· Inadequate power generation capacity. · Lack of optimum utilisation of the existing generation capacity · Inadequate inter-regional transmission links · Inadequate and ageing sub-transmission & distribution network leading to power cuts and local failures/faults · T&D losses, large scale theft and skewed tariff · structure · Slow pace of rural electrification · Inefficient use of electricity by the end consumer · Lack of grid discipline

1. Site Selection and Environmental Aspects of
Hazardous Waste Disposal Site
Arjesh Sharma
Manager (PCRI), BHEL, Haridwar
akgupta@bhelhwr.co.in
Energy Situation
The availability of power has increased but demand has consistently outstripped
supply and substantial peak & energy shortages of 7.1% & 11.2% prevail in India.
These problems emanate from:
• Inadequate power generation capacity.
• Lack of optimum utilisation of the existing generation
capacity
• Inadequate inter-regional transmission links
• Inadequate and ageing sub-transmission & distribution
network leading to power cuts and local failures/faults
• T&D losses, large scale theft and skewed tariff
• structure
• Slow pace of rural electrification
• Inefficient use of electricity by the end consumer
• Lack of grid discipline
11.29,50875,06684,5742003-04
12.39,24465,62874,8722000-01
17.9711,47752,37663,8531996-97
18.2811,14549,83660,9811995-96
16.459,46448,06657,5301994-95
18.3110,04544,83054,8751993-94
20.4910,82141,98452,8051992-93
18.799,00839,02748,0351991-92
15.536,83437,17144,0051990-91
(%)ShortfallAvailableDemandYear
PEAKING SHORTAGE (in MW)
3.1
5.1 5.2 5.2
6.0
7.1
3.2
0
2
4
6
8
2001-02 '02-03 '03-04 '04-05 '05-06 Target 06-
07
06-07(Apr-
Oct)
Growth in Electricity Generation (%)
2005-06 (Apr- Oct) : 5.1%

2. Likely Capacity Addition During X Plan (MW)
* Based on latest reviews by CEA/ BHEL
Year-wise Capacity Addition Programme in XI Plan (MW)
Capacity Addition Programme in First Three Years Of XII Plan (MW)
30,64212,898*17,74436,956Total
3,4551,5241,9314,899Private
11,0086,0604,94812,240State
16,1795,31410,86519,817Central
Total Capacity
Anticipated
Units Expected
During
Nov’06- Mar’07
Units
Commissioned
Mid Term
Appraisal
Target
Sector
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
Thermal 3430 6350 9580 11700 16950
Gas 977 387 750 0 0
Nuclear 1440 1220 0 500 0
Hydro 2450 2328 2055 4330 4422
TOTAL 8297 10285 12385 16530 21372
2012-13 2013-14 2014-15
Thermal 17725 15070 10800
Gas 0 0 0
Nuclear 700 3400 2700
Hydro 8024 5067 5097
TOTAL 26449 23537 18597
18188
68583
2012-15 (1st
three years of
12th Plan)
43595
0
6800

3. Capacity Addition Programme in First Three Years of XII Plan (MW)
Capacity Addition Programme During XI Plan (2007-2012)
In addition, 14,000 MW through Non- Conventional Energy Sources.
Captive capacity not included.
Capacity Addition - Perspective Programme
Present installed capacity - 1,28,000 MW.
Installed capacity by March,2007 ~ 1,41,000 MW.
Targeting economic growth rate of 8-10% pa
Projected installed capacity by 2012 - 2,07,000 MW
Thereafter, doubling of capacity every 10 years.
Projected installed capacity by 2030 - 8,00,000 MW.
2 0 1 2 -1 3 2 0 1 3 -1 4 2 0 1 4 - 1 5
T H E R M A L 1 7 7 2 5 1 5 0 7 0 1 0 8 0 0
G A S 0 0 0
N U C L E A R 7 0 0 3 4 0 0 2 7 0 0
H Y D R O 8 0 2 4 5 0 6 7 5 0 9 7
T O T A L 2 6 4 4 9 2 3 5 3 7 1 8 5 9 7
T H E R M A L 0 0 0
G A S 0 0 0
N U C L E A R 0 0 0
H Y D R O 0 0 0
T O T A L 0 0 0
T H E R M A L 5 8 5 5 2 2 6 0 8 0 0
G A S 0 0 0
N U C L E A R 0 0 0
H Y D R O 0 0 0
T O T A L 5 8 5 5 2 2 6 0 8 0 0
T H E R M A L 5 8 5 5 2 2 6 0 8 0 0
G A S 0 0 0
N U C L E A R 0 0 0
H Y D R O 0 0 0
T O T A L 5 8 5 5 2 2 6 0 8 0 0
T H E R M A L 1 1 8 7 0 1 2 8 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
G A S 0 0 0
N U C L E A R 7 0 0 3 4 0 0 2 7 0 0
H Y D R O 8 0 2 4 5 0 6 7 5 0 9 7
T O T A L 2 0 5 9 4 2 1 2 7 7 1 7 7 9 7
T O T A L O R D E R E D
Y E T T O B E O R D E R E D
C O M M I S S I O N IN G Y E A R
O R D E R E D O N B H E L
O R D E R E D / B E I N G
O R D E R E D O N
O T H E R S
T O T A L P L A N
66,4637,36518,78940,309Total
3,160003,160Nuclear
17,1893,2632,63711,289Hydro
46,1144,10216,15225,860Thermal
TotalPrivate SectorState SectorCentral SectorFuel- Mix

4. (MW)
A TOTAL PLANNED CAPACITY
I) XI PLAN 48010
ii) XII PLAN (1st 3 YEARS) 43595
TOTAL 91605
B ORDERED
I) ON BHEL 12970
ii) ON OTHERS ALREADY ORDERED 7775
BEING ORDERED 9560
30305
C YET TO BE ORDERED (A) - (B) 61300
D 74270
E AVERAGE ANNUAL LOAD ON BHEL 9284
TOTAL LOAD FOR BHEL FOR COMMG IN 2007-2015 (8 YRS)
CONSIDERING 100% BALANCE ORDERS ON BHEL (C ) + (B-i)
Ordering Status of Capacity Addition Programme in XI Plan and in First Three
Years of XII Plan (Thermal Sets)
Environmental Implications
Projected installed capacity by 2012 - 2,07,000 MW
Projected Raw Material Consumption
Coal consumption - 1.2 lacs MT/hr
Water Consumption - 152 lacs m3
/day
(6210 cusec)
Projected waste generation
Ash Generation (34%) ESP Eff 99.93% - 40000 MT/hr
SPM released into atmosphere - 357 MT/hr
SOX released into atmosphere(0.4% S) - 1200 MT/hr
Hazardous Waste
Any waste which by reason of any of its Physical, Chemical, Reactive, Toxic,
Flammable, Explosive or Corrosive characteristics causes danger or is likely to cause
danger to health or environment, whether alone or when in contact with other waste or
substances.
Basel Convention/ Declaration
The Basel Convention (Article 4) requires each party to minimise waste generation
and to ensure, to the extent possible, the availability of disposal facilities within its
own territory.

5. With the objective of environmentally sound management (ESM) of hazardous
wastes, the Convention aimed at protecting human health and the environment by
minimizing hazardous waste production to the extent possible.
1989 Adoption - After a public outcry against the indiscriminate dumping of
hazardous wastes in developing countries by developed-world industries, a
diplomatic conference held in Basel, Switzerland, adopted the Convention.
1992 Basel Convention enters into force.
1995 Ban Amendment - The Amendment calls for prohibiting exports of hazardous
wastes (for any purpose)
1999 Ministerial Declaration - The Basel Declaration -special emphasis on
minimizing hazardous waste.
1998 Classification and Characterizations of Wastes
Status of Hazardous Waste Generation
1547226053827293912Kerala11.
10324352585332847330Karnataka10.
2159209663-Him. Pradesh9.
3104631046--Haryana8.
43003015940034790235840Gujarat7.
659837252000873Goa6.
1000---Delhi5.
305305--Chandigarh4.
2657724351752151Bihar3.
166008166008--Assam2.
11109843853542561820Andhra Pradesh1.
TotalDisposalIncinerableRecyclableStateS.N.
440539525299471880971685130Total
129826336995089445233West Bengal21.
145786475726139536819Uttar Pradesh20.
3942081960024699193507Tamilnadu19.
12230795023175879697Rajasthan18.
227091223311289348Punjab17.
8893431208730Pondicherry16.
1221---J & Kashmir15.
341144338303-2841Orissa14.
198669107767130989593Madhya Pradesh13.
200784611553985012847436Maharastra12.

6. Hazardous Waste Sites
Gaps & Recommendations
Survey and Inventorisation of hazardous wastes
Setting up of Hazardous wastes and treatment facility
Identification of sites for disposal
Insufficient information on the quantity and risks associated
Inadequate monitoring and enforcement of regulations;
Lack of awareness of the risk to health, safety and environment
Lack of proper infrastructure for safe containment/disposal.
At six places83953Maharastra10.
Bhopal, Raipur16183M.P. + Chattis.9.
Kolar Distt.5413Karnataka8.
Baddi171Himachal Pra.7.
Faridabad, Sonepat242Haryana6.
11 Nos. operational222948Gujarat5.
-37Chandigarh4.
Muzaffarpur231Bihar3.
-18Assam2.
Vishakhapattanam, Medak2478Andhra Pradesh1.
RemarksIdentified
Sites
Waste
Generating
Units
StateS.N.
-15Pondicherry20.
-65Kerala19.
-25Goa18.
--Delhi17.
Haldia1234W. Bengal16.
Sonebhadra, Moradabad8768U.P.15.
Serserri, Mannalur81088Tamilnadu14.
Pali (Likely)136Rajasthan13.
Ropar, Ludhiana7619Punjab12.
778Orissa11.

7. Pathways of Exposure to Health Hazards
Waste Management
Human
Ground water
Leachate
Organics, Heavy
metal, Toxicity
Surface water
Runoff
Food
chain &
drinking
water
Contaminati
on of Soil &
Water
Plants
Open dump
Gaseous emissions
Animals
Food chain
Air pollution
Bacteria, Pests
Infection
Can cause air pollution
Proper operation/management
/maintenance
Can’t destroy non organic and metallic
toxicity
Volume reduction
Minimum land requirement
Safer than land fill
Detoxification of waste
Converts waste to solid
Heat can be recovered
Incineration
Settlement require maintenance.
Requires proper planning, design &
operation
Large volume can be disposed
Cost effective
Filled land can be reused
Secure
Land fill
- Health Hazard, Insects, Rodents
- Air Pollution
- Water Pollution
- Aesthetics Problem
- InexpensiveOpen
Dumping
DisadvantagesAdvantagesMethod
Time taking
May need investment
Unavailability of appropriate tech.
May be costlier than products made by using
virgin raw material
Waste reduction
Resource conservation
Saving
Lesser cost of
treatment & disposal
Reuse
May polluted ground water
May cause underground explosions etc .
Unpredictable
No land required
No treatment required
Deep well
injection
- Needs segregation
- Can be done only non hazardous organic wastes
- Hazardous waste may creep in not properly
segregated, Water pollution, Hazards
- Easy
- Get manure
Composting
( Vermi
composting)/
Land application

8. Basic Approach in Hazardous Waste Management
Identification of Hazardous waste generation.
Inventorization of hazardous waste
Waste characteristics
Qunatification of hazardous waste
Identification of sites for disposal- Their ranking
Conducting EIA
Implementing/ Operation of disposal sites
Site Selection
Collection of preliminary data
• Topographic maps
• Soil maps
• Land use plans
• Transportation maps
• Water use plans
• Flood plain maps
• Geologic maps
• Aerial photographs / Satellite imagery
• Ground water maps
• Rainfall data
• Wind map
Impacts Associated with Disposal Sites
Environmental Impacts Health Impacts Aesthetic
Impacts
Chemical Entities Biological Entities
Social Impacts
Air Environment Water Environment Land Environment
• Gaseous
emissions
• SPM
• Fire
• Intermediate
decomposition
products
• Toxic constituents
• Animals
• Birds
• Pathogens
• Activities of
adjoining
population
• Odour
• Litter
• Vision
• Changes in Soil
Properties
• Land
Contamination
• Surface &
Ground Water
Pollution

9. • Seismic data
• Site visit
• Preliminary Boreholes & Geophysical investigation
Selection of two best ranked sites
Environmental Impact Assessment for the two sites for the following parameters.
• Ground water quality
• Surface water quality
• Air quality – gases, dust , litter, odour
• Land use alteration
• Drainage alteration
• Soil erosion
• Ecological impacts
• Noise
• Aesthetics – visual, vermin, flies
• Traffic alteration
Preliminary Assessment for Selection of Candidate site
Preliminary Assessment
• Candidate sites to be identified based on the satellite imageries and
topographical sheets of the area.
• Preliminary studies with respect to their prominent features, surrounding
establishments and their proximity to drinking water sources, habitation and
present usage etc. has to be done.
Rejection or knockout criteria
• Characteristics of land
• Geology, Hydro-geology
• Ground Water Conditions
• Ecological considerations
Preliminary Assessment for Rejection Criteria
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, sands subject to subsidence and hydraulic influence.
Subsidence owing to subsurface mines, oil or gas withdrawal; or solution-prone
subsurface
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 of ground water recharge and extremely high water table zone
Unique habitation areas, close to national parks with scenic beauty
Areas with high population, unique archaeological, historical and religious interests
Agricultural and forest lands and existing dump sites
The identified site are excluded if the following conditions are existing :
• An unfavourable local hydro-geological situation, e.g. springs or drinking water
wells within very close proximity to the chosen area

10. • Extremely bad access, i.e. no existing access roads to the selected area which may
involve
• Long distance more than 5 km from main roads
• Access roads passing densely populated areas
• Great differences in altitude between the area of waste collection and the selected
site
• Very intense agricultural use
• Inadequate available area
• Difficult geological situation, danger of mass movements, too steep slopes, strata-
bound groundwater etc.
Secure Landfill
Detailed Site Investigation
The main objective of the detailed evaluation is to assign the relative rank to the
potential sites among themselves.
Before taking up detail evaluation, base line data regarding the site and it's
surroundings have to be collected on
• Ambient air quality
• Water quality
• Ambient Noise quality
• Soil quality
Compacted
soil of low
permeability
Monitoring
WellsGa
s
Wat
er
To Leachate
Treatment
Plant
To Gas
recovery
SystemProtective
Clay layer
Solid Waste
Leachate
collection
sump
Leachate
collection &
removal
systemLeachate
detection ,
collection &
removal
system
Protecti
ve liners
Drain
pipes
Surface Runoff
diversion

11. The sites have to be investigated for
• Site Specific Information; proximity to the waste source, slope at site,
topography, accessibility, meteorology etc.
• Hydro-geology/Geology; Ground water table fluctuation, ground water
direction, ground water quality, depth to bed rock, soil type, geo-technical
features etc
• Socio-economic Features; land use, demography, transportation impact etc.
Site Selection Through Ranking
Attribute and Site Sensitive Index
Site sensitive index graded in 4 categories
Receptor related attributes influencing human habitation in the vicinity
Environment related attributes covering pollution pathways
Accessibility related attributes covering house distance
Socio-economic related attributes influencing social environment
Waste management related attributes covering composition and quality of the waste
Geological related attributes covering hydro geological aspects
Development of Site Sensitivity Index
Sr.
No.
Attribute 0.0-0.25 0.25-0.5 0.5-0.75 0.75-1.0
Accessibility Related
1. Type of road National
highway
State highway Local road No road
2. Distance from collection area < 10 km 10-20 km 20-25 km > 25 km
Receptor Related
3. Population within 500 meters 0 to 100 100 to 250 250 to 1000 > 1000
4. Distance to nearest drinking
water source
> 5000 m 2500 to
5000 m
1000 to
2500 m
< 1000 m
5. Use of site by nearby
residents
Not used Occasional Moderate Regular
6. Distance to nearest building > 3000 m 1500 to
3000 m
500 to
1500 m
< 500 m
7. Land use/Zoning Completel
y remote
(zoning
not
applicable)
Agricultural Commercial or
industrial
Residential
8. Decrease in property value
with respect to distance
> 5000 m 2500 to
5000 m
1000 to
2500 m
< 1000 m
9. Public utility facility within 2
kms
Commerci
al and
industrial
area
National
heritage
Hospital Air port

12. * Precipitation effectiveness index is the ratio of annual precipitation of annual evaporation
Sr.
No.
Attribute 0.0-0.25 0.25-0.5 0.5-0.75 0.75-1.0
10. Public acceptability Fully accepted Acceptance with
suggestions
Acceptance
with major
changes
Non acceptance
Environmental Related
11. Critical environment Not a critical
environment
Pristine natural
areas
Wetlands,
flood plains,
and preserved
areas
Major habitat of
endangered or
threatened species
12. Distance to nearest
surface water
> 8000 m 1500 to
8000 m
500 to
1500 m
< 500 m
13. Depth to ground water > 30 m 15 to 30 m 5 to 15 m < 5 m
14. Contamina-tion No contamina-tion Soil contamina-
tion only
Biota-
contamina-
tion
Air, water or food
contamina-tion
15. Water quality Confirming to
standard
Potable Polluted Highly polluted
16. Air quality Confirming to
residential standards
Confirming to
industrial
standards
Polluted Highly polluted
17. Soil quality No contamina-tion Average Contami-nated Highly contami-nated
Socio-economic Related
18. Health No problem Moderate High Severe
19. Job opportunities High Moderate Low Very low
20. Odour No odour Moderate odour High odour Intensive foul odour
Sr.
No.
Attribute 0.0-0.25 0.25-0.5 0.5-0.75 0.75-1.0
21. Vision Site not seen Site partly seen
(25%)
Site partly seen
(75%)
Site fully seen
Waste Management Practice Related
22. Waste quantity/day < 250 tonnes 250 to 1000
tonnes
1000 to 2000
tonnes
> 2000 tonnes
23. Life of site > 20 years 10-20 years 2-10 years < 2 years
Climatological Related
24. Precipitation effectiveness
index*
< 31 31 to 63 63 to 127 > 127
25. Climatic features
contributing to Air pollution
No problem Moderate High Severe
Geological Related
26. Soil permeability > 1 X 10-7
cm/sec. 1 X 10-5
to
1 x 10-7
cm/sec.
1 X 10-3
to
1 x 10-5
cm/sec.
< 1 X 10-3
cm/sec.
27. Depth to bedrock > 20 m 10 to 20 m 3 to 10 m < 3 m
28. Susceptibility to erosion
and run-off
Not susceptible Potential Moderate Severe
29. Thickness of bedrock > 20 m 20-10 m 10-2 m < 2 m
30. Physical characteris-tics of
rock
Massive
Weathered
Highly weathered
31. Depth of soil layer > 5 m 2-5 m 1-2 m < 1 m
32. Slope pattern < 1% 1-2% 2-5% > 10%
33. Seismicity Zone I Zone II Zone III Zone IV & V

13. Ranking Methodology
Using Delphi Technique
Weightage allocation based on importance and pairwise comparison
Site score calculation based on site sensitive index and individual attribute
weightage
Facilitates in the selection of the best available site
Site with least score will be less sensitive to impact hence most acceptable
Worksheet for Ranking of Sites
Name of site : Location :
Attribute Attribute
measurement
Sensitivity index Weightage Attribute score
Accessibility Related
Type of road 25
Distance from collection point 35
Total 60
Receptor related
Population within 500 meters 50
Distance to nearest drinking
water source
55
Use of site by nearby residents 25
Distance to nearest building 15
Land use/Zoning 35
Decrease in property value with
respect to distance
15
Public utility facility within 2 kms 25
Public acceptability 30
Total 250
Attribute Attribute
measurement
Sensitivity index Weightage Attribute score
Environmental Related
Critical environments 45
Distance to nearest surface
water
55
Depth to ground water 65
Contamination 35
Water quality 40
Air quality 35
Soil quality 30
Total 305
Socio-economic Related
Health 40
Job opportunities 20
Odour 30
Vision 20
Total 110
Waste Management Practice Related
Waste quantity/day 45
Life of site 40
Total 85

14. Aggregating Score for Site Selection
The site suitability decreases with increase in the total score
Total Score Site Description
< 300 Less sensitive to the impacts (preferable)
300 to 750 Moderate
> 750 Highly sensitive to the impacts (undesirable)
A Safe and Sound Handling
Attribute Attribute
measurement
Sensitivity index Weightage Attribute score
Climatological Related
Precipitation
effectiveness index
25
Climatic features
contributing to Air
pollution
15
Total 40
Geological Related
Soil permeability 35
Depth to bedrock 20
Susceptibility to
erosion & run-off
15
Physical characteristics
of rock
15
Depth of soil layer 30
Slope pattern 10
Seismicity 20
Total 150
Grand Total 1000

15. Environment Management Plan
Air Quality Monitoring and Management
• Periodic Monitoring of air quality
• Maintenance of grass cover
• Black top roads
• Odor control by rapid stabilization
• Minimizing working distances internally
• Green belt development to attenuate noise
• Silencers to generators and vehicles
Water Quality – Surface and Ground
• Clean water diversion
• Proper leachate management
• Periodic Monitoring
• Double composite liner system
• Effective drainage system
• Appropriate capping
• Spill control procedures
Activity wise Mitigation Measures During
• Site Clearance
• Construction
• Operation
• Closure
• Post-closure Phase
EMP should also delineate the environmental monitoring plan for compliance of
various environmental regulations