(a) State the different forms of waste management. 15 marks (b) State the various factors affecting plant location. 15…

(a) Forms of waste management

Waste management follows a hierarchy, from preventing waste to disposing of what cannot be avoided.

(i) Source reduction: redesign products and processes, and improve yields, so that less waste arises. (ii) Reuse: use items or by-products again in the same or another process, such as returnable packaging. (iii) Recycling: reprocess waste into new material, as with metal scrap, paper and plastics. (iv) Composting and biomethanation: biological treatment of organic waste into manure or biogas. (v) Energy recovery: waste-to-energy by incineration or gasification. (vi) Physical, chemical and biological treatment: for effluents and hazardous waste, as in effluent treatment plants, neutralisation and detoxification. (vii) Safe disposal: engineered sanitary landfill or secure landfill for the residue, with monitoring.

By waste stream, management covers municipal solid waste, industrial and hazardous waste, bio-medical waste, electronic waste, plastic waste, and liquid effluents, each under its own rules, including the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2026 (replacing the 2016 Rules from 1 April 2026) and the E-Waste (Management) Rules, 2022, which also use extended producer responsibility. In lean manufacturing, the forms of waste to eliminate are overproduction, waiting, transport, over-processing, inventory, motion and defects.

(b) Factors affecting plant location

(i) Nearness to raw materials, which cuts transport cost for bulky or perishable inputs. (ii) Nearness to the market, which reduces delivery cost and time. (iii) Availability, skill and cost of labour. (iv) Transport facilities, by road, rail, port and air. (v) Power, water and fuel supply. (vi) Cost and availability of land, with room for expansion. (vii) Climate and topography, which matter for some industries. (viii) Government policy, including incentives, tax concessions, industrial estates and special economic zones, and backward-area programmes. (ix) Environmental and zoning regulations. (x) Banking, financial and communication facilities. (xi) Ancillary and supporting industries nearby. (xii) Waste disposal arrangements. (xiii) Attitude of the local community and living conditions for staff. (xiv) Strategic and safety considerations.

(c)(i) Is it profitable to make the brakes?

This is a make-or-buy decision. Only relevant costs count: the additional capacity is already available, so fixed costs do not change and are ignored.

Cost to make per unit = materials ₹100 + labour ₹130 + variable overhead ₹30 = ₹260.

Cost to buy per unit = ₹500.

Saving from making = ₹500 − ₹260 = ₹240 per unit.

It is therefore profitable to make the brakes, saving ₹240 on every unit, so the total gain is ₹240 multiplied by the number of units needed. This holds provided no extra fixed cost arises and quality is acceptable.

(c)(ii) Brakes or agricultural equipment

If the capacity can serve only one use, the comparison is the gain from brakes, ₹240 × Q, against the ₹1,00,000 contribution from agricultural equipment, which is the opportunity cost of the brake option.

Break-even quantity = ₹1,00,000 ÷ ₹240 = 416.67 units, so about 417 units.

If the company needs more than about 417 brakes, making brakes gives a larger gain and is more advantageous. If it needs fewer than 417, agricultural equipment is better. At exactly 417 units the two are about equal. For example, at 1,000 brakes the saving is ₹2,40,000, more than ₹1,00,000, and at 300 brakes it is ₹72,000, less.