Cement, Energy and Environment

25 wastes. Interactions with the industry and the policy makers in UK revealed that the promulgation of the UK Landfill Tax provided a major push in enhancing cement co-processing, which made disposal of wastes in cement industry financially more viable compared to the cost of landfill. Similarly UK Environment Agency has developed a waste Code of Practice that enables cement manufacturers to accept more waste. Taking a cue from experience of UK and other world leaders in the area of AFR, IIP India created a Forum of Regulators , to identify and resolve the regulatory and policy issues for promoting AFR, with high level representation from State Pollution Control Boards of major cement producing states in India. In order to get a balanced viewpoint, the Forum also had invited Members representing the industry and the civil society. The Forum of Regulators also had the advantage of pro-active leadership from Mr. Hardik Shah, Former Member Secretary, Gujarat Pollution Control Board (GSPCB), who was the Chairman of the Forum. Dr B Sengupta, Ex Member Secretary, Central Pollution Control Board was the Convener. The Forum met regularly to deliberate on the key policy and regulatory bottlenecks and came out with a series of Five White Papers/Policy Briefs. These White Papers/ Policy Briefs were developed based on the inputs of the members of the state pollution control boards, technical experts, industry representatives and learnings from international best practices. The Five White Papers/ Policy Briefs prepared by the Forum broadly covered the following themes:  Amendment of the Hazardous Waste Management Rule under the Environment Protection Act to include co-processing in cement plants as a disposal option  Technical Guidelines on environmentally sound pre-processing facilities to prepare homogenous waste mix suitable for co- processing in cement kilns  Emission standards for co-processing of AFR material in cement kilns including Hazardous Wastes, along with emission monitoring methodology  Increasing the percentage utilization of fly ash generated from coal-based power stations and refuse derived fuel (RDF) in cement plants  Guidelines for transportation and storage of hazardous waste The policy prescriptions developed by the Forum of Regulators as White Papers/ Policy Briefs were acknowledged by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), which is the apex body for formulation and implementation of environmental policies under the Ministry of Environment Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC). CPCB also hosted the last meeting of the Forum of Regulators, in which they proposed to set up a ‘National Task Force on Cement Co-processing’ to take the recommendations of the Forum forward. Since then, two of the five White Papers, viz. (i) Amendment of the Hazardous Waste Management Rule under the Environment Protection Act to include co-processing in cement plants as a disposal option and (ii) Emission standards for co- processing of AFR material in cement kilns including Hazardous Wastes, along with emission monitoring methodology, have been approved and translated in to a Regulation by MoEFCC and the other three are under consideration. To further facilitate the implementation of these Regulations, MoEFCC has recently issued a Guidelines for pre- processing and co-processing of hazardous and other wastes in cement plants. These policy and regulatory reforms are seen a major policy win for furthering the agenda of AFR, which is expected to greatly enhance the level of co-processing in cement industry. Why Forum of Regulators succeeded Those working in the area of policy reform would agree that such policy and regulatory changes usually take a long time to take effect. However, the Forum of Regulators managed to achieve these results in a relatively short time because of the reasons listed below: (i) the Forum sought the input and feedback from all stakeholder groups bringing the industry, regulators, civil society and policy experts on a common platform, which helped in jointly identifying a prioritized set of policy/ regulatory issues that needed immediate action and working out solutions. Such interactions not only helped in identifying the main issues, but also helped in allaying industry’s concerns by working out reforms that addressed the practical issues with regard to their implementation; (ii) Since it was the Regulators, viz. State Pollution Control Boards that took the charge of identifying policy and regulatory barriers impeding use of AFR in cement industry and suggesting necessary policy/regulatory amendments, the recommendations were more feasible and easier for CPCB to accept; (iii) Proactive leadership from Member Secretary, GSPCB as Chair of the Forum, helped in keeping the forum active with regular meetings and time bound action. The sustained discussions and