EIA for

Common Hazardous Waste Treatment,

Storage and Disposal Facilities

D R K S R IN I A S
H e a d T e c h n i c a l , R a m k y E n v i r o E n g i n e e r s L i m i te d
 EIA

The process of identifying and

evaluating the impacts on the
environment (Environmental, Social
and Health) arising from a
proposed change and to propose
alternative and best measures for
mitigation of the impacts
 EIA - Process

 Site investigation and Evaluation

 Assigning Weightages and Scaling
 Impact Prediction
 Impact Analysis
 Mitigation Measures
Decision Making and
Implementation
 Selection of Candidate Sites

Preliminary Impact Assessment

Rejection or Knock out Criteria
Site Evaluation
Assigning Weightages and Scaling
General Information
 Preliminary Impact Assessment
About 8 to 10 candidate sites would be
identified
 satellite imageries
 topographical sheets of the area

 prominent features
 surrounding establishments

 proximity to drinking water sources

 habitation
 others.
 Rejection Knock out Criteria

This criteria helps to reject the

sites based on certain parameters
land, geology, hydro-geology, ground
water conditions and ecological
considerations etc.
 Areas for Exclusion or Rejection

Unstable geological features like

 unstable or weak soils: organic soil, soft
clay or clay-sand mixtures, soils that lose
strength with compaction or with
wetting, clays with a shrink-swell
character, sand subject to subsidence
and hydraulic influence.
 prone to subsidence
 Areas for Exclusion or Rejection

 Wet lands
 historical migration zones

 flood prone areas

 areas within 500 meter from water

supply zone and within 200 meter from
property line
 natural depression and valleys where
water contamination is likely
 Areas for Exclusion or Rejection

 areas of ground water recharge and

extremely high water table zone
 unique habitation areas, close to
national parks with scenic beauty and
formerly used landfills.
 areas with high population, unique
archaeological, historical,
paleontological and religious interests
 Areas for Exclusion or Rejection
 agricultural and forest lands and existing
dump sites.
 atmospheric conditions that would
prevent safe dispersal of an accidental
release
 major natural hazards : e.g. volcanic
activity, seismic disturbance and landslides
 sensitive locations : e.g. storing flammable
or explosive materials; airports.
 Areas for Exclusion

 unfavourable local hydro-geological

situation, e.g. springs or drinking water
well within very close proximity to the
chosen area
 extremely bad access, i.e. no existing
access roads to the selected area
 long distance > 5 km from main roads
 access roads passing densely populated
areas
 Areas for Exclusion

 very intense agricultural use

 inadequate available area

difficult geological situation, danger of


mass movements, too steep slopes
 Rejection or Knock out Criteria
IDENTIFICATION LOCATION OF SITE VILLAGE / CITY
Sl No Criteria Answer
Y/N
 

1 Existing or planned drinking water protection and catchment areas  

2 High flood prone areas  
3 Areas with unstable ground  
4 Closer than 200 meters to populated areas  
5 Closer than 200 meters to river boundaries  
6 Close to National Parks, Monuments, Forests with large No. of flora  
and faunda, historical, religious and other important cultural places
7 Existing use of site  
(Agricultural/Forest/Old dump site)
REMARKS COMMENTS:

Site is suitable for detailed EIA study (Y/N)  

 Location Criteria
  Parameter Criteria Observation
   Lake or pond (Distance from SW body) Should not be within 200 m  

   River Should not be within 100 m  

   Flood plain Should not be within 100 year flood  

plain
   High way – State or National Should not be within 500 m  
   Habitation – Notified habituated area Should not be within 500 m  
   Public Parks Should not be within 500 m  
   Critical habitat area – area in which one or Not suitable  
more endangered species live
   Reserved Forest area Not suitable  
   Wet lands Not suitable  
   Air Port Should not be within zone around the  
airport(s)
   Water supply No Water supply well within 500 m  

   Coastal Regulation Area Not suitable  

   Ground Water Table level GW table should be >2m from the  
base of the landfill
   Presence of monuments / religious Not suitable  
structures
 Detailed Site Investigation and Evaluation
General Information
Transportation economy
Slope per cent
Topography
Flood pronness
Optimum wind direction (wrt. down stream village)
Infrastructure
 Accessibility
 Power supply
 Detailed Site Investigation and Evaluation
Hydrology
 Distancefrom surface water body (m)
 Annual Rainfall (cm/yr)

Hydrogeology
 Groundwater depth (m)
 Groundwater flow direction
 (distance to D/S Village)

 Groundwater quality
 Groundwater gradient (m/km)
 Detailed Site Investigation and Evaluation
Geology
 Subsidence
 Depth to bed rock (m)
 Seismic conditions (Intensity)

Geotechnical features
 Permeability (1 x 10 -6 cm/s)
 Engineering property (MA, PI, Shear)
 Detailed Site Investigation and Evaluation
Socio-Economic / Ecological

 Demography
 Landuse pattern – Existing and Future
 Transportation Impact
 Special ecological features
Site Evaluation
 Weightage Methodology-Transportation
Transportation of waste from source is the
important factor to decide the economic location
of the site.
Distance Km Evaluation
0-5 Excellent
5-10 Ideal
10-20 Good
20-40 Poor
>40 Bad
 Weightage Methodology-Slope Percent
Natural slope is very important for site higher
slope may lead to difficulty.
First scale Second scale Evaluation
(slope%) (slope %)

1.5 1.5 Excellent

1.5-1.2 1.5-2.5 Ideal
1.2-0.75 2.5-7.0 Good
0.75-0.50 7.0-1.5 Poor
<0.5 >15 Bad
 Weightage Methodology
Topography & flood Proneness

A Site with convex topography is termed as

excellent and with concave is regarded as bad.

Flood prone areas are rejected. Depending upon

the extent of flood proponeness in a scale of 5 to

1 corresponding to excellent to bad

 Weightage Methodology- Wind direction
Prominent wind direction may affect the
population on the downstream side of the
facility. The location of the facility should be in
such a manner that there is no or minimum
effect at the downstream habitation.
Downstream distance (km) Evaluation
>1 Excellent
1-0.5 Ideal
0.5-0.2 Good
0.2-0.1 Poor
<0.1 (adjacent to site) Bad
 Weightage Methodology- Infrastructure
Out of all the infrastructures required the

approach road and the power supply are the

most important.
sites have been evaluated relatively from
excellent to bad in a scale of 5 to 1 as per the
availability of road and power supply.
 Weightage Methodology-
Hydrology/Hydrogeology/Geology/Geotechnology
50% weightage is given to Hydrological, Hydro-
geological, Geological and Geo-technical
situation of the site which will affect the design of
the landfill.
Distance Km Evaluation
>5 Excellent
5-3 Ideal
3-2 Good
2-1 Poor
<1 Bad
 Weightage Methodology- Rainfall

Higher annual precipitation will lead to higher

leachable generation and more changes of
ground water contamination
Annual rainfall (cm/Yr) Evaluation
<25 Excellent
25-80 Ideal
80-150 Good
150-250 Poor
>250 Bad
 Weightage Methodology
Ground water table depth
Groundwater table should be as low as possible,
The level of groundwater should be more than 1
meter below the bearing surface of the landfill.
If the groundwater is high, the facility has to be
designed as a stock-pile.
Post–monsoon GW table (m) Evaluation
>15 Excellent
15-10 Ideal
10-5 Good
5-1 Poor
<1 Bad
 Weightage Methodology
Groundwater flow direction
it is necessary to locate the site in such a way
that in case of eventuality, the impact is the least.
Distance in down stream Evaluation
(Km)
>5 Excellent
5.0-3.0 Ideal
3.0-1.0 Good
1.0-0.5 Poor
<0.5 (adjacent to site) Bad
 Weightage Methodology
Groundwater flow Gradient
hydraulic gradient should be as low as possible.

GW Gradient (m/Km) Evaluation

<5 Excellent

5 – 10 Ideal

10-20 Good

20-50 Poor

>50 Bad
 Weightage Methodology
Groundwater Quality

groundwater is non-potable or can not be used

for any useful purpose, then the site has the
advantage over the others.

ground water quality does not conform to the

drinking water quality standards, the site is to be
considered as excellent otherwise can be
considered as bad.
 Weightage Methodology
Geological Features Subsidence

Area with unstable soil not be suitable for

construction of the landfill

A fairly settled soil can be considered as an

excellent site whereas a site filled up with

borrowed soil can be considered as a bad or poor.

 Weightage Methodology
Depth to bedrock

Higher the depth to bedrock, better will be the

site from construction of landfill point of view.
Depth to bed rock (m) Evaluation

>15 Excellent

15-10 Ideal

10-5 Good

5-1 Poor

<1 Bad
 Weightage Methodology
Seismic condition

•Seismic conditions, should be considered in the

site evaluation to know the seismic intensity at
various identified sites.
Seismic intensity Evaluation

V Excellent

VI Ideal

VII Good

VIII Poor

IX Bad
 Weightage Methodology
Permeability

• the permeability of the soil should be about 1 x

10-7 cm/sec.

Permeability Evaluation

<0.1 Excellent

0.1-1 Ideal

1-10 Good

10-100 Poor

>100 Bad
 Weightage Methodology
Engineering Properties

The grain size distribution, c-i analysis and the

plasticity index of the soil give the idea about the
engineering properties of the soil.
 Weightage Methodology
Socio Economic/Ecological Features.
25% weightage is given to
“Socio-economic/ecological features” this
pertains to the surrounding features of the sites.

The factors like “Demography”, “land-use”,

“Distance from airport” and “Special Ecological
Features” are assigned due weightages as per
their relative importance.
 Weightage Methodology-Demography
the population of villages within 5 km radius and
their distances from the site have to be considered.

Distance from the site (Km) Evaluation

>5 Excellent

5-2.5 Ideal

1.0-2.5 Good

0.2-1.1 Poor

>0.2 Bad
 Weightage Methodology-Land use
Less the economic importance of the site more
suitability of the site for landfill development.

Existing land use Evaluation

Wasteland/saline Excellent

Grazing/fallow Ideal

Single corp/ non-irrigated Good

Double crop/irrigated Poor

Plantation Bad
 Weightage Methodology
Proposed land use and
impact of waste transportation
If the area around the site has the potentiality for
development, the relative value of 1 i.e. bad
otherwise a relative value of 5 i.e. excellent has to
be assigned.
A site, which poses minimum threat to the health
by virtue of its traffic linkage, should be
considered as ideal site.
Any site due to which there is possibility of
increased exposure of the wastes to the
population have to be assigned should be
considered as poor site.
 Weightage Methodology
Special Ecological Features
special ecological features such as habitation,
endangered species etc should be avoided for
landfill development.

The sites are given a relative value of 1 if close to

such areas other wise 5.
 Impact Prediction

 Flora and Fauna

 Geology and Soils
 Ground and Surface Water
 Air Quality and Climate
 Public Health
 Impact Prediction

 Land use and Visual Amenity

 Land Use and Heritage
 Noise and Vibration
 Transport
 Social and Economic
 Accidental Sudden Occurances
 Impact Analysis

 Check lists
 Matrices
 Networks
 Cause – effect diagrams
 Overlay technique
 Mitigation Measures
For each adverse environmental impact
identified keeping in view the above factors and
environmental components, mitigation measures
have to be identified to reduce and/or eliminate
the adverse impacts and recommended and
impact analysis should be done in both cases
 ifno mitigation measures is adopted by the
project proponent
 if all the mitigation measure are adopted by
the project proponent.
Check List for Impact Analysis
 Criteria for Rating Impacts
For each impact area, the magnitude of
impact has been rated on the scale of 1 to 5
 Very High Impact = 5
 High Impact = 4
 Moderate Impact = 3
 Less Impact = 2
 Very Less Impact = 1
For each impact area, importance of the
impact has been rated on the scale of 1 to 3
 Very Important = 3
 Moderately Important = 2
 Less important = 1
 Matrice Method
Weighted Impacts with / without Mitigation Measures

In this weighted impact table the entries are presented in the

form x(y), where “x” denotes the magnitude of the impact and
“y” denotes the importance of the impact while “+” denotes
beneficial, “-” denotes adverse impacts and “N” depicts no impact
 Criteria for Rating Impacts
Ranking Criteria
By applying magnitude and importance scaling to
the impacts associated with all the activities the
overall ranking of the CHWTSDF should be defined
as the total score if
 Above 600 Very High Adverse Impact

 300 - 600 Moderate Adverse Impact

 100 - 300 Less Adverse Impact

 Below 100 Very Less Adverse Impact

 Environment Management Plan
The Environment Management Plan would consist of all
activity wise mitigation measures to be adopted during
the construction, operation, closure and post-closure
phase in order to minimise the adverse environmental
impacts arising out of the activities of the project.

It would also delineate the environmental monitoring

plan for compliance of various environmental
regulations.

It would further state the steps to be taken in case of

emergency transpiring due to any accident at the site.
 Public Consultation Process
PCP involves the participation of the public in
the process of developing the Common
Hazardous Waste Management Facility.
 Community Based Organization
 Environmental NGO

 Local media

 Medical Professionals

 Traditional leaders

 Waste generators
 PCP – through Information Techniques

• Pamphlets
• Briefings
• Feature stories
• News conferences
• Brochure
• Paid advertisements
• Presentations
• Press kits
• Public service announcement
PCP – through Participation Techniques

 Advisory groups

 Task forces

 Focus groups

 Hotline

 Interviews
 Environmental Statement
Environmental Statement should include
 Various project alternatives
 Defined and selected project site

EIS Should delineates

 Details of the site and brief evaluation
 Various adverse including beneficial environmental impacts
 Impact evaluation
 Corresponding mitigation measures
Followed by
 Environmental Management Plan
 Decision Making and Implementation
At the end of EIA process if project is found
environmentally suitable, the site would be
recommended for approval and subsequent
notification.
At the notified site, construction of CHWMF
would start. The construction of the CHWMF
would be monitored by the regulatory agency
and project proponent would proceed keeping
in view the environmental measures
suggested in the EIA report
 Standard TOR for EIA
Reasons for selecting the site with details of
alternate sites examined/rejected/selected
details of the road/rail connectivity along
with the likely impacts and mitigative measures.
present land use and permission required for
any conversion
details of transportation of Hazardous
wastes, and its safety in handling
 Standard TOR for EIA

details of on line pollutant monitoring

details of monitoring of water quality around
the landfill site.
details of monitoring of Dioxin and Furon
MoU for disposal of ash through the TSDF
MoU for disposal of scrubbing waste water
through CETP
 Standard TOR for EIA
details of the odour control measures.
details of impact on water body and mitigative
measures during rainy season
Environmental Management Plan should
be accompanied with Environmental Monitoring
Plan and environmental cost and benefit
assessment.
Water quality around the landfill site
 Standard TOR for EIA
The storage and handling of hazardous
wastes
comprehensive Disaster Management Plan
including emergency evacuation during natural
and man-made disaster.
Public hearing to be conducted for the project
in accordance with provisions of Environmental
Impact Assessment Notification, 2006
A detailed draft EIA/EMP report should be
prepared
 Standard TOR for EIA
Details of litigation pending against the
project, if any,
The cost of the Project (capital cost and
recurring cost) as well as the cost towards
implementation of EMP should be clearly
spelt out.
Any further clarification on carrying out the
above studies including anticipated impacts due
to the project and mitigative measure
 Potential Critical Aspects- During Construction

• Dust from Transportation Vehicles and

Construction Operations
• Noise and Vibration from Earth Moving
Machinery
• Landscape & Visual Amenity
 Potential Critical Aspects- During Operations

• Collection & Transport

• Air borne dust
• Spillages/leakages
• Odour
• Emergencies
 Potential Critical Aspects- During Operations

• Operations
• Dust from Landfill operations – hazardous in nature
• Fugitive emissions from stabilization
• Odour from storages, stabilization, landfill,
incineration
• Gaseous emissions from incineration
• Land contamination due to spillages, leakages
• Leachate/wastewater generation during monsoon
 Mitigation Measures
 Collection and Transport
 Proper Covering of Waste
 Utilization of appropriate waste collection
containers .
 Mechanized/Pneumatic handling systems for
loading and unloading of waste
 carrying PPE, spill control kits
 TREM card
 Training of drivers and helpers.
 Timely maintenance of vehicles.
 Mitigation Measures

Landfill
 Design of secured landfill
 QA/QC during landfill construction

 systematic placement Proper

compaction of waste
 Daily soil cover

 Intermediate monsoon cover

 Permanent capping of landfill

 Mitigation Measures
Stabilization
 Care in loading of reagents, waste and
other ingredients into the bin for
processing/stabilization of waste
 Appropriate systems for collection of
fugitive dust/ emissions if any during
stabilization operations
 wearing appropriate PPE

Implementation of strict safety pactices.

 Mitigation Measures
Incineration
 Appropriate design
 HAZOP and risk mitigation studies
 Operation controls with interlocking
systems
 Implementation of pollution control
devises.
 Scientific disposal of ash
 PPE and safety system
 Mitigation Measures

Storages
 Discourage storage as far as possible
 Meticulously following Haz.waste
storage guidelines.
 Implementation of PPE and safety
systems
 Fate of Waste in a Dump Site (unlined)
precipitation

odor

gas

Rodents ,pests
& fire hazards
dust

re
litter li u
fa
e
lop
S
WASTE Contaminated
soil

erosion
Contaminated LEACHATE
surface water

nd water
Contaminated grou
Fate of Waste in a Secure Landfill (lined)
 Gas Vent

(DOUBLE COMPOSITE LINER SYSTEM & COVER SYTEM)

Vegetation

Vegetative Soil 15 cm

Top Soil 45 cm
HAZARODUS WASTE LANDFILL CROSS SECTION
7-8mm Drainage
285 gsm GEOTEXTILE
Composite GEO NET
= 1.5mm HDPE Geo Membrane
CLAY.
60 cm

GAS COLLECTION MEDIA

SOIL COVER

HAZARDOUS WASTE]

400 gsm GEOTEXTILE

200mm Thick Filter
Media (20mm Gravels)
30 cm
Leachate Collection Pipe
100mm Thick Sand
400 G.S.M Geo Textile
= 2mm HDPE Geo Membrane
Compacted Clay / Compacted Amended Soil 45 cm
285 gsm GEOTEXTILE
200mm Thick Filter
Media (20mm Gravels)
30 cm
Leachate Collection Pipe
100mm Thick Sand
400 G.S.M Geo Textile
= 2mm HDPE Geo Membrane
Compacted Clay / Compacted Amended Soil
45 cm

DRAWING NOT TO SCALE Sub Soil

 Environmental Monitoring
AAQM
 AAQM stations at upwind, downwind and at three
stations at 120 angle around the TSDF is
necessary.
 Location of air quality monitoring stations may be
decided by the operator of the TSDF in
consultation with SPCB/PCC.
 Apart from the standard parameters stipulated
under the NAAQS, additional parameters, namely,
VOCs, PAH, to align the monitoring Programme
with the potential impacts of TSDF operations.
 Environmental Monitoring

•Parameters, namely, SPM, RPM, NOx and SOx

should be continued to be monitored as per
NAAQS criteria (minimum of 104 measurements
in a year taken twice a week, 24 hourly).

•In addition, VOCs (total), and PAH should be

monitored at least twice in a year (pre-monsoon
and post-monsoon).
Stack Monitoring

In addition to
stack monitoring
online
continuous
monitoring of
PM, SO2, Nox,
CO, HCl, HF,
THC to be
carried during
the operation of
the incinerator
 Environmental Monitoring

Ground Water Monitoring

 Monitor ground water characteristics at least once
in a quarter.
 ground water samples should be collected up to a
distance of 5 KM from the TSDF location.
 ground water flow direction has to be ascertained
periodically and reported once in three years
 surface waters at upstream and downstream and in
adjoining area is necessary once in a quarter.
 Environmental Monitoring
Soil monitoring
 one number of composite soil sample is
required to be collected up to a depth of 1 m
beneath the soil surface for every grid
 soil samples should be analyzed for pH, EC,
Colour, TDS, TOC, TSS, PAH, heavy metals
(such as Pb, Cd, Cu, Zn, Cr, Hg, Ni), CN, F, As
and Mn.
 Environmental Monitoring
Biological indicator
 Plantations of locally available sensitive plants
to be made in all directions of the TSDF and at
different distances and to observe and record
periodically the health of each plant.
 Landfill Closure
At the time of attaining final cover the following
inter connectives of each successive phases to be
established
 leachate collection system of each phase
 surface water drainage network
 gas collection system
 Upon completion of all phases a final check is made
of the proper functioning of all inter connected
systems
 An acess road is to be provided on the landfill cover
to enable easy approach for routine inspection of the
landfill cover.
 Post Closure Monitoring & Maintenance

 Monitoring for 30 years or until

leachate is not produced for
continuous 5 years
 Maintain integrity of the final cover
system including making, repair,
rectify settlement, subsidence or
erosion if any

 Post Closure Monitoring

Ground water
 3 to 5 samples once in 6 months
 AAQ
 3 locations once in 6 months
 Landfill gas
 8 to 16 locations once in 6 months
 Leachate
 as per generation and characterestics

THANK YOU