
land acquisition
Detail Design cost
Year
6,390,000
1,825,200
0
593,341
2,373,362
0
0
0
72.36%
165.92%
49.21%
183,121
45,780
137,341
5,229
37,101
210,000
95,850
91,260
0
456,000
88,141
1,425,551
969,551
441,970
1,608,672
701,567
360,043
506,255
40,807
2019
6,390,000
1,642,680
0
410,821
2,784,183
0
182,520
0
72.36%
165.92%
49.21%
183,121
45,780
137,341
5,229
37,101
210,000
95,850
91,260
0
456,000
88,141
1,425,551
969,551
441,970
1,608,672
701,567
360,043
506,255
40,807
2020
5,964,000
1,460,160
0
-7,650
2,776,533
426,000
182,520
0
73.12%
167.66%
49.56%
193,160
48,290
144,870
5,229
37,101
210,000
95,850
82,134
0
456,000
87,228
1,415,512
959,512
441,970
1,608,672
701,567
360,043
506,255
40,807
2021
5,538,000
1,277,640
0
5,150
2,781,683
426,000
182,520
0
74.44%
170.69%
50.17%
210,227
52,557
157,670
5,229
37,101
210,000
89,460
73,008
0
456,000
85,677
1,398,445
942,445
441,970
1,608,672
701,567
360,043
506,255
40,807
10
2022
5,112,000
1,095,120
0
17,951
2,799,634
426,000
182,520
0
75.81%
173.84%
50.79%
227,295
56,824
170,471
5,229
37,101
210,000
83,070
63,882
0
456,000
84,125
1,381,377
925,377
441,970
1,608,672
701,567
360,043
506,255
40,807
11
2023
4,686,000
912,600
0
30,751
2,830,385
426,000
182,520
0
77.24%
177.11%
51.42%
244,362
61,090
183,271
5,229
37,101
210,000
76,680
54,756
0
456,000
82,574
1,364,310
908,310
441,970
1,608,672
701,567
360,043
506,255
40,807
12
2024
4,260,000
730,080
0
43,552
2,873,938
426,000
182,520
0
78.72%
180.50%
52.07%
261,430
65,357
196,072
5,229
37,101
210,000
70,290
45,630
0
456,000
81,022
1,347,242
891,242
441,970
1,608,672
701,567
360,043
506,255
40,807
13
2025
3,834,000
547,560
0
56,353
2,930,291
426,000
182,520
0
80.25%
184.02%
52.74%
278,498
69,624
208,873
5,229
37,101
210,000
63,900
36,504
0
456,000
79,470
1,330,174
874,174
441,970
1,608,672
701,567
360,043
506,255
40,807
14
2026
6,390,000
1,825,200
0
593,341
1,780,022
0
0
0
72.36%
165.92%
49.21%
183,121
45,780
137,341
456,000
88,141
1,425,551
969,551
5,229
37,101
210,000
95,850
91,260
441,970
1,608,672
701,567
360,043
506,255
40,807
2018
3,408,000
365,040
0
69,154
2,999,445
426,000
182,520
0
81.85%
187.69%
53.43%
295,565
73,891
221,674
5,229
37,101
210,000
57,510
27,378
0
456,000
77,919
1,313,107
857,107
441,970
1,608,672
701,567
360,043
506,255
40,807
15
2027
2,982,000
182,520
0
81,955
3,081,399
426,000
182,520
0
83.52%
191.50%
54.13%
312,633
78,158
234,475
5,229
37,101
210,000
51,120
18,252
0
456,000
76,367
1,296,039
840,039
441,970
1,608,672
701,567
360,043
506,255
40,807
16
2028
Table 5.2.9 Project cash flow when tipping fee declines (CASE 1)
2,556,000
0
0
94,755
3,176,154
426,000
182,520
0
85.25%
195.47%
54.85%
329,700
82,425
247,275
5,229
37,101
210,000
44,730
9,126
0
456,000
74,816
1,278,972
822,972
441,970
1,608,672
701,567
360,043
506,255
40,807
17
2029
2,130,000
0
0
290,076
3,466,230
426,000
0
0
87.05%
199.61%
55.60%
346,768
86,692
260,076
5,229
37,101
210,000
38,340
0
0
456,000
73,264
1,261,904
805,904
441,970
1,608,672
701,567
360,043
506,255
40,807
18
2030
1,704,000
0
0
295,348
3,761,578
426,000
0
0
87.82%
201.37%
55.91%
353,797
88,449
265,348
5,229
37,101
210,000
31,950
0
0
456,000
72,625
1,254,875
798,875
441,970
1,608,672
701,567
360,043
506,255
40,807
19
2031
1,278,000
0
0
300,619
4,062,197
426,000
0
0
88.60%
203.15%
56.22%
360,826
90,206
270,619
5,229
37,101
210,000
25,560
0
0
456,000
71,986
1,247,846
791,846
441,970
1,608,672
701,567
360,043
506,255
40,807
20
2032
852,000
0
0
305,891
4,368,088
426,000
0
0
89.39%
204.97%
56.54%
367,855
91,964
275,891
5,229
37,101
210,000
19,170
0
0
456,000
71,347
1,240,817
784,817
441,970
1,608,672
701,567
360,043
506,255
40,807
21
2033
426,000
0
0
311,163
4,679,251
426,000
0
0
110.86%
206.83%
41.03%
374,884
93,721
281,163
5,229
37,101
210,000
12,780
0
0
456,000
70,708
1,233,788
777,788
441,970
1,608,672
701,567
360,043
506,255
40,807
22
2034
0
0
0
316,435
4,995,686
426,000
0
0
109.86%
208.71%
41.27%
381,913
95,478
286,435
5,229
37,101
210,000
6,390
0
0
456,000
70,069
1,226,759
770,759
441,970
1,608,672
701,567
360,043
506,255
40,807
23
516,000
1,000
1,449,800
0
0
6,390,000
1,825,200
4,995,686
1,825,200
0
6,390,000
5,454,514
1,363,629
4,090,886
26,718,922
17,598,922
866,970
0
9,120,000
1,599,902
742,020
4,200,000
1,246,050
8,839,400
0
104,580
0
32,173,436
7,200,866
10,125,100
816,140
14,031,330
0
0
0
9,665,000
0
9,665,000
7,000,000
20,000
0
0
50,000
178,000
1,900,000
2035 Total
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.
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.
183
184
Chapter 6
Planned Project Schedule
185
186
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.
187
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 JICAs 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
2012
1
2013
8
9 10 11 12 1
2014
8
9 10 11 12 1
2015
8
9 10 11 12 1
Pre Feasibility Study

Discussions with DKI Jakarta
on Project Implementation
Establishment of the Project
Development Company for
Land Acquisition
Starting Land Acquisition in
Tangerang
Revision of MOU on Waste
Reception Between Kab.
Tangerang and DKI Jakarta
Recommendation to JICA on
Project Preparation Study for
PPP Project
Implementation of the
Preparation Study for PPP
Project
Final Recommendation to DKI
Jakarta
Official Authorization/Approval
of the Project by DKI Jakarta
EIA and Application for
Development Permits of the
Project
Waste Management
Concession Agreement with
DKI Jakarta
Establishment of SPC
Approval of JICA Loan and
Investment
Facility Construction
Completion of Construction
(Source: Prepared by the Authors of this Report)
188
2016
8
9 10 11 12
Chapter7
Implementing Organizations
189
190
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.
191
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
office
of
Secretariat
General Affairs
Section
Personal Affairs
Section
Planning
Section
Tchnology Section
Managemnet Section
Facility Section
Maintenance
Education
In charge of waste
Purchese
Public Information
Technical Development
Disposal
Storage
Instruction
Education
Monitoring
Reparing
Propagation
Disposal
Technology
Technology
General
Infrastructure
improvement
Septic tank
Acounting
Section
Coast
Inventory
Disposal
management
Waste
management
Septic
tank
Community
propagation
Business
Infrastructure
improvement
Disposal management of
areas
(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.
192
Table7.1.1 Composition of Staff
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Temporary Staff
Full-time
AdminisStaff
Technical In North Composting
tration
330
22
0
0
22
Central Jakarta
267
532
0
0
90
North Jakarta
195
538
40
10
51
West Jakarta
287
477
0
0
35
South Jakarta
331
513
0
11
63
East Jakarta
395
588
0
0
42
TPST
96
0
0
30
PALS
5
0
0
3
otal
1805
2771
40
21
336
District
Total
44
622
639
512
587
630
126
8
3168

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.
1Business 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

193
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

2Laws 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;
Governors Regulation Amendment No. 174
10. Organization and Governing of Cleansing Department of Jakarta Special State, Governors
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.
3Collecting 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 522See Table7.1.2
Table 7.1.2 Numbers and Types of Collection Cars
194
Compact car
Typer
3
District
1
2
3
4
5
6
[m ]
Large Small
6
9
46
29
35
35
43
34
31
29
31
37
192
173
Central Jakarta
North Jakarta
West Jakarta
South Jakarta
East Jakarta
otal
Sweeper
[m ]
6
8
1
8
9
13
10
14
8
8
18
17
22
55
73
Large Small
4
0
5
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
16
8
Street
washer
Total
3
1
0
0
1
0
5
23
99
90
110
92
108
522

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

No
2
3
4
5
6
Distrtict
Central Jakarta
North Jakarta
West Jakarta
South Jakarta
East Jakarta
otal
DIPO
[Unit]
13
17
29
28
43
130
Containter
3
10m
46
41
46
36
83
252
6m
48
47
37
36
67
235
Collection point
of carts
Temporary
storage
55
18
53
71
41
238
Concrete
Container
collection points
27
0
63
37
59
186
32
57
14
59
118
280
Total
63
61
0
0
0
124

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

195
284
241
242
267
411
1,445
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
Director General of
Human Settlement
Secretariat of
Directorate General
Personnel and
Organization Section
Financial
Section
Legal &
Legislation Section
G.Aff.&State Owned
Mngt Section
Directorate of
Programming
Directorate of
Settlement Development
Directorate of Buildings and

Environmental Management
Directorate of
Water Supply Development
Directorate of Environmental
Sanitation Development
Subdit. of
Policy and Strategy
Subdit. of
Technical Planning
Subdit. of
Technical Planning
Subdit. of
Technical Planning
Subdit. of
Technical Planning
Subdit. of
Program and Budgeting
Subdit. of
New Settlement Development
Subdit. of Buildings
Mngt and State Residences
Subdit. of
Region-I
Subdit. of
Sewerage
Subdit. of
Foreign Cooperation
Subdit. of Settlement
Improvement of Region-I
Subdit. of
Region I
Subdit. of
Region-II
Subdit. of
Drainage
Subdit. of
Performance Evaluation
Subdit. of Settlement
Improvement of Region-II
Subdit. of
Region-II
Subdit. of
Investment
Subdit. of
Solid Waste
Subdit. of
Data and Information
Subdit. Of Arrangements
and Institutional Guidance
Subdit. Of Arrangements
Subdit. of Arrangements
Subdit. of Regulational
and Institutional Development
(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).
196
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
Deputy Minister of
Hazardous and Toxic Substance, Hazardous
and Toxic Waste and Solid Waste Management
Assistant Deputy of
Hazardous & Toxic
Substance Management
Assistant Deputy of
Verification of Hazardous & Toxic
Substance and Waste Management
Assistant Deputy of
Management and Contarmination
Recovery of B3 Waste
Assistant Deputy of
Division for
Registration and Notification
Division for
Collection and Notification
Division for
Energy, Mining and Oil & Gas
Division for
Solid Waste Restrictions
Division for
Monitoring
Division for
Transportation and Processing
Division for
Manufacture
Division for
Recycling and Solid Waste Utilization
Division for
Evaluation and Follow-up
Division for
Stockpilling and Dumping
Division for
Agro Industry
Division for
Notification and Transboundary Waste
Recommendation
Division for
Infrastructure Services
and Non Institution
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
Roles related to PPP system
organizations
Ministry of Finance
Governmental supports to the businesses and promotion of governmental

warranty
197
Major related
Roles related to PPP system
organizations
National
Development
Making PPP-related plans and publishing the PPP books (disclosing promising
Planning Agency
businesses)
BAPPENAS
Integrating PPP-related plans with national development plans

Enhancing the capabilities of related subjects
Investment Adjustment
Providing information related to ready-to-offer businesses
Agency
Making attractive market programs
BKPM
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-/)
198
Chapter 8
Technical Advantages of Japanese companies
199
200
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.
201
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. Japans capability of system design and workmanship of landfill construction and general
engineering capabilities, design and workmanship technology of intermediate treatment facilities is very
superior. Japans 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.
202
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.
203
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 JICAs 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.
204
Chapter 9
Financial Outlook
205
206
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
2014
2015
(1,000 yens/y)
(1,000 yens/y)
(1,000 yens/y)
516,000
516,000
20,000
20,000
Total
Invest-
Land procurement *1
ment
Preparation
Landfill
Intermediate and leachate
1,000
9,128,000
9,129,000
516,000
21,000
9,128,000
9,665,000
treatment facility
Total
Funding
JICA investment and loan
6,390,000
6,390,000
source
Financial institution
1,825,200
1,825,200
JBIC finance
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
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
207
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%).
208
209

JICA loan
Fund raising
Owned capital
Subisidy
JICA Grant
JICA loan

6,390,000
1,825,200
0
6,390,000
1,825,200
6,390,000
1,825,200
0
734,596
734,596
6,390,000
1,825,200
0
734,596
1,469,191
91.79%
185.34%

62.43%
91.79%
185.34%
456,000
88,141
1,425,551
969,551
456,000
88,141
1,425,551
969,551
62.43%
5,229
37,101
210,000
95,850
91,260
371,461
92,865
278,596
441,970
5,229
37,101
210,000
95,850
91,260
1,797,012
889,907
360,043
506,255
40,807
2017
441,970
1,797,012
889,907
360,043
506,255
40,807
2016

912,800
9,128,000
9,128,000
50,000
178,000
1,900,000
7,000,000
2015
371,461
92,865
278,596
21,000
21,000
516,000
516,000
21,000
20,000
1,000
2014
516,000
516,000
2013

Profit after tax
Operating expenses
Manpower cost
Consumables
Maintenance cost
Utility cost
Depreciation
Contingency
Total Income
Tipping fee
RDF selling
Compost seling

Engineering (15%)
VAT
Sub-total
Total
Supervising cost
Project year
Capital expense
land acquisition
Detail Design cost
Year
6,390,000
1,825,200
0
734,596
2,203,787
0
0
0
91.79%
185.34%
62.43%
371,461
92,865
278,596
456,000
88,141
1,425,551
969,551
5,229
37,101
210,000
95,850
91,260
441,970
1,797,012
889,907
360,043
506,255
40,807
2018
6,390,000
1,642,680
0
552,076
3,490,458
0
182,520
0
91.79%
185.34%
62.43%
371,461
92,865
278,596
5,229
37,101
210,000
95,850
91,260
0
456,000
88,141
1,425,551
969,551
441,970
1,797,012
889,907
360,043
506,255
40,807
2020
5,964,000
1,460,160
0
133,605
3,624,063
426,000
182,520
0
92.75%
187.28%
62.87%
381,500
95,375
286,125
5,229
37,101
210,000
95,850
82,134
0
456,000
87,228
1,415,512
959,512
441,970
1,797,012
889,907
360,043
506,255
40,807
2021
5,538,000
1,277,640
0
146,405
3,770,468
426,000
182,520
0
94.43%
190.68%
63.64%
398,567
99,642
298,925
5,229
37,101
210,000
89,460
73,008
0
456,000
85,677
1,398,445
942,445
441,970
1,797,012
889,907
360,043
506,255
40,807
10
2022
5,112,000
1,095,120
0
159,206
3,929,674
426,000
182,520
0
96.17%
194.19%
64.42%
415,635
103,909
311,726
5,229
37,101
210,000
83,070
63,882
0
456,000
84,125
1,381,377
925,377
441,970
1,797,012
889,907
360,043
506,255
40,807
11
2023
4,686,000
912,600
0
172,006
4,101,680
426,000
182,520
0
97.97%
197.84%
65.23%
432,702
108,175
324,526
5,229
37,101
210,000
76,680
54,756
0
456,000
82,574
1,364,310
908,310
441,970
1,797,012
889,907
360,043
506,255
40,807
12
2024
4,260,000
730,080
0
184,807
4,286,488
426,000
182,520
0
99.85%
201.63%
66.05%
449,770
112,442
337,327
5,229
37,101
210,000
70,290
45,630
0
456,000
81,022
1,347,242
891,242
441,970
1,797,012
889,907
360,043
506,255
40,807
13
2025
3,834,000
547,560
0
197,608
4,484,096
426,000
182,520
0
101.80%
205.57%
66.90%
466,838
116,709
350,128
5,229
37,101
210,000
63,900
36,504
0
456,000
79,470
1,330,174
874,174
441,970
1,797,012
889,907
360,043
506,255
40,807
14
2026
3,408,000
365,040
0
210,409
4,694,505
426,000
182,520
0
103.83%
209.66%
67.77%
483,905
120,976
362,929
5,229
37,101
210,000
57,510
27,378
0
456,000
77,919
1,313,107
857,107
441,970
1,797,012
889,907
360,043
506,255
40,807
15
2027
6,390,000
1,825,200
0
734,596
2,938,382
0
0
0
91.79%
185.34%
62.43%
371,461
92,865
278,596
5,229
37,101
210,000
95,850
91,260
0
456,000
88,141
1,425,551
969,551
441,970
1,797,012
889,907
360,043
506,255
40,807
2019
Table 9.3.1 Project Cash Flow
2,982,000
182,520
0
223,210
4,917,714
426,000
182,520
0
105.94%
213.92%
68.66%
500,973
125,243
375,730
5,229
37,101
210,000
51,120
18,252
0
456,000
76,367
1,296,039
840,039
441,970
1,797,012
889,907
360,043
506,255
40,807
16
2028
2,556,000
0
0
236,010
5,153,724
426,000
182,520
0
108.13%
218.36%
69.58%
518,040
129,510
388,530
5,229
37,101
210,000
44,730
9,126
0
456,000
74,816
1,278,972
822,972
441,970
1,797,012
889,907
360,043
506,255
40,807
17
2029
2,130,000
0
0
431,331
5,585,055
426,000
0
0
110.42%
222.98%
70.52%
535,108
133,777
401,331
5,229
37,101
210,000
38,340
0
0
456,000
73,264
1,261,904
805,904
441,970
1,797,012
889,907
360,043
506,255
40,807
18
2030
1,704,000
0
0
436,603
6,021,658
426,000
0
0
111.39%
224.94%
70.92%
542,137
135,534
406,603
5,229
37,101
210,000
31,950
0
0
456,000
72,625
1,254,875
798,875
441,970
1,797,012
889,907
360,043
506,255
40,807
19
2031
1,278,000
0
0
441,874
6,463,532
426,000
0
0
112.38%
226.94%
71.32%
549,166
137,291
411,874
5,229
37,101
210,000
25,560
0
0
456,000
71,986
1,247,846
791,846
441,970
1,797,012
889,907
360,043
506,255
40,807
20
2032
852,000
0
0
447,146
6,910,678
426,000
0
0
113.39%
228.97%
71.72%
556,195
139,049
417,146
5,229
37,101
210,000
19,170
0
0
456,000
71,347
1,240,817
784,817
441,970
1,797,012
889,907
360,043
506,255
40,807
21
2033
426,000
0
0
452,418
7,363,096
426,000
0
0
87.40%
231.04%
41.03%
563,224
140,806
422,418
5,229
37,101
210,000
12,780
0
0
456,000
70,708
1,233,788
777,788
441,970
1,797,012
889,907
360,043
506,255
40,807
22
2034
0
0
0
457,690
7,820,786
426,000
0
0
86.61%
233.15%
41.27%
570,253
142,563
427,690
5,229
37,101
210,000
6,390
0
0
456,000
70,069
1,226,759
770,759
441,970
1,797,012
889,907
360,043
506,255
40,807
23
178,000
50,000
1,000
516,000
1,825,200
0
6,390,000
1,449,800
7,820,786
1,825,200
6,390,000
6,915,986
2,305,329
9,221,314
17,598,922
26,718,922
1,599,902
9,120,000
866,970
1,246,050
4,200,000
742,020
104,580
8,839,400
35,940,236
816,140
10,125,100
7,200,866
17,798,130
9,665,000
9,665,000
0
0
20,000
7,000,000
1,900,000
2035 Total
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)
FIRR
B/C
CASE 1
NPV
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
Tipping fee
Cash Flow

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
Table 9.3.3 Sensibility analysis (decline of RDF selling price)

FIRR
B/C
CASE 1
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
Tipping fee
210
Chapter 10
Action Plan and Issues
211
212
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

MOU
DKI Jakarta
Tangerang county
Support
Lease contract
Tipping fee A 20-year contract MSW
as BOT project
processing
service
Landowners
Land sales contract
Investment
SPC
(Special Purpose Company)
Local joint concern

Investment
Electricity sales
contract
PLN
Valuable resource
sales contract
Recycling
agency
Investment
Japanese side
investor
ARAX etc.
(Source: Prepared by the Authors of this Report)
213
Indonesian
side investor
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
Location
Jakarta
Jakarta
Jakarta
Bekasi, West
Java
Area
7.5ha
3.5ha
12ha
110.3ha
Land
ownership
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:
214
(Future plan)
Tangerang
Regency
Tangerang
Regency
Approximately
100ha
Government
--owned
Currently no
None
Compost
activities are
Final
conducted onsite
disposal
(the landowner is
Methane gas
searching for
collection
investors)
and power
generation
Privately owned
Future
plans and
prospects
Cakung Cilincing
Sunter
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.
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.
Currently
undergoing actual
design geared to
expansion
Marunda
Capacity:
2,000 t/d
Technology:
Waste-to-Ener
gy
(incineration)
Bantar Gebang
Additional
installation
of MBT and
methane
fermentation
facilities to
the above
facilities
Accept
3,000 t/d
(Future plan)
Tangerang
Regency
Accept 1,500
t/d
As of January 2012,
preparations are
being made for
national competitive
bidding.
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
Table 10.3.1 Governmental bodies related to the project

Governmental body
1 Jakarta
Cleansing
Department
Current situation
Facing difficulties in planning the
treatment of waste in short/mid
term (financial difficulties and
difficulties in securing land for
landfill site)
Jati Waringin,
Tangerang
Regency
Providing support to ARAX

Corporation for preparation of
land acquisition
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.
215
Relationship with the Project

Ordering entity of the project
Formulate ordinances related to
environment and waste
Hold information on waste
treatment on a short/mid term
basis
Formulate regulations and
ordinances relating to
environment
Hold information on future plans
on land use, regional environment,
and waste management
Hold information on Environment
related laws (especially on
AMDAL), Laws related to waste
treatment,
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
The Department for Residential
Environment is promoting
business relating to collection and
disposal of waste.
Ministry of
Public Works
(KPU)
Agency for the

Assessment and
Application of
Technology
Research on the reuse of waste

sludge is being carried out.
Hold information on regulations,

technical assistance, economical
support and regarding waste
treatment in the region
Hold information related to
technical guidelines on waste
treatment
Holds information on appropriate
treatment technologies

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
Responsibilities relating to PPP
bodies
Ministry
Finance
of
Control budget relating to infrastructure
Promote governmental support and state guarantee to projects
Provide overall coordination regarding PPP related plans and publish the
PPP book
BAPPENAS
Support integration of National Development Plan with plans relating to

PPP
Build capacity of related bodies
Investment
Provide information on ready-to-offer business projects
Coordinating
Formulate attractive market program
Board
Issue permissions necessary for implementation of PPP projects
BKPM
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.
216
Figure 10.3.3 PPP Network
PPP NETWORK
BAPPENAS
Prepare PPP plans
Coordinate PPP network
Governmental
Agency in-Charge
Ministry of Finance
Set direct governmental support fund
Formulate F/S
Formulate budget
Decide on application of
PPP in projects
(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 (20102014), 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.
217
Figure 10.3.3 Current Situation regarding Budget for Infrastructure in Indonesia

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
(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 Indonesias 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
218
procurement, ministries and local goveernmental bodies that implement PPP projects needd to procure the
land before the competitive bidding of the
t project.
However, taking into consideration thhe fact that agreement on land purchasing may not be reached in
reality, regulations are currently beingg modified so that the land can be bought after a certaain period of
time for an appropriate price which deetermined by a third party.
Figure 10.3.2
1
Extract of the PPP-Book 2011
(Source: Ministry of National devvelopment Planning /National Development Planningg Agency)
219
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
Cimahi Solid Waste Management, West Java
Solid Waste Management Improvement Project for Urban Climate Change
Solid Waste Management Improvement Project for CDM program

Priority Project: Solid Waste and Sanitation
Solid Waste final and Treatment Bogor and Depok AreaWest Jawa
Solid Waste final and Treatment Bogor and Depok Area Greater Bandong Area
West Java
Ready for Offer Project: Solid Waste and Sanitation
Solid Waste Management Improvement Facility, West Jawa
Solid Waste Final Disposal and Treatment Facility Purti CempomojosongoSurakarta

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 Indonesias 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
220
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.
221
Table 10.3.4 Risk Associated with Infrastructure Projects

Type of Risks
Risk related to
Risk that the project does not achieve the expected capacity or function
construction
Risk associated
with procurement
of raw materials
Risk related to
providing of
service and
bargaining
Environmental
risk
Conduct an extensive feasibility study to evaluate the associated risks

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 that there would be unexpected stagnation of transaction volume;
Risk that products would not circulate in the market.
Conduct adequate waste management planning
Risk that the project results adverse environmental and social impacts in the
host country
Study carefully the required countermeasures in the feasibility study
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
222
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.
223

E001983 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

E001983 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STUDY ON PRIVATE-INITIATIVE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES IN FY2011

STUDY ON THE WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY

Evaluation of the project ..................................173

Chapter 6 Planned Project Schedule ...........................................................................................................185

Chapter 7 Implementing Organizations ......................................................................................................189

Background and Necessity of the Project

Basic Policy for Determining the Project Contents

The outline of the project is shown in Table-1

Table-1 Project scale and component facilities

Contents, Capacity and Component Equipment, etc.

MSW (Municipal solid wastes) discharged in Jakarta

Semi-aerobic landfill structure with landfill area of 16 hectares and landfill

resources screening facilities, crushing facilities, belt conveyor, fermentation

Contents, Capacity and Component Equipment, etc.

(quantity of product: 430 t/d

Project ordering mode

Build, Operate Transfer (BOT) project (ordering entity: Jakarta)

(Source: Prepared by the authors of this report)

Total Project Cost

Operation & maintenance

b. Results of Preliminary Financial and Economic Analysis

Examination of Environmental and Social Aspects

environmental and social improvements and impacts by the implementation of the

pollution, etc. caused by Construction of a disposal

At present, the Jati

While there are no private

Groun No ground subsidence has

As the Project will

With the introduction

The impacts of the disposal The introduction of

With the completion

Improvement Effects Impacts

There is a mangrove forest

There are no likely

Social Aspect Reloca

There are some 10

There are no cultural assets

The work environment is

There will be some

The overall traffic

(Source: Compiled by the Study Team)

Table-5 Laws and regulations on EIA in Indonesia

Government Regulation No.27/1999: Process of the conduct of Environmental

Law No.32/2009 concerning Environmental Protection and Management

Decree of the Minister of State for Environment No.2/2000 on Guidance on the

Decree of the Minister of State for Environment No.8/2000 on Guidance on

Decree of the Minister of State for Environment No.9/2000 on Guidelines for

Decree of the Minister of State for Environment No.40/2000 on Guidance on the

Decree of the Minister of State for Environment No.41/2000 on Guidance on the

Advantage of Japanese Corporations from Technological and

Detailed Schedule to Realize the Projects and Possible Risks

Table-6 Work Schedule

Pre Feasibility Study

(Source: Prepared by the Authors of this report)

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

Details of the Risk and Measures to Minimize the Risk

Conduct an extensive feasibility study to evaluate the associated risks

Risk that there would be unexpected stagnation of transaction volume;

Risk that products would not circulate in the market.

Details of the Risk and Measures to Minimize the Risk