national conference on waste to energy - toxics link | for...

REPORT

National Conference

On

Waste to Energy

30th March 2015

Casuarina, India Habitat Centre

New Delhi

ORGANISED BY

CONTENT

1. BACKGROUND

2. CONFERENCE REPORT

3. CONFERENCE PRESENTATIONS

4. CONFERENCE IN VISUALS

5. CONFERENCE AGENDA

BACKGROUND

Currently, of the estimated 62 million tons of MSW generated annually by 377 million people in

urban areas and more than 80% of the waste is being disposed of indiscriminately causing

serious health and environmental degradation. To dispose the municipal waste, landfills were

considered as the best options however if the current 62 million tones annual generation of

MSW continue to be dumped without treatment; it will need 3, 40,000 cubic meter of landfill

space every day. So reduce the pressure on the landfills, the task force on waste to energy

plants has considered to minimize the wastes going to landfill by at least 75% through

processing of MSW using appropriate technologies. For the energy starved country like India, in

the present scenario waste to energy plants have been considered as one of the suitable

options to dispose the municipal waste.

Waste-to-energy or energy-from-waste describes a variety of technologies that convert garbage

or municipal solid waste (MSW) into heat, electricity and fuel from the waste using different

process incineration, gasification, pyrolysis and anaerobic digestion. However in India also the

present focus is more on the incineration based waste to energy plants.

Nevertheless going with the past experiences in India on Waste to Energy plants, there are

skeptic views on viability of the waste to energy plants in Indian scenario, as there are number

of issues are associated with it. Some of the major hurdles on the success of the waste to

energy plants in India are a) improper design to handle Indian wastes and b) inadequate solid

waste collection systems c) calorific value of the waste. d) Lack of planning and inter

institutional coordination. Apart from the structural problem, another most important issue is

the issue of stringent emission standard for dioxins and furans release during the incineration

of the waste and the institutional mechanism to monitor these standards. Further there are

also issues of livelihood of the waste pickers linked with the waste to energy plants. In this

context Toxics Link organized national conference of the stakeholders on Waste to Energy in

New Delhi.

INAUGURAL SESSION

Mr. Ravi Agrawal, Director of Toxics Link in his welcome address laid out the purpose of the

conference and stated that discussion on Waste-to-Energy (WtE) is going on in India since 1994.

However question needs to be posed how to reduce overall health environment risk from

waste and the negative impacts on health & hygiene too. Option of putting big centralized plant

to reduce overall exposure throughout the waste chain is need to be explored. Waste hierarchy

& different ways of collecting waste should also be in place. Increasing dioxin efficiency,

reducing centralized way of emission control, waste profile data are all needed to work out.

Effect of multiple exposure sites like dump site, recycling site, segregation site on environment

& health should also be reduced.

He even after so many years of bringing WTE issues in public domain we do not have recycling

policies even the Municipal waste law has not emphasized on recycling. Other options are also

required to look upon for waste management as the resource efficiency issues. Today WTE is

being considered to reduce GHG emission comparer to waste enhancers. GHG emissions are

one factor to set up & put big capital on WTE but we may need to think for other options too.

Every developed country has a plant which is regulated quite often to control GHG. For strict

regulation EU standard is to be implemented in our country. New municipal waste rule draft is

ready to publish. In this rule mixed centralized and decentralized options are available which

shifts towards decentralizing waste treatment to certain capacity & may not require all the

clearances.

He outlined report of planning commission on WtE but due to the limited public discussion

there are controversies exist on the Waste to Energy Plants. He highlighted some of the major

bottlenecks on the issue of waste to energy in India are lack of engagement with people, public

debate and capacity of Municipal Corporation.

Mr. Ravi welcomed all the stakeholders to participate and discussed the issue. He invited Dr.

Dieter Mutz, Director GIZ, and India to share his experiences in Germany on Waste to Energy.

Dr. Mutz, in his presentation shared the issue of technology know-how; finance the system,

involvement of community in setting up incineration based waste to energy. Dr. Mutz shared

Germany thirty years of experience in dealing with the incinerations and compared the issue

with Indian scenario. According to him WTE is a high political agenda. Before 1972, Germany

had invested on 50,000 uncontrolled landfills and then in 1972 realized the problem of issue,

environment risks and health hazardous. But gradually the waste incineration gets a push to

reduce the burden of the landfills. However opposition against the incineration for causing

pollution led to adoption of the stringent regulations and better technology with regular

supervision by authorities. In Germany waste management was decentralized to some extent.

Similarly in India each and every state and local authority should be held responsible for super

vision of waste management.

…

Technical Session-I

Mr. N.B. Mazumdar , well know urban planner moderated the first technical session.

First presentation was on history of WTE plants in India by Mr. Piyush Mohpatra of Toxics Link.

He detailed out the waste statistics in India, which is going to increase in the coming years. He

also briefed the issue of treatment and disposal of the wastes in India. He gave details overview

of the history of WTE plants in India and reasons for their failure. He pointed out that certain

factors like, poor planning, project Structuring & Design, lack of financial viability assessment,

composition of the waste with low calorific value and loose implementation of the contracts &

laws lead to the closing of the waste to energy plants in India. Mr. Mohpatra also laid out the

controversies related with WTE plants & technology such as Project Location & Emissions

Issues, Financial viability, Dioxins standards not met (0.1ng TEQ), Capacity of the PCBs to

regulate, Livelihood issue not addressed etc.

Prof Shyamla Mani Professor, NIUA, MoUD GOI gave a presentation on JNNURM on Municipal

Solid Waste Management and way forward. She gave a brief overview of NIUA that acts as a

think tank of MoUD to analyze the various situations in urban issue and provides necessary

inputs. As per the data, the Urban population is 31.16% of total population & 468 are classified

as Class – I cities and India generates 1, 50, 080 metric tons per day (MTPD) of MSW. She

quoted According to World Bank analysis in India waste generation will be doubled from 52,125

tons (2010) to 1, 27,485 tons (20125).

Prof. Mani informed that for proper treatment of waste, it is very important to know the

composition of the waste too. As per MoUD guidelines waste prevention has been given top

priority for a sound waste management. Classification is highly specified. Under JNNURM all

funds are given for infrastructure, transportation and all. She also briefed an overview of the

JNNURM and 63 cities are getting funds under JNNURM mainly for class-I A cities. Urban

Infrastructure and Development Scheme for Small and Medium Towns (UIDSSMT) are there

under JNNURM but not in same range as of class I cities.

Prof. Mani gave examples of successful models in JNNURM in Nasik, Kolkata, Kanpur, and Navi Mumbai & Madurai. Its concept was centre funded and matched by states. She suggested that all the Govt. bodies are needed to work in collaboration instead of pulling others in court.

Prof. Mani shared that JnNURM is in conversation with MOEF&CC to develop a policy for household hazardous wastes. Because of MSMEs cities are being used as dump sites, research study jointly done by NEERI & CPCB in Dhapa (Kolkata) found that an open landfill site acts as a source and adds to the troposphere ozone for the air shed of a metropolitan city. There is no mechanism in place for the collection and disposal of the municipal hazardous waste. In the municipal waste stream, heavy metals like Cd, As, Hg & Pb are found to be important issues.

Prof Mani said that segregation at source is not happening. Landfills are needed to be make very safe. Standards are alone not sufficient, proper guidelines of running the plant should be there and should be followed strictly. Even after incineration or treatment left after with sludge or matter needs proper landfills as it not going to disappear. Municipal Corporations are not having sufficient funds to give their waste to the incinerators for waste treatment. She reiterated that WTE is not only energy issue but also social issues. Law makers & implementers are needed to look into whole aspect of subsidiary given for selling compost too. She appealed to organizations, who are working with informal sector, to professionalize the waste picking, segregation etc and provide them appropriate support & guidance.

Prof Mani shared experience of successful PIPP model of Chennai Biomethanation plant which was earlier proved failure and stopped working for years but functional now. She requested all small MCs to go for biomethanation and work in PIPP model.

On her concluding remark Prof Mani mentioned that without support of MoEF&CC and CPCB on proper classification, monitoring, detail description of handling of wastes to energy, JnNURM & MoUD can’t work.

Gyan Misra from IL&FS shared industries view on waste-to-energy. He informed that as per waste hierarchy landfill and WTE are the last option in SWM and industry is strictly following hierarchy. Delhi alone is producing 8000 tons garbage every day which require huge land area to set up biomethanation or aerobic composting. Indian MSW is highly heterogeneous as no source segregation is in practice. Garbage characteristic vary from area to area form where it’s coming. Replication of technology from developed country is not the solution it needed to modify or tailor maid solution as per the requirement.

Mr. Misra briefed about the global evolution of WTE and various types of WTE technology available for waste treatment. First WTE plant was established in 1986 in Timarpur but was closed in 1991 as waste required for the plant needed was of 1400 calorific value but calorific value of Indian waste was app. 600. Since then several plants were set upped but closed because of the mixed MSW, high capital cost, mismatch between waste characteristics & plant design, lack of understanding of technology & lack of training to the operators. Govt. is not giving tariff support to plants and even there is no air emission standard for WTE plants.

He shared the problem industries are facing is garbage mixed with construction demolition debris, road sweeping, drain silt etc. which causes incomplete combustion that leads to generation of particulate matter which is responsible for dioxin & furan generation.

On his concluding remark Mr. Misra said that IL &FS is following Euro norms in their WTE plant at Ghazipur which is based on RDF technology. They follow elaborate pre-processing of MSW and tailor-made solution with respect to WtE technology in which boiler selection is critical. Emissions from Ghazipur plant is very low and have no discernible effect on human health and environment. Dioxins control has been developed to a degree that the air emissions as well as bottom ash cause no harm. He concluded that WtE can surely offer a huge benefit in managing ever increasing waste quantities, subject to adoption of right approach and technology.

Mr. Ananda Tan, US Coordinator GAIA, shared his experience in EU, US & Canada on WTE plant. He briefed about GAIA and said no one shoe fit all. WTE needed to modify according to the local requirement. However, it has not expanded in the world as people have become more aware about the problems associated with the incinerator. WTE is industry generated term just to give more acceptable name.

Mr. Tan clarified that Gasification, Pyrolysis, Plasma Arc all are classified as Incinerators by E.U. and U.S. EPA and no commercial facilities are presently operating in North America. He informed that not a single WTE plant is generating electricity efficiently. Ultimately when using heat to burn or breakdown the waste it will be burner or incinerator and will emit dioxins & furans. In US last incinerator was established in 1997. Since 2009, 100s of incinerators have shut down because of the air emission issues, health problems etc.

Several US countries have backed out or shut down as not cost effective like Baltimore, Canada. Other developed cities have much more money than that in any Indian cities but still it is not feasible for them to successfully run WtE plant. In EU, countries have capacity for advanced plant but they don’t have that much waste to run WtE Plant. Additionally, they are moving towards zero waste, doing recycling etc. Mr. Tan concluded with the note that better solutions do exist as recycling and composting for proper solid waste management instead of establishing incinerators.

Mr. Mazumdar shared some of his thoughts his experience on WTE. He explained that each

and every failure had certain reasons and history. Plants were set-upped but Investment later

found to be not worthy. Timarpur plant was great plant but certain issues were not considered

while setting it up as moisture & inert content of waste, calorific value of waste. In Lucknow

plant also technology used approved was proven but mismatched in planning. Similarly in

Vijayawada plan fundamental issues were not addressed. Mr. Mazumdar said that shutting

down of plants were not failure of technology but the application of technology to the situation

which was not addressed. Biomethanation too failed because mismatch in planning. Similarly

Vijayawada plant, lots of grants given but fundamental issues were not addressed. But of

application of technology to a particular situation where there might be question of technology

which was mismatched.

Discussion

Mr. Neeraj Bharti from New Delhi Municipal Council raised that current argument or discussion should not focus not to ban something but what to do and how to do. It appears that incinerator is not good but what has not been visible here in meeting is successful way to tackle the municipal waste or technology should be followed for it? The present need is to give the solution keeping science & environment in view and illustrate it.

Replying the query Prof. Mani cleared that segregation is very important and Municipal Corporations (MCs) should try to enforce it. There are few MCs who have initiated it and have asked for authorization of collecting e-waste & hazardous waste. MIUA has requested DDA to follow composting in new society plan. This will reduce the need of WTE plant by 50%. Bulk generator like hotel, canteens, hospitals, hostels should adopt composting & biomethanation to treat their waste. Companies & industries should also be approached under CSR to initiate recycling, composting & biomethanation either in their own campus or in appropriate locality. Regarding successful models to imitate Prof Mani said NIUA & MoUD have worked out in details and they have documents which is available officially.

As gasification & pyrolysis is only <1% of WtE plant, Participants were interested to know about other methods & alternative solutions for waste disposal especially when only 10% waste is recyclable. Mr. Ananda clarified that more than 80% waste is recyclable or organic waste that needs composting not incineration.

Ms. Chitra Mukherjee, Manager - Advocacy and Outreach Chintan, also explained about working on zero waste. 20-25% waste is recyclable and 60% compostable. Very less to be thrown and so can be worked as successful model. This helps in removing 60% waste from landfill. Ms. Pratibha Sharma (GAIA) suggested that instead of dwelling into technology required better to use products those are eco friendly. Ms. Jyoti from SMS informed that Pune MC has integrated waste pickers to follow zero waste solution. Better to use biogas plants instead of looking for foreign expensive technology.

Mr. Mazumdar in his closing remark thanked all the speakers for sharing their experience and

information. He also mentioned that we can’t change our life style or waste generation but can

change the way to tackle the waste. We have to address economic condition of waste pickers.

He also mentioned that we are lacking capacity & capability to plan waste management. We

have to take both urban & rural area under consideration while planning out the WTE.

Decentralized & Centralized concept will also come out from that planning it self. As

urbanization increases land become scare & more expensive and no Municipality or

development authority is normally dedicate land for waste generated by inhabitants. They look

up for higher value form housing & commercial establishment. Whatever recycling is

considered by informal sector, how they are related to environmental health issue, how much

they are affected in health issue that should also be look out. There should be strict norms for

recycling and that also in details. Mr. Mazumdar thanked Toxics link for organizing the meeting.

Session-II

Second technical session was chaired by Mr. Satish Sinha Associate Director Toxics Link. The Session was started with the presentation from Mr. Rajashekhar Reddy of Vijayawada Municipal Corporation. He shared that VMC has started WTE plant in 2002 but was closed in 2009. New commissioner has once again started the plant and transferred to women Self Help Group for rejuvenation. He detailed out the profile of Solid Waste Management in Vijayawada City.

VMC has commissioned 3 processing units comprising a compost plant, Bio - Methanisation plant and Waste to Energy plant. All are restarted by new commissioner under Public Community Private Partnership which includes SHG, waste pickers and women who are doing door to door collection. More than 18 lacs in SHG are attached with this programme as they are right people for segregation and converting to compost. These plants were closed due to high operation cost. As lot of money was invested new commissioner is trying to rejuvenate all WtE plants.

Mr. Reddy shared that VMC has arrived to some solution as involving SHG (collection etc.) and have started to prepare handmade paper form waste paper material which is used for cards, notepads, pen stands etc. & gives employment to around 300 people. VMC is planning to scale up this. Community solid waste management program started last year purely under community participation plan and getting funds form MoUD and Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation to rejuvenate these system. He concluded on the note that community partnership can give some solution to waste issue.

Followed by this, Mr. Venkatesh Shekar Sr Environmental of Karnataka State Pollution control Board officer gave a presentation on SPCB preparedness to deal with the waste to energy plants. He explained the role & responsibility of SPCBs in India. Under MSW rule 2000 responsibility of MC is under rule 4, rule 5 is about responsibility of secretary in-charge of urban development. Role of SPBCBs is under Rule 6(1) & (2). All the activities like collection, transportation, treatment should be in the line of science. SPCBs offer technical facility to all

Govt. bodies but do not recommend any technology. However, in case of new technology SPCB evaluates & register the technology after which it can be applicable throughout the country.

Mr. Shekar suggested that management of waste should not be regulated by only one agency or organization but should be educated, monitored, regulated in coordination of all respective departments or organizations which are lacking. All SPCBs are provided with sufficient equipments in laboratory issues by MoEF & CPCB. But in case of any new technology especially in WTE technology needs to be review as per our requirement and that require some support. Municipal corporations are lacking proper finance for implementation of new technology.

Mr. Shekar briefed about emission standards exist right now in India as per rule MSW 2000 which are not in-line with the international air emission standards for the incineration plant. EU or USA standards are very stringent and they have mentioned standards for dioxins etc which is lacking in India. He informed that CPCB is having equipment in Delhi for dioxins & furans testing but sampling cost are very high of min. one lakh INR. Sample collection is quite difficult and if inappropriate then it’s totally getting wasted hence require proper training for collection & testing.

While discussing SPCB preparedness Mr. Shekar informed that Bangalore has set an expert committee which sits and discusses every week since 2-3 yrs on practical issue of waste management. 25 landfill sites have been approved. Each of the segregators is authorized. Divided into 198 wards in Bangalore and 150 waste selection centres and is maintained by NGOs. 105 are working and they can receive waste from MC. Waste pickers has change to collection owner. HC has ordered that WTE plant should be near landfill area. And 13 waste processing plants have started in Bangalore.

Mr. Shekar detailed out the reasons for opposing WTE plants. Generally plants are far from landfill area and transportation causes spillage. Construction cost & tipping fees are also high and uncertain. Wastes are heterogeneous and are not transported to plant uniformly so world’s best technology can’t work. While installing plant we are calculating total waste out of which 60% is organic, 15% inert, rest is recyclable and hardly 5% is suitable for WTE plant. This false calculation causes failure of plant. Segregation at source or at certain point before dumping in landfill or WtE plant area is necessary. We should also look at industrial nonhazardous solid waste plus non hazardous biomedical waste to be treated in WtE plant.

Mr. Shekar requested CPCB to educate and give training to SPCBs & local bodies on WTE technology and related aspects in every 6 months. One national level committee including all SPCBs, and local bodies should be there. He also informed that KSPCB have established watchdog committee members involving panchayat, local residents, SPCB, NGO and they meet thrice a year to resolve the issue of waste management

Dr. Pritpal Randhawa of JNU made a presentation on the Socio-economic aspects of Waste to Energy Technology in Delhi and alternative ways of Managing Municipal Waste. He briefed about existing WtE plants in Delhi and incentives available to these plants. While discussing

social impact, he informed that WtE plants affecting livelihood of millions of waste pickers and causing health problems such as breathlessness, headache etc. in the residents in the vicinity of the plant. He emphasized the need of rethinking of urban waste management through a sustainability lens and incentivise the small-decentralised projects supporting local technologies as well as other ‘solutions’ for different stages of waste management.

Though Mr Vinod Babu Addl. Director of CPCB was not present physically but he sent his presentation for the meeting. He gave an overview of the OKHLA waste to energy plant in Delhi. The plant is based on the technology, where the boiler can receive direct feed of mixed MSW as fuel. The plant is operating without a major shutdown and has been complied to with stipulated emission norms for Dioxins & Furans (after incorporating changes in quality and rate of feeding of activated carbon). Discussion Sanjay Kumar, Bhopal Municipal Corporation (MC), put that statement of Mr. Shekar from KSPCB is not right and mostly all MC is having computerized monitoring system to monitor waste generating daily.

Mr. Shekar clarified/elucidated/explained on availability of assessable data on waste that is being generated, transported or deposited. He answered/responded that there is no standard measurement system with MC; the only assessment is, how many trucks are carrying how much ton of wastes. In cities like Delhi, it is not possible to determine percentage of different type of wastes but the same is possible in small MC. Waste composition & its ratio will always be different depending upon nature, industry, and waste generator.

Mr. Rajkumar added that health impacts should also be considered in WtE. MSW has mentioned on segregation but PCBs need to enforce the segregation. Mr. Shekar replied segregation is important but its duty of MC to enforce such a thing.

Mr. Reddy from Vijayawada MC suggested to involve SHG or incorporate community for segregation.

Mr. Satish sum-upped the session with the comments that in Bangalore decentralized segregation is continued from past 2 years but there is a lack of need to understand why the plant is not operating.

Panel Discussion

At the end there was a panel discussion. Mr Ravi Agarwal and Mr NB Majumdar were in the board of the panel discussion. Mr. Ravi informed that Toxics Link is working on waste issue since 20 yrs including community level, technology, mapping, etc. and the issue is not technology vs non-technology. He stated that system is not working properly but still to some extent segregation, recycling is still going on. The issues considered to be critical are local segregation, local diversion of waste, substitution or introduction of more successful

technology. Intervention like community system do not require money and its a policy not the project. Now subsidy is also not required. There is no silver point to choose the technology. Centralized technology is good and successful in closed system. In new construction, waste management should be part of designing. Segregation should be enforced and look at basics in ground.

Mr. Ravi also told the audience with the fact that there are various successful community based management systems are available, several model has been developed, data is also there but Govt. or policymaker is not looking after it or ready to replicate it. As people are not involved in policy making, it’s a top down approach, so it’s not possible to implement any policy. Urban poor is also there and waste generation characteristic is very different, data of calorific value of waste is also very different. Mr. Ravi added that public pressure and interest must be there to implement rules. WtE Plants are quite complicated and expensive and cant worked on Private-Community-Public-Partnership (PCPP) model. Informal sector should be considered. He concluded with the comment that waste management is not a rocket science but more difficult & complex then rocket science.

Prof. Mani has added that hazardous wastes like CFL, paints, pesticides, batteries e-waste, cleaning agents etc coming from household reached to municipal bin and then to treatment site, such things are forced to be treated by same technology. If don’t want to be get forced with WTE then its necessary to promote segregation. All monitoring bodies should be work in cooperation with ULBs.

Mr. Rajkumar added that involvement of citizens is lacking, awareness programme should be there. People are suffering because of municipal wastes, WtE plants and want to have some solution but they don’t have awareness. Mr. Shashi Pandit recommended to conduct more such meetings and involved president of societies. He also suggested to have committee to act as watchdog which works on scientific manner alongwith the local NGOs that will take that to local stakeholders. Ms. Jyoti had added EPR should also be included in municipal solid waste management like in E-waste with strict implementation.

Mr. Mazumdar concluded the meeting with comments that different line of discussion with different stakeholder was interesting and helped to understand aspects of WTE. He also added that we need to have good interactive planning but the capability is missing. Policy forming should be done by well knowledged persons and then should be implemented. In WTE millions of players are involved, so proper and serious interactive planning is essential.

Mr. Mazumdar suggested that financial part should also be considered which was lacking in last WTE plants of the country. Fundamental issues are needed to be looked into. Informal sectors are very much linked with centralized & decentralized versions. People who are actually into ground collecting and segregating are very important and they have to be best utilized in waste management. They needed to be organized into SHG and let them become small entrepreneur. Govt should look into health issues, recycling methodology and recycled products. All these issues are needed to be discussed with all the stakeholders as well as public should be taken into fold.

Finally Mr satish Sinha thanks all the participants including the Representatives from Municipal

Corporations, State Pollution Control Board, Institutes, NGOs, Industries, Societies welfare

associations, & media to make the conference successful.

3. PRESENTATIONS

a. Session-I

History of Waste-to-Energy in India (Piyush Mohapatra, Toxics Link)

JNNURM and Municipal waste Management (Prof. Shyamala Mani, NIUA, MUD GOI)

Industry’s Perspective towards the Waste to Energy (Mr. Gyan Misra, IL& FS)

International Experiences with WTE Incinerators (Mr Ananda Tan, North America

Coordinator GAIA)

b. Session-II

Experiences of Waste to Energy in Andhra Pradesh (Mr Rajsekhar Reddy ,

Coordinator Urban development and Poverty, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh)

SPCBs preparedness to deal with Waste-to-Energy (Mr. Venkatesh Shekar, Senior

Environmental Officer , Karnataka SPCB)

Social Issues of Municipal Waste Management and Waste to Energy (Dr. Pritpal

Randhawa , JNU)

Dieter Mutz, GIZ-IGEP

Seite 1

Partner for Sustainable Urban and Industrial Development

National Conference on Waste-to-Energy in India

Some initial thoughts based on experiences from Germany

Dieter Mutz, GIZ-IGEP

30. March 10, 2015

Seite 2

Why is WtE presently high on the agenda in India?

Can we learn from German experiences?

Seite 3

Common practice in India

and Germany,but at different times

02.06.2015

Seite 4XXX

02.06.2015

Development of Waste Policy

• 50,000 uncontrolled landfills in FRG (dumps) in 1972

• First Federal Law on Waste Disposal in 1972 in FRG:

• Replace dumps by regional engineered landfill facilities

• Responsibility no longer with small communities but with

regions, counties, larger cities

• Supervision by superior state authorities

• Guidelines to reduce/avoid landfilling of untreated

waste in 1993:

• Rather complex standards for future landfilling

• Necessary alternative: waste incineration (thermal treatment)

• Further alternative in 2001: mechanical-biological-treatment

Seite 502.06.2015

Situation in Germany in 1990 – and in India today

• Increasing amounts

of waste

• No space for

new landfills

• Increasing costs

• Export to distant

regions created

political problems

• Environ. problems

Dumping

of waste not a

solution.

Opposition

against (new)

incinerators

Seite 602.06.2015

Composition of Municipal Solid Waste

approximately (by weight):

• 60% biomass

• 12% other fossil combustibles

• 6% plastic

• 15% stones and glass

• 4% metal

• 3% others

increasing

amounts

are

collected

and

recycled

Seite 76/2/2015

The history of waste incineration

• First facilities for MSW incineration built in Europe at the

end of the 19th century (London, Hamburg)

• Aim was to reduce smell and diseases from the arising

large amounts of waste in large cities

• Later, incinerators have been built in large cities in order

to reduce the volume of waste (minimize transport and

save dump volume)

• In the early days no special systems to avoid air pollution

• Waste incinerators at that time became significant

sources or air pollution

Seite 86/2/2015

Slow development in 80ies & 90ies of last century

• High emissions from waste incinerators (dust, SO2, NOx, heavy metals, dioxins/furanes) negative image

• Increasing environmental conciousness campaigns

• Opposition against new waste incinerators (and new landfills) emergency situation: where to get rid of the MSW?

• After the first energy crisis (1973) waste-to-energy

• Need to raise environmental standard of waste incineration setting stringent standards for emissions into air (andwater) from waste incineration

• accepted alternative to landfills for none-recyclable wastes

New objective: waste avoidance and recycling

Seite 96/2/2015

• Stringent requirements decided in 1990 - heavy oppositionby affected industry and companies operating incinerators 17th Ordinance of Air Pollution Control Act

• New limit values set for a larger number of substances,including mandatory limit value for dioxins and furanes

• New technical systems to be developed in order to copewith the new boundary values

• Operators have to report and are controlled by superiorauthorities

• The German regulation became later the basis for the EU-Directive on the incineration of wastes (2000/76/EC)

Seite 106/2/2015

Modern waste incineration plant built & operated under

new Ordinance for waste incineration (amended 2013)

Seite 116/2/2015

Limit Values of 17th Ordinance (1) (amended version 5/2013)

Parameter Unity Average

per day

Half hour

limit

Mean value

per year

dust mg/m3 5 (10)* 20 -

TOC mg/m3 10 20 -

HCl mg/m3 10 60 -

HF mg/m3 1 4 -

SO2 mg/m3 50 200 -

NOx mg/m3 150 (200)* 400 100

Hg mg/m3 0.03 0.05 0.01

CO mg/m3 50 100 -

Ammonia mg/m3 10 15 -

Minimum temperature of 850 C for at least 2 sec, O2 content 11%

( )* Values for plants with firing thermal capacity <50 MW

Seite 126/2/2015

Limit Values of 17th Ordinance (2) amended version 5/2013

Mean values over sampling

period per group

Unity value

Cd, Tl mg/m3 0.05

Sb, As, Pb, Cr, Co, Cu, Mn, Ni,V, Sn mg/m3 0.5

As, Benzo(a)pyren, Cd, Co, Cr mg/m3 0.05

Dioxine/Furanes ng/m3 0.1

Mean value per year of Nox mg/m3 100

Minimum volume concentration of O2 has to be 11%

Slightly less ambigous limit values apply for incinerators

with less than 50 MW,

and for co-incineration of waste with fossil fuel

Seite 136/2/2015

Existing electrical filter and induced draught fan

HCI/SO2 absorption

Pre-heater

Lime/coke mixture

Filsorption SCR-DeNOx

Fabric filter

Back in the process

NH3 - water

HP

steam

fan to increase pressure

Catalyst

to chimney

Heat displacement

Gas cleaning systems

Source: M.Gleis, UBA Berlin

Seite 146/2/2015

MVA Nuernberg • Modern architecture

• Close to zero emissions

• Close to the city

• Connected to district heating

• Also railway for waste transport

Seite 1502.06.2015

Emissions from waste incineration in Germany (per 100 000 t of MSW)

Before1990

Today

210,000 t NOX

410,000 t SO2

180 kg Cd

130 kg Hg

6 g Dioxin36,000 t NOX

0.9 t SO2

1.2 kg Cd

1.2 kg Hg

0.003 g Dioxin

Seite 166/2/2015

Consequences of the new standards

• Industry had to develop and use new flue gas treatingtechniques

• Costs for new waste incinerators increased

• Municipalities had to retrofit existing incinerators within theset time limit

• Different approaches created competition lowered costs

• Emissions now well below industrial emissions

• Operators have to inform the supervising authorities

• It became mandatory to inform the public about actualemissions (in the meanwhile online)

Significant increase of public acceptance

Seite 17

Cost elements of a new waste incineration plant

02.06.2015

Seite 19

Proven alternative to incineration:

Co-processing waste in cement kilns

02.06.2015

Seite 18

Waste disposal practices in the EU (2010)

02.06.2015

Seite 206/2/2015

Alternative Waste Treatment Techniques

During the last 20-30 years different so called „alternative

technologies“ have been proposed:

• Pyrolysis

• Gasification

• Plasma

• Arc furnace

• Deep well injection

• other

Seite 216/2/2015

Most „alternative“ Technologies failed

• Pyrolysis

• Several small sized plants have been built in Germany decades ago

• Only one small facility is still operating (technical problems, need todispose of hazardous tar)

• All other plants have been shut down

• Thermoselect (combination between pyrolysis, gasification and high tempeature incineration or gas production)

• Pilot plant on Lago Maggiore attracted visitors from the whole world

• One full scale facility has been built in Germany at Karlsruhe

• Never reached specifications/continuous operation shut down andreplaced by MSWI loss of 400 mio €

Seite 226/2/2015

Some data about WtE in Germany

• 70 MSWI‘s are operating (17.9 mio t/a)

• 20 special RDF-facilities (2.1 mio t/a)

• paper industry, food industry, other energy-intensive industry

• RDF in coal fired power stations (1.2 mio t/a)

• RDF in cement industry (2.6 mio t/a)

• RDF in hazardous waste incinerators (1.4 mio t/a)

• Annual energy production

• of 22,150 GWh electric and 29,140 GWh thermal power

• substitution 3.6 % electricity and 2.2 % thermal power

• CO2 reduction: 45 mio t/a ( 20% of total 230 mio t/a)

Source: EUWID 39, 9/23/2008

History of Waste-to-Energy in India

Piyush Mohapatra, Toxics Link

Waste to Energy

In

India

Piyush Mohapatra

Waste Statistics

Waste Generation:

• 2013: 1, 33, 670 TPD

• 2021: 2, 76, 342 TPD

• 2031: 4, 50, 132 TPD

Collection Rate: 68% ( 28% of the total waste treated)

Treatment Rate: 19% of the total waste

Treatment Facilities:

279 Conventional Composting, 138 Vermicomposting,

172 Biomethnation Facilities, 29 RDF facilities, 8 WTE

Source: Planning Commission Report on WTE

History of WTE in India

• Conceptualise in 80s

• First WTE plant commissioned in Delhi: 1987

• Lucknow WTE plant: 2003

• Vijayawada WTE plant: 2003

• Hyderabad WTE Plant: 1999-2003

Timarpur, Delhi WTE

• Commissioned in 1987 ( Denmark)

• Incineration based

• Capacity to process 300 TPD waste

• Power generation capacity 3.75 MW

• Capital cost 25 Crore INR

• Closed down in 1990

Lucknow WTE

• Commissioned in 2003

• Biogas Induced Mixed Arrangement ( Australia) –

Biomethnation

• Total cost of the project 76 Crore INR

• Capacity to process 300 TPD waste

• To generate 5 MW plants


Vijayawada WTE

• Commissioned in 2003

• RDF-Incineration based technology

• To process 225 TPD

• Power Generation Capacity: 6 MW


Hyderabad WTE

• RDF- based Incineration plant

• RDF Part commissioned in 1999

• Power Plant in 2003

• Technology Assistance from TIFAC

• Power Generation Capacity:6.6 MW


Reasons of the Failure

• Poor Planning and Project Structuring and Design

• Lack of financial viability assessment

• Composition of the waste with low calorific value

• Inadequate solid waste collection system in place

• Lack of inter institutional cooperation and coordination

• Loose implementation of the contracts and laws

Present Operational WTE

• Claim to be New Generation WTE

• AP Cluster Plants ( Karimnagar) commissioned in 2011

( 102.13 Crore INR, 12 MW)

• OKHLA-Timarpur commissioned in 2011

( 200 Crore INR, 2050 TPD , 16 MW)

• Pune Commissioned in 2012

( 250 Crore, 650 TPD, 10 – MW ( 2.5 MW)

CONTROVERSIES

• Project Location and Emissions Issues

• Technology is also being questioned

• Financial viability

• Dioxins standards not met (0.1ng TEQ)

• Capacity of the PCBs to regulate

• Loss of recyclable resources

• Livelihood issue not addressed

• Supervision under the NGT

JNNURM and Municipal waste Management

Prof. Shyamala Mani, NIUA, MUD GOI

Shyamala Mani, NIUA 2

India - Urban centres• Total population of India 1,21,01,93,422 (as per census 2011)

•

• Urban population within this is estimated to be 377,000,000 i.e.31.16%.

• This urban population is distributed in 29 states and 6 Unionterritories as 7935 cities and towns.

• Of these, only 468 are classified as Class – I cities having a populationof more than 100,000.

• There are only 7 mega cities with more than 4 million population, 53metros more than one million population.

Generation of waste• Urban India produces about 150,080 metric tonnes per day

(MTPD) of MSW as per Census 2011.

• Waste collection efficiency ranges between 70% and 90%

in major Metro cities whereas in several smaller cities it is

below 50%.

• The common method of processing & disposal of MSW at

present is by crude dumping in many cases.

• Treatment of MSW is almost absent in many cities except

composting and refused derived fuel (RDF) in a limited

manner. Shyamala Mani, NIUA 4

Characteristics of MSW

• The organic fraction of MSW contains bio-

degradable matter ranging from 30% to 55%,

which can be converted into waste-to-compost,

waste-to-RDF and waste-to-energy (WTE)

products.

• The calorific value varies from 800 to 1100

K/calories and moisture content 40% to 50%,

whereas WTE projects requires calorific value

more than 2000 K/calories and moisture content

about 10%. Shyamala Mani, NIUA 6

Composition of

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)

Source: Earth Engineering Centre, 2012

50.8

9

51.9

1

50.4

1

52.3

8

53.4

1

50.4

1

16.2

8

19.2

3

21.4

4

16.7

8

17.0

2 21.4

4

32.8

2

28.8

6

28

.15

30.8

5

29.5

7

28

.15

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Metro Other Cities East India North India South India West India

Co

mp

osi

tio

n o

f M

SW

Region/City

Composition of MSW in India & Regional Variation

Compostable (%)

Recyclables (%)

Inerts (%)

9Shyamala Mani, NIUA

JnNURM - Kolkata• Name: Municipal Solid Waste Management

of Municipal towns for Kolkata

• Location: Ten Municipalities within Kolkata

Metropolitan Area namely, Garulia,

• North Barrackpore, Barrackpore, Budge

Budge, Bansberia, Hooghly

• Kamarhati, Rajarhat-Gopalpore, Rajpur

• Sanction Cost: Rs. 56.59 Cr.

• Date of Sanction: January 22, 2007

• Date of Completion: March, 2011Shyamala Mani, NIUA 15

JnNURM - Madurai• Name: Solid Waste

Management, Madurai

Corporation

• Location: Area falling

under Corporation of

Madurai

• Sanction Cost: Rs. 74.29

Cr.

• Date of Sanction:

February 2, 2007

• Date of Completion:

March, 2009 Shyamala Mani, NIUA 14

JnNURM – Navi Mumbai• Name: Solid Waste Management, Navi Mumbai

• Location: Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation

limits area covering 100% of population


• Date of Sanction: December 11, 2009

• Date of Completion: April 2012.


JnNURM - Kanpur

• Name: Municipal Solid Waste Management

• Location: Kanpur Municipal Corporation

Area, Uttar Pradesh


• Date of Sanction: March 26th, 2007

• Date of Completion: April, 20, 2012



Environmental and Health Effects

of Improper Waste Disposal

A. Environmental:

• Water pollution e.g. contamination of drinking water source

• Soil pollution e.g. non-biodegradable waste put in landfills

• Air pollution e.g. incinerator emissions – dioxins & furans

• Public sensitivity – Unaesthetic and Offensive


Environmental and Health Effects

of Improper Waste Disposal

B. Health:

• Injuries due to:

Physical – ‘Sharps’

Chemical – Toxic, corrosive, flammable

and reactive chemicals

• Infections: Occupational hazards for municipal

workers and ragpickers


WTE - Bio Methanation

is appropriate

• Uses only segregated waste

• Not competing with recycling

• Appropriate for Indian waste stream.


Ragpickers’ problems would also have to be

addressed; organizing them into self help

groups to help achieve the dry waste

collection and encouraging setting up of the

Ecological Reuse & Recycling Units (CEE-

ERUs ) consisting of composting, paper

making unit and plastic weaving units could

be one of the options


Biomethenation Plant

Koyembedu Whole Sale Market, Chennai

• The vegetable waste based power plant in the Koyambedu wholesale market complex is designed to handle about 30 to 50 tons of vegetable, fruit and flower wastes per day.

• The project cost is about Rs.5.0 Crores (Rs 352lakhs + US $ 320000) and is jointly borne by Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) and Ministry of Non Conventional Energy Sources, (MNES), Gov of India. Central Leather Research Institute, Adyar, Chenai (CLRI) is the technical agency monitoring the project implementation.

• This is the first project in the country with vegetable waste.

• M/s Enkem Engineers PVt Ltd, Chennai has implemented the project in association with their collaborator

• M/s ENTEC GMbH of Austria


Why not PIPP?

• PIPP is Public, Informal sector and Private

Partnership

• PIPP involves giving dignity and status to the

informal sector and regards them as rightful

stakeholders and not just employees

• PIPP encourages complementing each others’

strengths and weaknesses and not eradicating one in

favour of the other


Some Successful PIPPs

• Suryapet

• Namakkal

• Vellore

• Alandur – Pallavaram

• Kihim


Recommendations for Alternatives

• The alternative waste disposal methods include:

– i. Waste reduction

– ii. Waste segregation at source

– iii. Extended use and Reuse

– iv. Recycling

– v. Biomethanation technology

– vi. Composting

Industry’s Perspective towards the Waste to Energy

Mr. Gyan Misra, IL& FS

MSW in India has following main components

◦ Biodegradable matter (green and food waste)

◦ Combustible matter or Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) (plastic, cloth,paper, woody mass, etc.)

◦ Recyclables (metal, containers, etc)

◦ Inerts/ Rejects (post removal of recyclables)

Indian MSW is highly heterogeneous in composition and size

Collection services in vogue makes it very dirty, mixed withsoil, road sweepings (dust), drain silt and high moisture

Replication of the technologies of other developed countriesdid not work in our case

Need of a customized WtE solution for handling humongouswaste quantities and save the precious land

Best technology should fulfill following criterion:

Lowest life cycle cost

Need least land area

Limited air and land pollution

Produce more power with less waste

Cause maximum volume reduction for lower landfill space

Technology suited for waste quality

Any one technology may not satisfy all of the above criterion; we need to identify best compromise

More than 100 years of history. Approx 1000 WtE Incinerationbased plants worldwide

Process of control/complete combustion, for burning solidwastes, leading to the energy recovery

Common Types: Mass Incineration and Refused Derived Fuel(RDF) Combustion

Volume and weight reduction - approx. 90% and 75%,respectively, reducing the land area requirement for its disposal

Whole setup can be installed at small site compared to arearequired for aerobic and anaerobic composting for samequantity of waste

Ash residue is usually non-putrescible, sterile and inert

Cost can be partly offset by heat recovery/sale of energy

S.No Project Waste Processing Capacity (TPD)

Power plant capacity(MW)

Year of starting

Year of closure

1. Timarpur, Delhi 350 3.75 1986 1991

2. DST, Gol, Mumbai 250 No power plant

1994

3. Selco, Gandamguda, Hyderabad

600 6.6 1999 2009

4. Shriram Energy, Vijaywada 650 6 2003 2008

5. Asia Bio-energy India Ltd & Enkem Engrs Pvt Ltd, Lucknow

600 5 2003 2003

6. Gayatri, Bangalore 800 8 Abandoned

7. RDF Power, Hyderabad 800 11 Yet to be commissioned

S.No Project Waste Processing Capacity (TPD)

Power plant capacity(MW)

Year of starting

Year of closure

8. Jindal EcopolisOkhla, Delhi

2000 16 2012 Operational

9. Rochem, Pune 700 12 Yet to be commissioned

10. A2Z, Kanpur 700 15 Yet to be commissioned

11. Ramky, Narela, Delhi

1400 24 Yet to be commissioned

12. WtE ,Ghazipur, Delhi 1300 12 Yet to be commissioned

Environmental Concerns:

◦ Air emissions

◦ Leachate generation

Technological Concerns:

◦ Mismatch between waste characteristics and plant design

◦ Lack of understanding of technology

◦ “Fly by night” operators

Sustainability:

◦ Less financial viability

◦ Complex Regulatory Processes

Social Concerns:

◦ Livelihood of Rag-pickers

◦ Heath and Hygiene factor

◦ NIMBY

Active control measure

◦ SCR/SNCR + Dry/Semi wet/Wet Reactor + Activated Carbon Injection in downstream + Set of Bag Filters

Passive control measures

◦ Multiple pass boiler – removal of maximum particulates before the gases cool below 4500 C temp. Ensures denial of de-novo synthesis

◦ Innovation/improvements in Grate design

◦ Temperature Control in Furnace and ensuring good combustion – 3Ts

◦ Removal of Chlorinated plastics and material

Use of correct technology vis-à-vis

characteristics of waste. Don’t go blindly for

unrealistic technologies. Strict technical

evaluation of proposals

Regulators should use good expertise

Beware of proponents of “So called Advance

Technologies”, without understanding the

applicability as per Indian waste

Vocational/skill based trainings to waste-pickers to

earn better livelihoods

Absorb as many waste lickers as possible, in the

waste-to-energy plant

Regular provision of healthcare services

Abide by MNRE guidelines – adhere to DST TIFACrecommended process for RDF preparation

Elaborate pre-processing of MSW

High quality shredders, dryers and ADS essential – Goodquality fuel

No dependence on biomass or any other supplementary fuel

Tailor-made solution w.r.t WtE technology - Boiler selectionis critical

Localization of cost – essential to success in future

Highest standards of pollution control measures – Flue GasTreatment, LTP, odor, dust and noise control. Designed toconform to EURO emission norms

Transparency (CEMS & Visitor’s Gallery)

1300TPD MSW

23

RDF Plant Power Plant

12 MW Power

RDF

ENVIRONMENT

MANAGEMENT PLAN

ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN:

Flue Gas Treatment Plan (FGTP)Odor ControlNoise ControlLeachate Treatment Plant (LTP)Management of Solid Residues (Ash)

MSW Pit

Manual segregation on slow conveyor

Shredder – (100mm)

Screening in trommel (100mm), with bag rippers

Rotary dryer

Air density separator

Light combustible (RDF)

Spray herbal inoculums

Air cleaning To chimney

RDF Storage

Screening in trommel (16/25 mm)

Minus 100 mm sizePlus 100 mm size

Hot Air Generator

Magnetic Separator

Elaborate pre-processing provides

redundancy to accept garbage

with silt etc

25 - 100 mm size

Minus 16 mm size - inert16 - 25 mm size - organic

RDF

Boiler

Switchyard

Turbine Generator

Export to grid(Green Power)

FGTSChimne

y

CEMS

Condenser

MakeupWater

RO

WTP

1.1 MLD Treated Sewage Water

Process Water

Secondary Air

Primary Air

SC

APH

Ash Handling System

Deaerator

Compressor

Internal Consumption

InstrumentAir

Service Air

WtE is an important part of integrated solid waste managementsystem

Efficient and reliable process for inertizing fraction of waste leftafter material recycling

Pre-processing is clearly advantageous for environmental reasonsover mass burn facilities, especially so in Indian context

Emissions from these facilities are very low and have no discernibleeffect on human health and environment

Dioxins control has been developed to a degree that the airemissions as well as bottom ash cause no harm

Globally WtE plants have successfully been transformed from apollution source to a pollution sink

As far as India is concerned, WtE can surely offer a huge benefit inmanaging ever increasing waste quantities, subject to adoption ofright approach and technology

International Experiences with WTE Incinerators

Mr Ananda Tan, North America Coordinator GAIA

What is Waste to Energy?

A public relations term coined by the incinerator industry to expand their sector and secure public subsidies

Traditional Incinerators

Staged Incinerators

Landfill gas to energy

Anaerobic Digesters

Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives

GAIA formed in 2000 (15 years)

Global network of 1000 community groups in 100 countries

Promoting community-based solutions for zero waste,

clean energy, environmental justice

Local knowledge and leadership

40 CFR 60.51a:

Municipal waste combustor, MWC, or municipal waste combustor unit: (1) Means any setting or equipment that combusts solid, liquid, or gasified MSW including, but not limited to, field-erected incinerators (with or without heat recovery), modular incinerators (starved-air or excess-air), boilers (i.e., steam-generating units), furnaces (whether suspension-fired, grate-fired, mass-fired, air curtain incinerators, or fluidized bed-fired), and pyrolysis/combustion units.

Pyrolysis/combustion unit means a unit that produces gases, liquids, or solids through the heating of MSW, and the gases, liquids, or solids produced are combusted and emissions vented to the atmosphere.

(www.epa.gov/ttn/nsr/gen/rm_2.html)

EPA regulates MSW pyrolysis and gasification as

“Municipal waste combustor”

6

EU regulates Gasification, Pyrolysis, Plasmaas “waste incineration plant”

Art 3.40 "waste incineration plant" means any stationary or mobiletechnical unit and equipment dedicated to the thermal treatment ofwaste, with or without recovery of the combustion heat generated,through the incineration by oxidation of waste as well as other thermaltreatment processes, such as pyrolysis, gasification or plasmaprocess, if the substances resulting from the treatment aresubsequently incinerated;

Directive on Industrial Emissions 2010/75/EU

7

WTE Proposals in U.S. & Canada100s of incinerators stopped since 2009

Reasons for Decline

Pollution Risk

Climate Risk

Investor Risk

Technology Risk

Reputational Risk

EU Waste Legislation Summary

Frameworks: Waste Framework Directive + Packaging Directive + WEEE Directive + potential Biowaste (green waste) Directive

Sustainable Consumption and Production Strategy

Roadmap for a Resource Efficient Europe

Landfill Directive (1999/31/EC) biodegradable municipal waste going to landfills must be reduced: to 35 % of the total amount (base year 1995) by 2016. (2006 – 75%, 2011 – 50%)

Incineration Directive – increases monitoring of emissions and requires substantial reductions

Incinerator Costs

Frederick County, Maryland (last facility built, 1995): $615m = Rs 3,075 crore

St. Lucie, Florida (proposed 2008, never built): $450m = Rs. 2,250 crore

Karlsruhe, Germany (shut down after 4 years of operation): lost €400m = Rs. 2,600 crore

Detroit, MI

Harrisburg, PA

Investor Risk

U.S. Energy Information Administration, Updated Capital Cost Estimates for Electricity Generation Plants, November 2010.

Pollution Risk

WASTE INCINERATOR POLLUTION

DIOXINS

PCBs

CADMIUM

ARSENIC

CHROMIUM

MERCURY

LEAD

ACIDIC GASES

PARTICULATE

MATTER

Source: NY Department of Conservation, Comments to New York State Public Service Commission in the Matter of the application of Covanta Energy Corporation, August 19, 2011.

Reputational Risk Covanta settled $400,000 with Connecticut Attorney

General in June 2011 for dioxin emissions at an incinerator

Wheelabrator settled $7.5 million with Massachusetts Attorney General in May 2011 for environmental violations and defrauding communities that paid for "safe disposal"

Covanta settled $355,000 with Connecticut Attorney General in November 2009 for air emissions

Ironbound Community Corporation and Greenfaith won a settlement against Covanta in October 2010 for hundreds of Clean Air Act violations at the Newark incinerator

Source: “Assessment of Materials

Management Options for the

Massachusetts Solid Waste Master Plan

Review,” Tellus Institute December 2008, p.2.

Kg CO2 per ton of waste

Job Creation: Reclamation vs. Disposal

Type of Operation Jobs/10,000 TPY

Computer Reuse 296

Textile Reclamation 85

Misc. Durables Reuse 62

Wooden Pallet Repair 28

Recycling-Based Manufacturers 25

Conventional MRFs 10

Composting 4

Disposal Facilities 1

MRF = materials recovery facilityTPY = tons per year

Institute for Local Self-Reliance

Session-II

Experiences of Waste to Energy in Andhra Pradesh

Mr Rajsekhar Reddy, Coordinator Urban development and Poverty, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh

Solid Waste Management - Issues on waste to energy initiatives in Vijayawada city

Vijayawada Municipal Corporation

1

VIJAYAWADA MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONName of the Project: Waste to Energy

Details of Primary Collection :

No. Of House Holds - 2,75,000

No. of House Holds covered under Door to Door collection - 2,75,000

Percentage of House holds Covered - 100%

No. of Trycycles - 336 Nos.

No. of Pushcarts - 536 Nos.

Details of Secondary Collection :

No. of Dumper Bins - 345 Nos

Road Length - 693 KMs.

Average Dumper Bin Capacitiy - 1.1 Ton

3


Practices Implemented in SWM in VMC:-

VMC has commissioned 3 processing units comprising a compost plant, Bio -Methanisation plant and Waste to Energy plant.

Compost Plant :-

❖M/s. Excel industries started the production of compost from 15.09.1996 with 125 MT / day capacity in Azith Singh Nagar.

❖The plant was operated till 2006, but due to various reasons plant was shutdown.

❖At present the premises is developed as transfer station and handed over to SHG women for rejuvenation of activity.

Bio – Methanisation Plant:-

❖VMC has commissioned this plant at Singh Nagar during November, 2004.

❖M/s. Mailhem Engineers Pvt. Ltd has constructed this plant for 20ton per day capacity near Azith Singh Nagar to process the waste from market.

5


❖Plant was in operation till 2009 and was produced around 1000 Cum. Of Methane and closed due to high operational costs and no sustainability.

❖The Methane was cleaned and utilized to run the 250 KVA power engine.

Waste to Energy Plant:-

❖The plant was commissioned from December, 2003.

❖The waste to energy plant was developed and operated by M/s. Shri Ram Energy Systems Ltd.

❖It was proposed that solid waste is converted to RDF pellets, which are then loaded on to the boiler for burning along with other fuels to generate 6 MW of power every day.

❖The generated electricity was exported in to the grid of AP Transco through transmission lines.

❖The plant was operating till 2009 and closed due to high operational costs and no sustainability.

7


Waste to Energy Project:-

❖Now previous waste processing plants in VMC are in abonded stage. To overcome this problem and to meet the future challenges of SWM at present has appointed INCAP as a transaction advisory Consultant to VMC on standard procurement procedures.

❖INCAP in consultation with VMC has planned for setting up of state of art SWM services in the city, promoting undertaking integrated solid waste management services starting with processing of MSW and disposal inert and rejects from the MSW processing facility at the scientific land fill.

❖It is decided to provide through Public and Private community participation (PCPP) on DBOOT (Design Build Own Operate and Transfer) basis.

❖At present this project is in RFP (Request for proposal ) final Stage.

❖For the land for above said project , the Commissioner constituted a committee and the members inspected the 2 cites at Kadim Pothavaram Village of G. Kondur Mandal and submitted land suitability report.

❖The land acquisition process in under progress.

10

Recent Remedial Measures• Forming waste pickers SHGs and handed over

the waste collection process for segregation.

• Converting paper and green waste to hand made paper, which ultimately gives larger employment through production of useful items by women.

• Many women in SHGs are given the responsibility of waste collection, segregation and recycling by giving funds under community solid waste management programme with support of CRPs.

SPCBs preparedness to deal with Waste-to-Energy

Mr. Venkatesh Shekar, Senior Environmental Officer, Karnataka SPCB

Waste to Energy Technologies Incineration with recovery of energy (heat or to electricity from

high calorific value of RDF) Pyrolysis and gasification which are not yet proven under Indian

conditions

Incineration: • This can reduce the volume of waste to the landfill by 90%.

• Depends entirely on incoming waste feed characteristic &quantity

a) Relevant for dry bin content (un segregated waste, pre-treatment is necessary)

b) LCV of waste must be at least 1450 kilo.cal/kg & average1700kilo.cal/kg

• To ensure Financial viability of incineration plant, the supply ofwaste should be at least 500TPD of segregated waste with a LCVnot less than 150Kilocal/kg.

SPCB preparedness to deal with the waste to energy

• Issues and Cost of the monitoring:Issues

1. The waste to energy units(Incinerators) are generally requires highinvestment and also the operating cost.

2. Other than incinerators, the units like Bio-methanization etc can be

accommodated in the available places in residential area including

the parks & the play grounds- but to ensure continous supply of

organic waste.

Cost of the monitoring1. Presently the MSW Rules, 2000 prescribes the

(a) Operating standards- 99% combustion efficiency and

(b) Emission standards:-

Parameters Concentration mg/Nm3 at

(12% CO, Correction)

Remarks

Particular Matter 150 Online PM-2.5 & PM-

10 Available

Nitrogen Oxides 450 Online available

HCl 50 Online available

Minimum stack height shall

be 30 meters above ground

-

Volatile organic compounds

in ash shall not be more than

0.01% Online available

Total VOC by import

VOC analyser

• However MSW Rules are not inline with theinternational air emission standards for MunicipalSolid Waste on the incineration plant and which aremore stringent

STANDARDS PRESCRIBED BY OTHER COUNTRIES AS FOLLOWS:

German standards for Air Emissions from Incineration plants-I

Parameter Unit Average per

day

Half hour

limit

Mean value

per year

Remarks

Dust mg/m³ 5(10) 20 - Online -yes

TOC mg/m³ 10 20 - Online -yes

HCl mg/m³ 10 60 - Online -yes

HF mg/m³ 1 4 - To collect &

analyse

SO2 mg/m³ 50 200 - Online -yes

NOX mg/m³ 150(200) 400 100 Online -yes

Hg mg/m³ 0.03 0.05 0.01 Sample to

collect &

analyse

CO mg/m³ 50 100 - Online-yes

Ammonia mg/m³ 10 15 - Online-yes

Minimum temperature of 850c for at least 2 sec, O2 content 11%

German standards for Air Emissions from Incineration plants-II

Mean values over

sampling period per

group

Unit Value Remarks

Cd, Tl mg/m³ 0.05 ICPMS

AASM

Sb, As, Pb, Cr, Co,

Cu, Mn, Ni, V, Sn

mg/m³ 0.5 ICPMS

AASM

As, Benzo (a)

pyrene, Cd, Co, Cr

mg/m³ 0.05 ICPMS

& GCMS

Dioxine/Furanes mg/m³ 0.1 Not available

the equipment

as well as

training

Mean value per year

of NOx

mg/m³ 100 Online-yes

• Issue of Lab to monitor:

– SPCBs do have the following instruments for monitoring– (a) High volume sampler for AAQM– (b) Stack monitoring

(i) Imported VOC analyser for total VOC on sport. The costis around 2lakhs for instrument

(ii) Individual VOC (indicative) at Lab using standard samplerprocedure

No Indicative Standards:

Emission collection – minimum 45mins for 1gc runOverlapping for peaks- instrument is sensitiveCompounds are overlapping- Difficult to analyseAnalyist shall have to be given training for at least 15 days at the spotCost of collection for each parameter is around Rs. 2000/parameter

- (iii) Grass chromatographer- (iv) Grass chromatographer Mass Spectra(GCMS) – to analyse benzo pyrene

training is required- (v) ICPMS: (Metal analyser)- Atomic absorption spectrometer- Consumable is required Rs. 3500/100ml & standards are to be purchased

• Dioxione and Furanes: Equipments and training for the staff are required for the SPCBs.

CPCBs are already having the analyser

CPCBs prescribe minimum cost of analysis Rs.1 Lakh/ samplers

SPCB preparedness to deal with the waste toenergy

Other Environmental Parameters on Waste to Energy:

(1) Siting of Incineration Plant:

An important criteria for survival of the plant:

A controlled & well operated landfill must be availablefor disposing residue(bed & fly ash)

MSW incineration plant should be at least 300 to 500meters at the residential zone

In case of steam production the plant should located nearsuitable energy consumer

(2) Other pre-requisites

To ensure that, the Municipal Solid Waste are segregatedat source or segregated at the facility, so that organic andnon-organic waste are separated.

• The green belt around the unit needs to be designated between thepremises and the other activity like residential/commercial/otheractivities

• This unit is not desirable to locate within the industrial area inview of transport of municipal solid waste (bailing & other mixedwaste) if the incineration is to be located stand alone other thanthe integrated facility.

• SPCBs and local bodies shall ensure that, sufficient incinerablemunicipal waste are available before establishment of the unit andmay also combine two or three joint towns (joint venture)

• Industrial non-hazardous and solid waste of kilocalories morethan 2500 shall also be consider for waste to energy similar to co-processing.

Recommendations • Training to the staff incharge of monitoring at

SPCBs/local body shall be made at the virgin industrial plant viz., other than the place of establishment and successfully operating since at least 10 years (including visit to such places or countries)

• Equipments required for analysis of Dioxins and Furanesneeds to provided by the Central Government

• Watchdog committee to be formed consisting of allconcerned departments like SPCBs, local body, local villagepanchayat, local resident association representatives andrecognized NGO

• Online monitoring results to be displayed in SPCB and atthe unit premises all the time for public reference.

Bio methanization Plant in Koramangala Park, Bangalore

Social Issues of Municipal Waste Management and Waste to Energy

Dr. Pritpal Randhawa , JNU

Socio-economic cost of Waste to Energy Technology in Delhi and Alternative Ways of Managing Municipal Waste

Pritpal RandhawaCentre for Studies in Science Policy, Jawaharlal Nehru University

National Conference on Waste to Energy organised by Toxics Link at India Habitat Centre, New Delhi, 30 March 2015

Okhla 2500 MT to generate 16 MW

Gazipur 1300 MW to generate 10 MW

Bawana-Narela1000-4000 MT to generate 35 MW

“WTE is the future of MSW management in Delhi. It is not an energy plant, rather, it is a waste management plant.”

“There is no land left to create more landfill sites in Delhi, one has to think about an alternative solution for MSW management.”

“We can clean our cities by scientifically disposing of solid waste andgenerating electricity and at the same time, help reduce the large electricity deficit in the country.”

• Land for the Plant: Free land on the lease of 25 years, which can be extended on the success of the project. The Jindals got 13.5 acres for Okhla plant, IL&FS was given 5.7 acres for the Ghazipur plant, Ramky got 100 acres Narela-Bawana plant

• Carbon Credit: The WTE plants in Delhi are registered to earn 2.6 million CER over ten years period.

• Subsidy from Ministry of Renewal Energy: WTE projects receive 20 million rupees for the generation of each megawatt under the ‘energy recovery programme from urban waste’.

• Tipping Fee: Fee of Rs. 500 to 1000 from MCD and NDMC for incinerating every ton of waste.

• According to the official figures, at present Delhi produce 9000 MT of municipal waste. After all the WTE plants are operationalised in Delhi, they would require approximately 7500 MT of waste every day.

• 1500 MT waste would be left behind to share between private companies and informal waste pickers. Endangering the livelihood of 300000 waste pickers.

There is population of 1.5 million in the vicinity of the plant. Residents in the vicinity of the plant have started complaining about different kinds of health problem including breathlessness, headache, fatigue etc.

Municipal waste is solely viewed as environmental, managerial and technical problem. Municipal waste policies designed from such a perspective depending on technical solutions (WTE technology) cannot overcome the crisis of urban waste management without understanding contemporary urban process and the socio-economic and political interactions around waste on the ground.

Official Perspective Vs Ground Realities

Khatta/Dhalao (dump

site)

Transport

Collection

Waste Treatment

Disposal

Water Pollution

Air pollution

Segregation at waste picker house

Segregation

Segregation

Collection by waste pickers

EH risk at khatta

EH issues at Waste pickers house

Privatisation of collection leaving to livelihood displacement

Occupational HazardsPolice harassmentBribe to private company staff at khatta

Livelihood threat

Unhygienic temporary shelter

Exposure to dioxins and Furans in nearby localities

Heavy metals in groundwater & redistributing of risk in different forms

WP not paid for primary collection

Waste Generation

Transport

RecyclingTransport

No Collection in UC & Slums

No recognitionNo incentive

• Interplay between formal and informal flows of waste

• EH risks across the waste chain – flows between

different types of pollution from community bin to waste

treatment plant and landfill sites

• Social risks beyond the issue of livelihood of waste

pickers

The MSW Rules outline the following:

• Responsibility of agencies dealing with different aspects of MSW

• Guidelines for dealing with waste collection, segregation, transportation,

treatment and disposal

• Prescribing standards for treatment and disposal of waste

• Waste is not just an environmental policy issue but a complex mix of urban planning, environmental health and social justice concerns. Hence there is a need for more formal and deeper interactions between all the agencies dealing with different aspects of the waste.

• There is a need for the deeper engagements of the flows of waste that throw up opportunities to address both environmental health and social justice concerns in a joint manner.

• There is a need for setting up new regulatory mechanism in order to control new types of emissions produced by the technologies (waste to energy) promoted to handle solid waste in the cities.

• The case of public-private partnership is ineffective for primary collection and segregation. Such contract for primary collection and segregation could be given directly to the informal sector (waste-pickers) by the municipalities through Resident Welfare Associations (RWAs) or NGOs.

4.

• There is a need to draw out lessons from the decentralized approaches (in several parts of the country) which are integrating the formal and the informal sector. Examples from Pune, Ahmedabad and Bangalore.

• There is a need to incentivise small-decentralised projects supporting local technologies as well as other ‘solutions’ for different stages of waste management. These can include community led initiatives for implementation of waste management practices, economic incentives such as subsidizing compost and an incentive structure around the land needed.

• There do already exist mechanisms of people’s participation in the planning and implementation process but they are utilised in a token manner, not with any substantive engagement. If these mechanisms are more democratised then they can be utilised in a more constructive manner.

4. CONFERENCE VISUALS

5. CONFERENCE AGENDA National Conference on Waste to Energy Venue: Casuarina, India Habitat Centre

Date: 30th March 2015

9.30 – 10.00 REGISTRATION

10.00 – 11.00 INAUGURAL SESSION

Introductory Remark: Mr. Ravi Agarwal, Director, Toxics Link Key Note Address; Mr. Vijay Chaurasia, Addl. Advisor, CEPHEO, MUD, GOI Key Note Address : Ms Sanchita Jindal, Scientist F, MoEF & CC,GOI Special Address: Dr. Dieter Mutz, Director GIZ Vote of Thanks: Mr Satish Sinha, Associate Director, Toxics Link

11.00 – 11.15 TEA SESSION-I Chair: Dr N.B. Mazumdar

11.15-11.30 History of Waste-to-Energy in India (Piyush Mohapatra, Toxics Link)

11.30 - 12.00 Economics and Infrastructure of Waste to Energy in India ( Mr Rohit Kakkar , Deputy Advisor , CPHEEO, Ministry of Urban Development, GOI)

JNNURM and Municipal waste Management (Prof. Shyamala Mani, NIUA, MUD

GOI) 12.00 -12.30 Industry’s Perspective towards the Waste to Energy (Mr. Gyan Misra, IL& FS)

DISCUSSION

1.00 - 2.00 LUNCH SESSION-II Chair: Mr. Satish Sinha

2.00 – 2.30 Experience of Waste to Energy in Andhra Pradesh (Mr Rajsekhar Reddy , Coordinator Urban development and Poverty, Govt of Andhra Pradesh)

2.30 -- 3.00 Regulatory Infrastructure & Technology for the Waste to Energy in India (Mr. Vinod Babu, senior Scientist, CPCB )

3.00 – 3.30 SPCBs preparedness to deal with Waste-to-Energy (Mr. Venkatesh Shekar , Senior Environmental Officer , Karnataka SPCB)

International Experiences on Waste to Energy: Mr Ananda Tan (North America Coordinator GAIA) 3.30 - 4.00

Social Issues of Municipal Waste Management and Waste to Energy (Dr. Pritpal Randhawa , JNU)

DISCUSSION

4.15 - 5.15 PANEL DISCUSSION

Mr. Ravi Agarwal Mr BR Mishra ( Scientist E, Ministry of New and Renewable Energy ) Dr NB Mazumdar Mr. Tejaswi S Naik (Municipal Commissioner, Bhopal)

5.15 - 5.30 CONCLUDING REMARKS ( Mr Satish Sinha, Toxics Link) & TEA

national conference on waste to energy - toxics link | for...

Documents