This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier.

The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elseviers archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
 Author's personal copy

Waste Management 29 (2009) 470478

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Waste Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

Country Report

Solid waste management in Kolkata, India: Practices and challenges

Tumpa Hazra, Sudha Goel *
Civil Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur 721302, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper presents an overview of current solid waste management (SWM) practices in Kolkata, India
Accepted 17 January 2008 and suggests solutions to some of the major problems. More than 2920 ton/d of solid waste are generated
Available online 22 April 2008 in the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) area and the budget allocation for 20072008 was Rs. 1590
million (US$40 million), which amounts to Rs. 265/cap-y (US$6.7/cap-d) on SWM. This expenditure is
insufcient to provide adequate SWM services. Major deciencies were found in all elements of SWM.
Despite 70% of the SWM budget being allocated for collection, collection efciency is around 6070%
for the registered residents and less than 20% for unregistered residents (slum dwellers). The collection
process is decient in terms of manpower and vehicle availability. Bin capacity provided is adequate but
locations were found to be inappropriate, thus contributing to the inefciency of the system. At this time,
no treatment is provided to the waste and waste is dumped on open land at Dhapa after collection. Lack
of suitable facilities (equipment and infrastructure) and underestimates of waste generation rates, inad-
equate management and technical skills, improper bin collection, and route planning are responsible for
poor collection and transportation of municipal solid wastes.
2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction 2. Municipal solid waste (MSW) management in KMC

Environmentally acceptable management of municipal solid
waste (MSW) has become a global challenge due to limited re-
sources, an exponentially increasing population, rapid urbaniza-
tion and worldwide industrialization. In developing Asian
countries, these factors are further exacerbated by inadequate
nancial resources, and inadequate management and technical
skills within municipalities and government authorities.
More than 90% of the MSW generated in India is directly dis-
posed on land in an unsatisfactory manner (Das et al., 1998). The
problem is already acute in cities and towns as disposal facilities
have not been able to keep pace with the quantum of wastes gen-
erated. It is common to nd large heaps of garbage lying in a dis-
organized manner in every nook and corner in large cities.
Kolkata is one of Indias largest metropolitan cities and like other
large cities faces similar problems of poor solid waste manage-
ment. The objective of this paper is to analyze some of the
strengths and deciencies in the current MSW management
(MSWM) system in Kolkata and propose feasible solutions.
Abbreviations: MSW, municipal solid waste; SWM, solid waste management;
FICCI, Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry; KEIP, Kolkata
Environment Improvement Project; CEIP, Calcutta Environment Improvement
Project; WHO, World Health Organization; NEERI, National Environmental Engi-
neering Research Institute; CDM, Clean Development Mechanism; TERI, Tata Energy
Research Institute
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 3222283436; fax: +91 3222255303.
E-mail address: sudhagoel@iitkgp.ernet.in (S. Goel).
Kolkata is a metropolitan city and capital of the state of West
Bengal. It is located in eastern India on the east bank of River Hoo-
ghly. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) area has a popula-
tion of almost 6 million and an area of 187 km2, while the Kolkata
urban area has a population of over 14 million.
Solid waste management is a statutory function and Kolkata
Municipal Corporation (KMC) is responsible for the management
of MSW generated in the city. The city is divided into 15 boroughs
and 141 electoral wards and all operations of solid waste manage-
ment (SWM) in this area are performed under four heads sweep-
ing, collection, transportation and disposal and are shown
schematically in Fig. 1.
KMC has allocated Rs. 1590.35 million (US$40 million) on solid
waste management for 20072008 (KMC, 20072008), which is
13.75% of its total annual budget; for perspective in international
terms, 1 US dollar is currently Rs. 39.40. This budget allocation is
low in comparison to other Indian cities like Asansol (44.7%), Agra
(30.39%), Patna (29.36%) and Varanasi (27.8%) (FICCI, 2007). Pres-
ent estimates of expenditure on MSWM range from Rs. 258 to Rs.
431 per capita (US$6.5 to US$10.9 per capita), annually in various
Indian cities (FICCI, 2007). KMC spends Rs. 265 per capita (US$6.7
per capita) annually on MSWM, while annual expenditure on
water treatment and supply and wastewater treatment is Rs.
243.71 (US$6.17) and Rs. 141.43 (US$3.6) per capita (KMC, 2007
2008), respectively. The revenue earned from MSWM is only Rs.
2.81 (US$0.07) per capita. Despite the fairly high expenditure, the

0956-053X/$ - see front matter 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2008.01.023
 Author's personal copy

T. Hazra, S. Goel / Waste Management 29 (2009) 470478 471

only 13.3% of the population in unregistered slums is covered by

the same service; and 112% wastes from registered houses and
6.1% from unregistered slums are deposited in roadside storage
enclosures for corporation pick-up. The remaining waste is left
unattended on vacant land and in a canal due to inefcient collec-
House to House Hand Tipper
Collection Carts Trucks tion and lack of awareness amongst the public.
In the KMC area, street cleaning and collection involves collec-
tion of MSW from the streets (road sweeping) and households in
Street Small Bins Community Pay Disposal handcarts. Thereafter, the waste is dumped at one of the 664 col-
Sweeping Bins Loaders Site
lection points (primary collection). MSW is then loaded into trans-
portation vehicles (trucks) (secondary collection), which transport
Dumper
Placer the waste (transfer) to disposal sites.

Fig. 1. Schematic representation of solid waste management in KMC.
present level of service in many urban areas is so low as to be a po-
tential threat to public health and environmental quality.
2.1. Sources and quantities of MSW
Major sources of MSW in the KMC area are residential areas,
commercial/market areas, ofces and institutions. Field surveys
were carried out by CEIP in 2000 and by KEIP in 2003 to assess
the status of MSW generation in the KMC area. Kolkata city gener-
ates approximately 2920 ton/d i.e., 0.632 kg/cap-d of MSW daily.
KMC has estimated the amount of MSW generated from various
sources in the city, shown in Table 1.
2.2. Collection and storage of solid waste
Due to climatic factors like high temperature and humidity
along with high organic matter content, MSW decomposes rapidly
resulting in unhygienic conditions. Hence in most areas, collection
has to be done on a daily basis. Currently, different collection
methods are being used in KMC and include: house-to-house col-
lection (primary collection), and collection from roadside storage
areas (3-sided enclosures). The remaining waste is disposed on va-
cant land and in canals. The percent distribution of areas covered
by different collection and disposal methods in the KMC area is
shown in Table 2: 5771% of wastes from registered houses which
include standard residential areas, refugee colony and registered
slums are covered by door-to-door service provided by KMC, while
Table 1
Percent distribution of municipal solid waste from different sources in KMC
Sources of waste Percentage (%)
Household waste 34.20
Street sweeping 22.80
Institutional waste 6.32
Commercial and market waste 36.37
Source: Master plan on solid waste management (KEIP, 2003).
2.2.1. Primary collection of municipal solid waste
House-to-house collection of waste and collection of road litter
are together dened as primary collection. For better solid waste
management, each ward is divided into 710 blocks and 810
sweepers are provided in each block. A handcart or tricycle, a
broom and a scraper are provided to each sweeper to sweep the
roads, lanes and by-lanes, to clean open drains, collect the waste,
load it into the handcart and transfer the same to a secondary col-
lection point in the form of open storage enclosures or dumpers
(KEIP, 2003). Fig. 2a shows road sweeping with collection in a con-
tainerized handcart. Containerized handcarts having four buckets
of 4050 L have been introduced in some wards to transfer waste
collected into large containers (Fig. 2b). After sweeping the roads,
sweepers go from house-to-house with the handcarts (Fig. 2c)
and call the residents with a whistle signal to bring their wastes.
MSW produced from individual households is taken to the collec-
tion point or just deposited at the adjacent roadside from where
it is collected when the roads are swept. This house-to-house col-
lection system has been introduced in all 141 wards covering 50
70% of registered households in the KMC area. Sometimes, resi-
dents deposit their waste directly into the roadside community
bins for corporation pickup (Fig. 3). There are about 10,300 sweep-
ers to sweep 3275 km of road (KEIP, 2003). Some major roads are
occasionally cleaned with street washing vehicles. However, mech-
anized sweepers, besides being capital intensive, are observed to
yield a low cleaning efciency due to uneven road surfaces.
2.2.2. Storage of solid waste
KMC has provided 664 storage places (in the form of large ma-
sonry storage enclosures, trash bins, and dumpers (Fig. 3)) for tem-
porary storage of MSW, which is collected from the city during
secondary collection. Large masonry storage enclosures are open
spaces enclosed on three sides with a masonry wall of about 1.2
1.8 m height, with capacities ranging from 30 to 60 m3 and located
in congested areas with narrow winding streets. Waste is brought
to these depots in handcarts during primary collection while trucks
can drive into these areas and pick-up waste from here for disposal
to the landll site. These large storage enclosures can also be
thought of as transfer stations even though they are not formally
designed for compaction, nor do they have equipment for separa-
tion or processing.

Table 2
Distribution of collection methods in different dwellings types in KMC

Collection method Standard residential (%) Refugee colony (%) Registered slum (%) Unregistered slum (%) All categories (%)
Corporation pick up from door-to-door 57.3 70.9 67.1 13.3 61.2
Deposit in road-side vat 3.9 1.8 12.6 6.1 6.8
Disposal on vacant land (no further pickup) 29.4 12.7 14.4 40.8 22.4
Disposal in canal (no further pickup) 8.6 12.7 3.6 39.8 8.2
Others 0.8 1.8 2.4 0.0 0.1
All 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: Base line picture of city of Kolkata (KMC, 2003a; 2003b).

 Author's personal copy
472 T. Hazra, S. Goel / Waste Management 29 (2009) 470478
Fig. 2. Road Sweeping (a), regular handcarts (b) and containerized handcarts (c).
The density of wastes in Indian cities varies from 280 to 660 kg/
m3 while the KEIP estimate is 600 kg/m3. The available capacity of
the storage areas in KMC is around 23,400 m3. If the density of the
waste at the collection point is assumed to be 450 kg/m3, then the
available capacity is more than adequate for a daily collection fre-
quency, which requires a minimum container capacity of 7300 m3.
KMC aims to provide daily collection, but overowing bins are com-
mon features throughout the city, despite the excess storage capac-
ity. A major factor responsible for this problem is the frequency of
collection. In practice, the collection frequency is less than the de-
sign requirement (daily); in many cases collection is on a weekly ba-
sis. Another major factor is the location of the bins. These locations
are decided without considering vehicle accessibility, population
density or rate of waste generation in the local service area.
2.2.3. Secondary collection of MSW
Presently, mixed waste (biodegradable and recyclable) is col-
lected from residential, commercial and market areas and brought
to collection points, which may be small bins or large bulk contain-
ers (dumpers) that are painted yellow (42%) or open storage enclo-
sures (58%) (Fig. 3). Waste is directly loaded from these containers
into trucks or trailers manually or using pay loaders (Fig. 4). This
step is known as secondary collection. Pay loaders cannot collect
all the waste from the storage enclosures, since some manual
cleaning is required. They tend to break the edge of the storage
enclosures and that spills waste when loading. Pay loaders also of-
ten nd it difcult to operate in the narrow cramped streets of
KMCs area (Fig. 4). Currently, pay loaders are used to collect waste
from only 5% of the total collection points, while the remaining col-
lection is done either manually or by private agencies (mostly
manual operations).
KMC has a total of 245 conservancy vehicles for transporting and
collecting (secondary stage) MSW. These vehicles include trucks,
dumper placer vehicles, tractor trailers (Fig. 5), refuse collectors, tip-
per trucks, and pay loaders, of which about 180 are in working con-
dition. Out of these 180 vehicles, only 120130 vehicles are operated
daily due mainly to a lack of drivers and laborers. Therefore, the vehi-
cle operational efciency is less than 50% (KEIP, 2003). Waste trans-
portation is conducted with vehicles like tipper trucks of 68 m3 and
1012 m3 capacity (manually and mechanically loaded) and dumper
placers of 4.5 m3 and 7.0 m3 capacities. KMC transports around 40%
(550 ton) of the total waste collected using dumper placers and the
rest by tipper trucks. The required numbers for dumper placers
and tipper trucks were determined to be 80 and 70, respectively,
but availability is 49 and 65, respectively. These data demonstrate
the inadequacy of both manpower and resources, which plagues
MSWM in KMC and most other cities in the country.
The routes used by truck drivers for transferring wastes are
haphazard and depend on the existing trafc of that day. Further,
waste is often transported inefciently by low height open trucks
designed for carrying heavy building materials and packaged
goods. Waste from these open trucks falls or ies away when they
drive on the roads and has to be re-collected manually or often re-
mains scattered. All these add to waste collection costs and prob-
lems. Fig. 5 shows an overowing truck operated by KMC and
another that is covered to ensure that waste is not scattered during
the trip to the disposal site.
Public-private sector partnerships are increasingly becoming
the norm in SWM in the country. A recent FICCI survey showed that
23 out of 25 major cities in India are now utilizing private sector
agencies for MSWM. KMC, too, has been utilizing private agencies
to collect 49% of the total waste (yearly average for 19992000),
 Author's personal copy

T. Hazra, S. Goel / Waste Management 29 (2009) 470478 473

Fig. 3. Disposal into roadside vats (a and b) and a dumper (c).

Fig. 4. Collection of solid waste from bins into trucks by manual loading and a pay loader with tipper truck.

while KMC collected the remaining waste. More recent estimates
show that private agencies are collecting 55% of the total waste
while KMC is collecting only 45% (KEIP, 2003). Operation and main-
tenance costs for KMC collection vehicles are Rs. 300/ton (US$7.6/
ton) compared to Rs. 150/ton (US$3.8/ton) for private vehicles.
The total cost of waste management for KMC is Rs. 1477.83 million
(US$31.46 million) with collection of waste requiring the largest
expenditure at Rs. 1036.26 million (70.12%; US$26.2 million). The
expenditure on disposal is the lowest at Rs. 76.80 million (5.2%;
US$1.94 million), and that on transportation is Rs. 364.78 million
(24.68%; US$9.2 million) (KMC, 2003a; 2003b).
2.3. Final disposal of municipal solid waste
There are three disposal sites in the KMC area at Dhapa, Garden
Reach and Naopara of which Dhapa is the main one. Dhapa is at the
eastern extreme of the city with all collection points within a
distance of 20 km. The Dhapa area is part of the wetlands (approx-
imate area of 10,000 ha), of which 24.71 ha are used for waste
dumping (KEIP, 2003). This part of the city has been used for waste
dumping for over 100 years. Apart from this, sewage-fed aquacul-
ture and vegetable farming are the most signicant uses of this
area.
 Author's personal copy

474 T. Hazra, S. Goel / Waste Management 29 (2009) 470478

Fig. 5. Transfer and transport of collected waste from bins to disposal site.

More than 95% of the total waste generated in the KMC area is
disposed at the Dhapa disposal site, and the rest is disposed at the
Garden Reach disposal site. An Asian Development Bank (ADB) sur-
vey showed that about 21.5 ha of land under zone-III is developed
up to 17 m height from its original level (13 m above road level)
(Fig. 6), and only a very small area is now available for waste dis-
posal (CEIP, 2000). The remaining areas are occupied by shallow
water bodies or man-made channels (used for cultivation and
pisciculture), vegetable cultivation (Fig. 7), composting, slum clus-
ters, etc. Currently, waste is disposed by dumping on open land.
Layers of silt from street sweepings and drainage cleanings are laid
over the garbage daily. These layers of silt do not provide enough
compressive strength for movement of heavy vehicles over the
dumps. At the Dhapa disposal site, all garbage-loaded vehicles
are weighed in computerized weighbridges with capacities of
20 ton and 30 ton, before the garbage is disposed. An Hourly Re-
port on disposal is maintained. Two bulldozers are employed at
the disposal ground for spreading and compacting the garbage
(KEIP, 2003).
At present, no treatment is provided for solid waste. A 700 ton/
day compost plant was set up by M/S. Eastern Organic Fertilizer
Ltd. with technical backup of Excel Industry, Mumbai in the year

Fig. 6. Dhapa Dumping Site, waste piles are 17 m high from ground level.
 Author's personal copy
T. Hazra, S. Goel / Waste Management 29 (2009) 470478
Fig. 7. Dump site occupied by cultivators and water bodies.
2000 and operated at 200250 TPD capacity until 2003 (KMC,
2003a; 2003b). Since 2003, Eastern Organic Fertilizer stopped
operating the plant because the company was unable to sell the
compost with a reasonable prot and failed to meet its commit-
ments to KMC. A signicant portion of the waste illegally reaches
adjacent agricultural land to be used as compost. This is popularly
known as garbage farming. The existing method of raw garbage
farming can have adverse effects on human health, as heavy metals
tend to enter the food chain unhindered. The present system and
compost quality are totally unacceptable by WHO standards and
World Bank norms.
3. Composition of municipal solid waste
Physical and chemical analyses of household waste; market
waste; commercial, hotel and restaurant waste was done by KEIP
Authority. The average density of solid waste was around 600 kg/
m3. Domestic municipal solid waste samples contain 45.1% fruit
and vegetable waste and 8.8% paper. Waste from the markets con-
tains 32.4% leaves, hay and straw; and 25.7% fruit and vegetable
waste (KEIP, 2003). Waste from the commercial area contains about
51% recyclable waste. Recyclable waste in bulk (or mixed) MSW
waste is about 25%. Chemical properties of the waste indicate that
the C/N ratio is highest (22.0) in market waste and lowest (9.3) in
hotel waste. The average moisture content in city waste is around
60%, while the average caloric value was found to be 1832 kcal/
kg. Heavy metals like lead, chromium, zinc, copper and nickel were
present in the solid waste samples. The physical composition of so-
lid waste in the KMC area is shown in Fig. 8 for 1970 and 1993.
There are signicant differences in the waste composition for the
two different years which have been attributed to changes in so-
cio-economic conditions in the area during this time period.
4. Recent innovations and interventions taken by KMC
KMC has recently taken steps for better solid waste manage-
ment. They have initiated a massive campaign through newspaper
advertisements, leaets and processions to create awareness
amongst people about better solid waste management and source
segregation. They have been trying to make a breakthrough in pri-
mary collection by introducing trash bins on the footpath. For
transportation, they have bought 30 dumpers and 200 containers
and they plan to buy 32 dumpers and another 110 containers in
the next nancial year. They are also constructing a new weigh-
bridge to reduce congestion at the single weigh bridge at the Dhap-
a site. Since the KMC MSW is of low caloric value but high carbon
content, KMC has been exploring use of the global Clean develop-
ment mechanism (CDM). CDM is an arrangement under the Kyoto
Protocol that allows industrialized countries with a greenhouse gas
475
reduction commitment to invest in projects that reduce emissions
in developing countries as an alternative to more expensive emis-
sion reductions in their own countries. KMC proposes to create a
new landll site with a multi-pronged strategy, and the selling of
carbon credits will be an important element in that approach,
the details of which have not been worked out as yet.
5. Problems in the present SWM scenario and possible solutions
Analysis of present solid waste management practices by KMC
shows that there are many gaps that need to be addressed. Major
problems are discussed here and possible solutions proposed.
5.1. Littering by residents after collection
Sweeping in the core city area is done regularly and fairly well
whereas in the adjacent areas, it is neither daily nor regular. Clean-
ing and waste collection from residences in the core area is done
regularly, but householders, particularly from slums, low-income
and middle-income groups and shopkeepers frequently throw
waste onto streets and roads, and into open spaces and open drains
after collection hours causing excessive littering as well as clogging
of drainage systems.
To avoid this problem, KMC should notify residents of the time
of waste collection to avoid littering and introduce nes for throw-
ing waste on roads or streets, or in open drains. If dwellers and
shopkeepers are given waste storage containers of a standard size
and collection is done regularly, then throwing waste on the road-
sides is likely to decrease. KMC should also campaign aggressively
for more awareness and education about cleanliness in public
areas.
5.2. Poor conditions of containers and areas around them
More than 60% of primary collection and storage of waste is
done using open storage enclosures, and these result in unhygienic
conditions, foul smell and odor, and proliferation of ies and other
vectors. Open storage enclosures should be eliminated and con-
verted into closed containers. Where open storage enclosures can-
not be eliminated, they should be cleaned completely after waste
collection. Also, the volume of the storage enclosures should be de-
signed by overestimating the generation of waste, not underesti-
mating it as is done currently.
5.3. Distribution of labor and resources
Handcarts and sanitation workers (called Conservancy Maz-
doors) are distributed to each borough on a population basis, as
is the norm in the country. There are 0.71.57 handcarts per
 Author's personal copy

476 T. Hazra, S. Goel / Waste Management 29 (2009) 470478

Composition of solid waste collected in the KMC area, 1970

Paper, 3.18, 3%
Rags, 3.6, 4% Ash and Earth,
Hay and Straw, 33.59, 33%
6.31, 6%

Ignited Coal, 8.08,

Garbage, 16.05, 8%
16%

Vegetable Matter,
Earthen Ware,
13.05, 13%
6.65, 7%

Coconut Shell,
Glass, 0.58, 1%
Plastics, 0.65, 4.96, 5%
1%
Stone, 1.36, 1%
Leathers, 0.86, Iron and other
1% metals, 0.66, 1%
Bones, 0.42, 0% Composition of solid waste in KMC area, 1993

Iron and other metals,

0.42, 0% Bones, 4, 4%
Leathers, 1.07, 1%
Stone, 0.39, 0%
Coconut Shell, 9.22, Plastics, 1.67, 2%
9%
Glass, 1.5, 2% Vegetable Matter,
Earthen Ware, 4.15, 11.76, 12%
4%

Ignited Coal, 2.46, 2%

Garbage, 29.42, 31%

Ash and Earth, 17.18,
18% Hay and Straw, 3.34,
Rags, 5.73, 6% 3%
Paper, 6.25, 6%

Fig. 8. Physical composition of MSW of KMC area in 1970 and 1993. (Source: A Handbook of Municipal Administration, West Bengal, 1996.)

1000 people, and 1.73.8 staff allocated per 1000 people for all bor-
oughs except VIII. The current norm in the country is 2.83.5 work-
ers/1000 population, which is likely to be a gross underestimate of
requirements. Allocation of workers and handcarts is based on data
for population, commercial activities, road length, etc. Borough
VIII, which is the Central Business District, has an extremely high
allocation of handcarts and staff for handling the much higher
requirements for waste collection.
Another option for improving collection may be to appoint
ragpickers or NGOs as waste collectors to collect both recyclable
and biodegradable waste in separate containers, free of cost. Ragp-
ickers can sell recyclable waste and generate some income for
themselves. Not only would this improve the efciency of urban
solid waste collection and recovery, but it would also provide job
opportunities for the informal waste collectors as well as protect
their health and welfare.
5.4. Poor working conditions
Manual collection and transfer is unhygienic to the collectors.
Most of the waste collectors suffer from parasitic diseases like
jaundice, diarrhea, and trachoma (NEERI, 1996). In a study in
1995, the average quarterly incidence of diarrhea was 85%, fever
was 72% and cough and cold was 63%, amongst the 180 ragpickers
working in the open dumps of Kolkata (TERI, 1998).
Containerized handcarts and more mechanical equipment
should be used for avoiding manual collection and residents should
have separate containers to collect different types of wastes. This
will reduce multiple handling, as well as poor productivity. Aware-
ness among people should be generated so that they do segregate
their wastes in different containers and collectors do not have to
segregate the wastes.
5.5. Inadequate maintenance and replacement of worn-out collection
vehicles
Most of the vehicles used for transportation of wastes are very
old. This increases operations and maintenance costs, reduces
transfer efciency and causes excessive noise and air pollution.
The entire eet of vehicles should be well maintained, and 15%
standby vehicles should be kept for emergency requirements. Fur-
ther, the vehicles should be able to meet Bharat Stage III standards,
which are currently applicable to all vehicles in India and are
equivalent to Euro III regulations. It may be noted that Europe is
currently using Euro IV standards for its four-wheeler vehicles.
5.6. Collection and transportation costs
The cost of transportation by manual loading and house-to-
house collection is Rs. 450/ton (US$11.4/ton) and Rs. 1300/ton
(US$32.9/ton), respectively, which is high in comparison to Mum-
bai where it was found to be Rs. 1533/ton (US$38.8/ton) for total
waste management (Rathi, 2007) and in Chennai where it was
Rs. 699/ton or US$17.69/ton (Visvanathan and Trankler, 2006).
In containerized collection systems, biodegradable and non-bio-
degradable wastes are stored in separate containers and the possi-
 Author's personal copy
T. Hazra, S. Goel / Waste Management 29 (2009) 470478
bility of multiple handling by waste collectors is decreased, which
not only saves time but also reduces collection costs and makes the
process more efcient. On average, 25.3% of household waste and
51% of commercial wastes are recyclable (KEIP, 2003). If residents
segregate recyclables wastes and allow collectors to collect the
recyclable materials, then the efciency of collection will increase
because of the collector interest in recyclable materials. Ragpicking
causes unnecessary scattering of wastes at every step and can be
prevented using this strategy. House-to-house collection has to in-
crease from the present level of 60% coverage to 100%. This will end
problems of littering because people will not throw their waste on
the road in the absence of pickup by KMC.
5.7. Separation at source
The average density (600 kg/m3) of waste in the KMC area is
quite high compared to the average American city (95 kg/m3,
Tchobanoglous et al., 1993), which makes compaction largely
unnecessary. Given that the biodegradable portion of household
waste is 45.1%, the C/N ratio is approximately 22 and the moisture
content is 60%, composting or another bioprocess would be the
best treatment strategy. The caloric value of collected solid waste
(1832 kcal/kg) indicates that it cannot be incinerated without pro-
viding additional fuel. Also, the moisture content is too high for the
waste to be incinerated. If kitchen and yard waste are separated
from the remaining waste, then composting under natural condi-
tions or in engineered reactors can be carried out efciently and
economically. This will dramatically reduce the amount of waste
to be disposed in the landll, thus extending the life of the landll
site and saving huge investments required for land acquisition.
Also, maintaining a landll with non-biodegradable materials is
easier than with biodegradable materials.
5.8. Collection and transfer systems
Currently, collection and transfer of solid waste in the KMC area
is conducted in an ad hoc manner, without any systematic ap-
proach. Solid waste collection vehicles are assigned to neighbor-
hoods without any serious demand analysis. Route selection is
left to the drivers and every vehicle collects solid waste along its
route until its maximum capacity is reached, at which time it goes
to the available disposal site to deposit its load. The empty vehicle
then returns back to its route and continues collection for the next
load. Since the route is not planned for avoiding trafc, vehicles
travel either an extra distance or spend more time on the same
route, which consumes more fuel and increases operating costs.
The present approach is neither economical nor efcient. GIS-
based analysis and optimization techniques can be used to deter-
mine optimal ways of utilizing scarce manpower and resources
for waste collection and transfer.
5.9. Treatment strategies
Currently, solid waste is not being treated and all waste is
openly dumped in Dhapa. Compostable household and market
wastes can be composted efciently and economically, and the
quantity of waste going to the landll can be reduced by 5060%.
Other biological treatment processes like anaerobic processes for
methane generation, and biogas generation can also be considered
for treatment. Experience with composting plants has shown that
one of the major reasons many of them fail is their inability to
make a prot. For reasons of quality and economy, farmers are
rarely interested in buying compost but will accept it at no-cost.
Other bioprocessing options like biogas generation are successful
only on a large-scale where good quality equipment, and adequate
technical and management skills are available. At small- or med-
477
ium-scale treatment plants, biogas generation suffers from prob-
lems like uctuations in the quality and quantity of gas.
Municipal corporations have to accept these facts and understand
that SWM costs can only be minimized, and it is highly unlikely
that waste can ever yield a prot. Also, SWM is and should remain
an essential service to be provided to citizens and not treated as a
prot-making endeavor.
5.10. Unscientic disposal method
The present method of waste disposal cannot be called sani-
tary or controlled landlling because the waste is neither placed
systematically nor is it covered with earth and compacted in
thin layers of 200400 mm as required for sanitary landlls.
There is no control on the entry of ragpickers who carryout
ragpicking in a haphazard and hazardous way. The lling opera-
tion becomes critical during monsoons when most of the ll site
is inaccessible to heavy hauling and spreading equipment. Also,
the leachate generated is not collected properly or treated before
being discharged into water bodies. Recent analysis carried out
on samples of aged/old waste collected from the Dhapa site
shows the presence of coliform bacteria and heavy metals (lead,
cadmium, chromium, copper, zinc and nickel) (KEIP, 2003). It is
evident that leachate has to be treated to minimize toxic metals
concentrations before it is discharged to inland surface waters,
public sewers or on land. Presently, no care is taken to stop
leachate percolation and related groundwater contamination.
This problem has been aggravated by reversal in the direction
of ow of groundwater from southwards (until 1956) to north-
wards (in 1996), due to unplanned pumping of groundwater
from the subsoil (Asnani, 2004).
Engineered landlls with proper leachate collection and extrac-
tion systems and odorous gas collection and extraction systems
will minimize the groundwater contamination problem. Silt col-
lected during road sweeping and debris from construction places
should not be mixed with household and market waste and should
be stacked, collected and transported separately to the disposal
site for using as cover material. Proper security has to be main-
tained at the landll site for minimizing entry of ragpickers.
6. Conclusions
Data regarding SWM in the KMC area were collected, and de-
ciencies in the system were identied. Feasible solutions to some
of the existing problems have also been proposed.
More than 2920 ton/d of solid waste are generated in the KMC
area and around Rs. 1590 million (US$40.35 million), or Rs. 265/
cap-y (US$6.7/cap-y), have been allocated for SWM in 2007
2008. This expenditure remains insufcient for providing adequate
SWM services. Deciencies in each of the elements of an integrated
SWM system are summarized here.
6.1. Collection and transportation
More than 70% of the KMC budget goes for collection of waste
and yet requirements are not met adequately. Collection efciency
is around 6070% for the registered residents and less than 20% for
unregistered residents (slum dwellers). While total container or
storage capacity is adequate, their locations are inappropriate,
resulting in bins that frequently overow with waste. Vehicles
owned by KMC are inadequate in number, and less than 50% of
the current eet is operational at any point in time. Another major
issue is shortage of manpower for collection. These gaps in the sys-
tem point to the need for upgrading current equipment and using
more rational management methods for locating bins and routing
vehicles. Optimization methods have been used successfully for
 Author's personal copy
478 T. Hazra, S. Goel / Waste Management 29 (2009) 470478
solving the last two problems and can be employed for developing
a better solid waste collection system. Public-private partnerships
have also proven to be successful, with private agencies providing
waste collection services at lower cost and greater efciency com-
pared to KMC.
6.2. Treatment and disposal
At present, no treatment is provided for collected solid waste.
More than 90% of the total collected waste is directly disposed in
Dhapa in an unsatisfactory manner without providing earth cover.
This method of dumping has led to heavy metal pollution in
groundwater, since no leachate collection and treatment option
is available. Sanitary landlling with leachate and gas collection
is the recommended method for disposal of MSW.
Although a huge portion of KMCs budget goes for MSWM, poor
collection and inadequate transportation of wastes continue and
result in the accumulation of waste throughout the city. A lack of
suitable facilities (equipment and infrastructure) and underesti-
mates of waste generation rates, shortages of labor, management
deciency, and improper route planning are responsible for poor
collection and inadequate transportation. Further, unscientic dis-
posal methods not only cause adverse effects on the environment
and on human health, but also decrease land availability for dis-
posal and other uses.
References
Asnani, P.U., 2004. United States Asia Environmental Partnership Report, United
States Agency for International Development, Centre for Environmental
Planning and Technology, Ahmedabad; 2005. Technical Committee Report,
West Bengal SWM Mission 2005, Government of West Bengal, Kolkata.
Calcutta Environment Improvement Project (CEIP), 2000. Asian Development Bank
Report.
Das, D., Srinivasu, M., Bandyopadhyay, M., 1998. Solid state acidication of
vegetable waste. Indian Journal of Environmental Health 40 (4), 333342.
Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI), 2007. Huge scope
for Privatization of Solid Waste Management. Available from: <www.cci.com/
press/243/5.doc>.
Kolkata Environment Improvement Project (KEIP), 2003. Master Plan on Solid
Waste Management.
Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC), 2003a. Baseline Picture of city of Kolkata.
Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC), 2003b. Solid Waste Management of Kolkata
at a glance.
Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC), 20072008. Budget Statement by Shri Bikash
Ranjan Bhattacharya, Mayor, Kolkata.
National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), 1996. Strategy
Paper on Solid Waste Management in India, pp. 17.
Rathi, S., 2007. Optimization model for integrated municipal solid waste
management in Mumbai, India. Environment and Development Economics 12,
105121.
Tata Energy Research Institute (TERI), 1998. Report No. 97/ED/52.
Tchobanoglous, G., Theisen, H., Vigil, S., 1993. Integrated Solid Waste Management,
Engineering Principles and Management Issues. McGraw-Hill Inc., NY. ISBN: 0-
07-06-3237-5.
Visvanathan, C., Trankler, J., 2006. Municipal Solid Waste Management in Asia: A
Comparative Analysis. Available from: <www.swlf.ait.ac.th/../
MSWM%20in%20Asia-nal.pdf>.