Cement, Energy and Environment

Gujarat Pollution Control Board (GPCB) was constituted by Government of Gujarat on 15th October, 1974 in accordance with the provision of the Water Act, 1974. Since then the GPCB continued its efforts towards better pollution control and improved environmental management. GPCB aims at being more and more innovative and bring about vibrant and dynamic approaches leading to a paradigm change of a long-term nature. The one of the major objectives of the Board includes identification of disposal sites and procedure for the proper disposal of hazardous wastes. Hazardous Waste Management in the State Due to State's pro-active approach towards promoting industry, increased industrialization, urbanization and population has resulted enormous quantum of solid wastes every year. The hazardous waste management poses a serious concern of its effective & safe disposal to the State Pollution Control Board besides its generator and facility operators. Therefore, it is a big challenge to GPCB being an administrative body and policy maker to manage tons of hazardous wastes keeping balance to environmental protection and economic interest. Globally Co-processing of Wastes has emerged as one of the cost effective, controlled environmentally sound treatment/ utilization method for the hazardous wastes. Some of the challenges for safe disposal of hazardous waste steered the Board to look at the modern approach of Co-processing of Wastes as Alternate Fuel and Raw materials (AFR) in existing Cement kilns of the State. Still GPCB needed to strengthen capacity building to overcome hurdles before ensuring environmentally sound and efficient co– processing. Environmental legislation framework may exist, but there is lack of human capacity, awareness or resources for its enforcement. There was lack of information on the methodology of emission analysis and on the evaluation of analytical data from continuous emissions monitoring. Waste statistics were more or less not updated and documentation systems for tracing waste were not known. As per the inventory data submitted to CPCB (2011 ), 108622 MTA lncinerable, 1107130 MTA Landfillable and 577037 MTA recyclable hazardous wastes is generated in the State. The re-inventory of the hazardous waste by the GPCB is an on-going process due to data feeding by generators, GPCB officials based on inspections and by the operators of the facilities in its MIS software known as XGN. The more detailed information in terms of the total quantum of waste generated vis-a-vis its composition in terms of recyclable/reusable, land-disposable and incinerable components made GPCB to think for planning of treatment and disposal facilities for existing waste generation and also for the future projections. There are many challenges to the enforcement authorities to choose right types of waste disposal techniques and facilitate the best suitable options for adequate treatment I disposal of toxic hazardous wastes. Uncontrolled disposal is usually the cheapest way to get rid of the waste, and the waste generators tend to be unwilling to pay much for adequate disposal. Uncontrolled waste disposal causes the consequences for human health or the high cost of the remediation of the damages. Modern incineration plants and secure landfills are common disposal options in the State but have high investment and operating costs and need qualified personnel. Some of the existing TSDF are also going to be exhausted in near future. Disposal of toxic wastes through cement kilns under controlled conditions seemed favourable option as many developed countries have tested and implemented since long. An efficient cement kiln can provide an environmentally sound , and cost-effective treatment/ recovery option for a number of wastes. Some of the challenges steered the Board to look at the modern approach of Co-processing of Wastes as Alternate Fuel and Raw materials (AFR) in existing Cement kilns of the State. Still GPCB needed to strengthen capacity bui lding to overcome hurdles before ensuring environmentally sound and efficient co-processing. Environmental legislation framework may exist, but there is lack of human 2 • 1