OVERVIEW OF THE PRESENTATION

CO-PROCESSING OF WASTE IN Ø HW Ge neratio n a nd disp osal Sta tus i n In dia

CEMENT KILN ØWhat is c o-processi ng

Ø Why co -proce ssin g
Ø Env ironmentall y s ou nd
Experience of Ø Tech nicall y fe asible

GRA SIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED Ø Econo mic

ØInitia tiv es taken u p b y Grasi m In dus tries Li mited in
Dr. K.V. REDDY
the fi eld of c o-processi ng
GRASIM IN DUS TRI ES LI MITED
Green Cementech 2010, Hotel Westin, Hyderabad
Ø Concl usio n

PRESENT STATUS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE PRESENT STATUS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

Hazardous Waste Generation

Hazardous Waste Generation i n In dia
Ø Gujarat, Maharashtra a nd Andhra P radesh are the top
three HW generating States.
ü Hazardous Waste Generating Units: 36,1 65 n os.
Ø The relative contributions by these States are 28.76 %, 25. 16
ü Total Hazardous Waste Generation: 62,32,5 07 Metric
% and 8. 93 % respectively.
Tonnes.
Ø Thereafter, Chhattisgarh (4.74 %), Rajasthan (4.38 %), West
ü The category-wise classification of this quantity is as follows:
Bengal (4.17 %) and Tamil Nadu (4.15 %) are found as major
generators of HW.
Ø Land Fillable – 27,28, 326 MTA
Ø These seven States are together generating 80.29 % of
Ø Incinerable - 4,15, 794 MTA
country’s total HW.
Ø Recyclable - 30,88 ,38 7 MTA
Ø Maharashtra and Gujarat putting together are generating 62.87
% of country’ total incinerable HW. Their individual
3 4
contributions are 36.75 % and 26.12 % respectively.

PRESENT STATUS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE PRESENT STATUS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

Highest Hazardous Waste Generatiin g States:

Higher HW g eneratin g Districts :

In India 369 Districts are generating Hazardous Waste.

HW Generation Range Districts/Regions Cumulative No. of

(T/A) (Nos.) Districts / Regions
0-80 119 119
81-2000 111 230
2001-50000 108 338
50001-467100 31 369

5 6
 PRESENT STATUS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE PRESENT STATUS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

Higher HW g eneratin g Districts: Disposal Status of Hazardous Waste

No. of Districts/Regions HW generation Range in lakh MTA

1. TSDF : 22 No. of TSDF are developed in 10 States with a
waste handling capacity of 15,00,568 MTA against the present
3 3.0-4.7
generation of 27,28,326 MTA.
4 2.0-3.0
13 1.0-2.0
11 0.5-1.0 2. I ncinerators: Only 13 No. common incinerators in 6 States
apart from 127 individual incinerators in 12 States with a

ØBharuch of Gujarat generating 4,67,100 MTA HW capacity of 3,27,705 MTA against present generation of
4,15,794 MTA.
ØAhmedabad of Gujarat generating 3,60,206 MTA HW

Ø Mumbai generating 3,43,129 MTA HW

7 8

DISADVANTAGES OF PRE SENT D ISP OSAL DISADVANTAGES OF PRE SENT D ISP OSAL
METHOD METHOD

1. OPE N DUMPI NG & LAND FILLI NG:

• Health-Hazard. • Waste Is Relocated Not Really Destroyed

• Completed Landfill Areas Can Settle And Requires
• Ground Water and Run-off Pollution
Maintenance Cost
• Nitrous Oxide (N2o) Is Produced By The Burning Of
Garbage In Dumping Yards Under Uncontrolled • Requires Proper Planning, Design, And Operation

Conditions. • Problem Of Space Crunch

• It has 179 Times More Global Warming Potential than • Landfill Gases Generated Could Lead To Various

Co2 Problems

Contd:9 10

DISADVANTAGES OF PRE SENT D ISP OSAL

METHOD

2. INCINE RATION:
The Present Methods Of
• Ex pe nsive to Buil d a nd Operate
Waste Disposal Are
• High Ener gy Re qui reme nt Inadequate And
• Requires Skille d Pe rsonne l and C o ntinuo us Env ironmentally Unsound
Maint enance While Co-processing Provides
• Ge ner ates Gas eo us a nd s olid waste A Safe Alternative

11 12
 CO-P RO CESSING CO-P RO CESSING

What is Co-Processing?

Co-processing is the use of waste as raw material, as a Concept of Co-Processing:

source of energy, or both to replace natural mineral Co-processing is a proven sustainable
resources and fossil fuels such as coal, petroleum and gas
development concept that reduces:
(energy recovery) in industrial processes, mainly in
1. Dem ands on nat ural reso urces,
energy intensive industries (EII) such as cement, lime,
2. Poll utio n and la ndfill s pace,
steel, glass, and power generation. Waste materials used
for Co-processing are referred to as alternative fuels and 3. Enviro nme ntal fo otpri nt.

raw materials (AFR).

13 14
Contd:

CO-P ROCESSING CO-P RO CESSING

Concept of Co-Processing:

15 16

WHY CO- PROCE SSING CO-PROC ESS ING

Potential of C o-Processing:
Emission reduction through Co-Processing:
Ø The global industrial demand for energy is roughly 45% of the
total demand.
Ø Requirements of the energy intensive industries (EII) are 27%.
Ø Worldwide, wastes suitable for Co-processing have an energy
potential of 20% of the fossil fuel energy.
Ø By 2030, the thermal substitution rate of waste could rise to
nearly 30%.
Ø In the countries of Europe, the available energy potential in
waste currently represents nearly 40% of this demand, and this
is expected to rise to almost 50% by 2030.
Ø Roughly 60% of the waste that could be used for Co-processing Co-processing offers a significant potential for the
17 reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels. 18
is biomass and therefore carbon neutral.
 TECHNI CAL FEASIBILIT Y

Why cement Kilns are suitable for burn ing of wastes?

Ø High flame temperature (20000C) – ensures complete destruction
of harmful pollutants.

Ø Complete scrubbing of exhaust gas due to countercurrent flow of

raw material – resulting in trapping of heavy metals, sulpher and
other pollutants within clinker.

Ø High residence time >5 sec in oxygen rich atmosphere ensures

complete destruction of organic compounds found in any
waste.

Ø Complete scrubbing of exhaust gas due to countercurrent flow of

raw material- resulting in trapping of heavy metals, sulphur and
other pollutants within clinker.

19 Contd:

TECHNI CAL FEASIBILIT Y Wastes - DISPOSALS v/s REC OVERY

Ø Inclusion of ashes and residual metals from the wastes within the Cement Kilns present an opportunity where it is a Recovery
clinker crystal structure.
Operation. The new terminology is “Valorization”
Ø Kiln lines equipped with ESP/Bag filters- ensures negligible Ø The combustible parts of the waste replace fossil fuels.
particulate emission.
Ø The non-combustible parts of the waste replace raw
Ø Intense contact between solid and gas phases- ensures materials – Silica, Iron, etc.
condensation of volatiles, absorbs SO2 and neutralize acid gases.
Ø The energy efficiency in cement kiln is the highest – direct
Ø Destruction and Removal Efficiency of 99.999% and instant use of energy released; no transmission losses.
Ø The environmental impact is negligible.

BENEFITS OF CO-PRO CES SING BENEFITS OF CO-PRO CES SING

Ø To conserve natural (non-renewable) resources of energy and

materials. Ø Cost Saving :
No need for investment in incinerators. Conservation of non
Ø To reduce emissions of greenhouse gases in order to slow global renewable fossil .
warming and demonstrate a positive impact on integrated
environmental indicators, such as the ecological footprint. Ø Overall lower CO2 and methane emissions by replacement
Ø To reduce the environmental impacts of the extraction (mining or of fossil fuel – Otherwise leading to burning of hazardous
wastes in incinerators and fossil fuels in kilns. (A
quarrying), transporting, and processing of raw materials. substitution by 50% in EU is equivalent to saving emission
Ø To reduce dependence on primary resource markets. from 10 million cars).
Ø To save landfill space and reduce the pollution caused by the disposal
of waste. Ø Conservation of raw materials for cement industry as
hazardous wastes partially replaces some of the raw
Ø To destroy waste completely eliminating potential future liabilities.
materials like silica, iron etc.
 INTRODUCT ION GRASIM & ULTRATECH

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED Integrated

Cement Plant
(CEMENT DIVISION) Grinding Units

Bulk Terminals

GRASIM + ULTRATECH

•11 INTEGRATED CEMENT PLANTS (21 KILNS)

•11 CEMENT GRINDING UNITS Initiatives taken by

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED
•TOTAL CAPACITY: 48 MTPA
towards
•11 TH LARGEST CEMENT PRODUCER IN THE UTILIZATION OF
WORLD ALTERNATIVE FUELS .
(a step towards sustainability )
• 7 TH LARGEST CEMENT PRODUCER IN ASIA

APPROACH FOREIGN VISIT S

Being a s ocial r esponsi ble or ga nizati on, CSI More than 40 executives of the company have visited
member a nd l ooki ng in to ne ed o f the day, w e
various parts of the world:
hav e foll owi ng steps tow ards co- pr ocessing
Ø To understand the concept of co-processing.
• FOREIGN VISITS BY OUR EXECUTIVES
• SURVEY ON ALTERNATE FUE L AVAILA BILITY ØTo study the system & technology.

•DISCUSSION WITH VENDORS ØTo study the impact on process & final product.
• DESIGN OF THE SYSTEM
ØTo analyze the feasibility of Co-processing in Indian
• EXECUTION OF TRIAL RU NS
scenario.
• FORMATION OF G UIDELINES AND STA NDARDS

29 30
 SURVEY ON ALTERNATE FUEL AVAILABILITY
WASTE FEEDING SYSTEMS
After a detailed survey of the AFR availability, we have
following suppliers:
• Environment-friendly systems for
Ø Paint Industry
Handling, pre-processing and conveying of
Ø Pharmaceutical Industry
wastes have been installed
Ø Automobile Industry
• Waste feeding systems are a pre-requisite
Ø Textile Industry
for use of various waste as fuel in cement
Ø Paper Printing Industry
Kilns
Ø Refinery Industry
• Proper feeding systems ensure that feed
Ø Fertilizers Industry
rate is always kept under control and we
Ø Farmers
can have control on process parameters.
Ø Municipal Corporation
31 32

DESIGN: ALTERNATIVE FUEL FEEDI NG

ALTERNATIVE FUEL FEEDING SYSTEM
SYST EM

For the first time in

This syste m has the following advan tages: India, we have installed
separ ate alterna tive
Ø Meters a wide variety of waste materials. fuel feeding syste m for
different type of
Ø Reduces the need for non-renewable fossil fuels such as coal. wastes in Grasim
Cem ent (South
Ø Simple, compact package.
Division) in year 2003.
Ø Easy integration into existing installations.

Ø Short pay back period

33

ALTERNATIVE FUEL FEEDING SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE FUEL FEEDING SYSTEM

P RECALCINE R
BUCKET
E LEVATOR

TRANSFER U NLOA DING

TOWER ARE A

AL TERNATE
FUEL FEE DING
P OIN T

…Way forward to use wastes 35

5/19/2010
36
 ALTERNATIVE FUEL FEEDING SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE FUEL FEEDING SYSTEM

Sicon C onv eyor for Soli ds

T R ANSFER T OW ER

FU EL FEED ING H OPP ER

Feeding system in Gujarat Plant

Feeding system in Andhra Pradesh Plant

ALTERNATIVE FUEL FEEDING SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE FUEL FEEDING SYSTEM

Solid Waste Storage Shed

ALTERNATIVE FUEL FEEDING SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE FUEL FEEDING SYSTEM

Solid Waste Storage Shed Feeding system in Vikram Cement , MP

Feeding system in Vikram Cement , MP 41 42

 ALTERNATIVE FUEL FEEDING SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE FUEL FEEDING SYSTEM

Feeding system in Vikram Cement , MP

Feeding system in Vikram Cement , MP 43 44

TRIAL RUN BASF SLUDGE HANDLING & STORAGE

First trial run of co-processing in India at:

Ø Grasim Rajashree Cements , Malkhed

Ø During January’2005 (21.01.2005 to 08.02.2005)

Ø Trials conducted with BASF Sludge

Ø Successful co-incineration of BASF Sludge in Cement kiln

was achieved

Ø With the sludge up to 1-10% by weight, the pollutant

concentration did not exceed the limits of incineration and 3-
6% sludge by weight could be hence safely utilized in the
cement kiln
45 46

TRIAL RUN FOR CO-IN CINERATION OF

HAZARDOUS WASTE AT GRASIM SOUT H

Trial run with Paint Sludge : Inauguration

TRIAL RUN WITH TYRE CHIPS INAUGURATED BY

Shri. J.S. Kamyotra, MS , CPCB &

Dr. V.N. Rayudu, Dy. Director (Labs), TNPC B 47 Trial run with Paint Sludge : Inauguration 48
 TRIAL RUNS RECOMMENDED PARAMETERS AND FREQUE NC Y
Sr. No. Parameters Frequency of sa mpling
Trial Run Protocol:
1 Particu late Matter (PM ) 4 samp les per day
Sr. No. Period Operation of Cement Kiln
2 Sulphur d ioxide (SO2) 4 samp les per day
1 7 Days Emission monitoring during normal operation of
Cement Kiln (Pre-trial run monitoring). 3 Hydrogen ch loride (H Cl) 4 samp les per day

4 Carbon monoxide (C O) 4 samp les per day

2 7 Days Emission monitoring of cement kiln during trial
run with 5% waste. 5 Oxides of Nitrogen (N OX) 4 samp les per day

6 Total Organ ic Carbon (TOC) 1 samp le per day

3 7 Days Emission monitoring of cement kiln during trial
run with 10% waste. 7 Hydrogen Fluor ide ( HF) 4 samp les per day

8 Hydrocarbons ( HC) 4 samp les per day

4 7 Days Emission monitoring during normal operation of
Cement Kiln (Post-trial run monit oring). 9 Volatile Organ ic Compound s (V OC) 2 samp les per day

10 Poly-aromati c hydro carbons (PA H) 2 samp les per day

11 Metals 1 samp le per day

5/19/2010
12 Dioxin & Furan 1 samp le per day
50

EMISS ON MONITORI NG D URIN G C O-

TRIAL RUNS RESULTS
INCENERATI ON OF BAS F SL UD GE
Monitoring Results During Trial Run:

Source Emission Monitoring

AAQ monitoring

51

COMPARISI ON OF RESULT S COMPARISI ON OF RESULT S

600
12

500
10

400
concentrations

Concentration

300
6

200
4

100
2

0
P. M, NOx, HC CO TOC PAH 0
Cd Cu Co Cr Ni Pb As Hg Sb V Se
Paramet ers
P arameters

P re co-inci neration Co-inci neration Post co-incineration

Pre co -i ncinerati on co-inci neration Po st co-i ncine ra ti on

53 54
 STATUS OF TRIAL RUNS UTILIZATION OF ALTERNATIVE FUEL

Sr Unit Trial Run Details Waste Approved by More than 2 lac ton waste has been utilized up to year 2009
. Nam CPCB in group units.
N e Year Waste
o.
1 RC 2005 ETP Sludge from BASF ETP Sludge from BASF

2 GS 2006 Rubber tyres, Paint Sludge & Rubber tyres, Paint

Refinery Sludge Sludge & Refinery
Sludge
3 GCW 2009 Organic waste liquid & Under Process
Organic waste solid
4 APCW 2010 Waste mixed liquid & Waste Under Process
mixed solid
5 AC 2010 ETP Sludge & Phosphate Under Process
Sludge from Automobile
Industry
6 HCW 2010 SPL Under Process

ROAD MAP FOR OTHERS PROCEDURE FOR CO-PROCESSING APPROVAL

Initiatives taken up by GIL helped to achieve the following: A. OBTAINING TRIAL RUN PERMI SSI ON:
1. Application dully filled in as per prescribed format (Annexure-7)
Ø involved in development of protocol for co-processing
for trial run to be submitted to concerned State Pollution

Ø Developing Guidelines for co-processing along with CPCB Control Board (SPCB) with a copy to Central Pollution Control
Board (CPCB).
Ø Matching up with international scenario
2. In case CPCB has objection, if any, shall communicate the same

ØSetting an example for others in Cement Companies.
ØBeing a CSI brand, we maintained our words and works for well
being of society and environment
57
to the proponent with a copy to SPCB within 30 days.
3. SPCB will accord the approval for trial run within 60 days.
4. Proponent shall communicate the final trial run programme to
SPCB & CPCB 15 days in advance.
5. Trial run will be conducted as per CPCB protocol in co-
ordination with SPCB and CPCB.
58

PROCEDURE FOR CO-PROCESSING APPROVAL PROCEDURE FOR CO-PROCESSING APPROVAL

B. OBTAINING REGULAR PERMISS ION: C. AFTER REGULAR PERMISS ION OBTAINE D ONC E:
1. After successful completion of trial run, proponent will submit
1. Once regular permission for co-processing is granted for any
an application along with trial run details to CPCB through waste, the other cement plants may not require trial run.
concerned SPCB. 2. Proponent will submit the application for regular permission to
2. CPCB will put up the same to the committee for specific CPCB through SPCB.
recommendation.
3. CPCB will grant permission within 45 days.
3. The proponent if needed may be called for making a
presentation before the committee.
4. On recommendation, CPCB may grant or refuse the permission
for regular co-processing within 30 days.

59 60
 STEPS FOR UTILIZATION OF ALTERNATIVE FUEL

ØSurvey of alternative fuel (AF) availability in the area.

WASTES FOR WHI CH REGULAR PERMISS ION HAS BEEN
ØSuitability of AF for co-processing in cement industry.
GRANTED BY CPCB AS ON DATE :
ØQuantity of AF available (for min. 5-10% replacement of coal ).
A. HAZARDOUS WASTE:
ØObtain trial run permission from concerned SPCB.
1. Paint sludge from automobile sector
ØInstallation of tentative AF feeding system.
2. Petroleum refinery sludge
ØConduct trial run with intimation to CPCB.
3. TDI Tar waste
ØFinal design of AF feeding system and installation.
4. ETP Sludge from M/s BASF India Ltd.
ØSubmit application along with trial run study report to CPCB
B. OTHER WASTES :
through SPCB.
1. Plastic Waste
ØGrant regular permission from CPCB.
2. Tyre Chips
ØContinuous utilization of AF.

61 62

STACK EMISSION STANDARDS AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS

Sr. No. Pollutant Time weighted Standard

Sr. No. Pollutant Standard (mg/Nm3) average
1 Particulate Matter 50 / as prescribed by SPCB 1 SO 2 Annual 50
2 HCL Emission during co- (µg/m3) 24 Hours 80
processing should not 2 NO X Annual 40
3 SO 2
exceed the base line (µg/m3) 24 Hours 80
4 CO emission i.e. during pre- co- 3 PM10 Annual 60
5 Total Organic Carbon processing phase of trial run. (µg/m3) 24 Hours 100
6 HF 4 PM2.5 Annual 40
(µg/m3) 24 Hours 60
7 NO X
5 Ozone (O 3) 8 Hours 100
8 Total Dioxin & furans (µg/m3) 1 Hour 180
9 Cd + Th+ their compounds 6 Lead (Pb) Annual 0.5
10 Hg & its compounds (µg/m3) 24 Hours 1.0
7 CO Annual 02
11 Sb + As + Pb + Co+ Cr+ Cu + Mn (mg/m3) 24 Hours 04
+ Ni + V + their compounds
63 Contd: 64

AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS MONITORING REQUIREMENTS & RECORDS

Sr. No. Pollutant Time weighted Standard • Continuous monitoring of particulate matter.
average
8 Ammonia (NH3) Annual 100
(µg/m3) 24 Hours 400 • Monitoring of Dioxin & furans including other parameters
9 Benzene (C6H6) Annual 05
(µg/m3) (i.e. CO, TOC, NO X , HCl, SO 2 , HF, Cd , Ti, Hg, As + Pb + Co
10 Benzo (O) Pyrene Annual 01 + Cr + Cu + Mn + Ni + V + their compounds) will be
(BaP)
(ng/m3) monitored as per CPCB direction.
11 Arsenic (As) Annual 06
(ng/m3)
• Monitoring data shall be submitted to SPCB & CPCB.
12 Nickel (Ni) Annual 20
(ng/m3)
Note: Above Standards are for Industrial, Residential, Rural and other • All records will be maintained and submitted to SPCB &
areas except Ecological Sensitive Area CPCB as per Hazardous Waste (M, H & TM) Rules, 2008.

65 66
Con tact detail s :

Dr. K.V. REDDY

General Mana ger ( Env iron men t )
Grasim I nd ustries Limi ted
(Cement Di vision)
504, Pragati Deep B uildi ng,
Laxmi Nagar Dis trict Cen tre,
Laxmi Nagar, De lhi - 92

Mail : kv ij ender.redd y@a ditya birla.co m

68