Assessment of the Municipal Solid Waste Management in East ... · East Delhi Municipal Corporation (EDMC) caters to two districts out of 9 districts in Delhi as in 2011, North East

Prepared for East Delhi Municipal Corporation

In support from The Climate and Clean Air Coalition

Municipal Solid Waste Initiative

Final Report 2016MS06

Assessment of the Municipal Solid Waste Management in East Delhi and

Action Plan to Mitigate Short-lived Climate Pollutants from the Municipal

Solid Waste Sector

Assessment of the Municipal Solid Waste Management in East Delhi and Action Plan to Mitigate Short-lived Climate Pollutants from the Municipal Solid Waste Sector

ii

© The Energy and Resources Institute 2018

Suggested format for citation

T E R I. 2018 East Delhi Workplan to Mitigate Short Lived Climate Pollutant from MSW Sector New Delhi: The Energy and Resources Institute. 108 pp. [Project Report No. 2016 MS 06 (Activity 1.6]

For more information Project Monitoring Cell T E R I Tel. 2468 2100 or 2468 2111 Darbari Seth Block E-mail [email protected] IHC Complex, Lodhi Road Fax 2468 2144 or 2468 2145 New Delhi – 110 003 Web www.teriin.org India India +91 • Delhi (0)11


iii

Acknowledgement

This report was developed with assistance from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Abt Associates


v

Table of contents 1 BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 East Delhi Municipal Corporation ................................................................................. 1 2 PART A: SITUATION ANALYSIS .............................................................................................. 1

2.1 Population growth ........................................................................................................... 1 2.1.1 Arithmetic Increase Method: ........................................................................... 2

2.2 Quantity and Quality of generated MSW ..................................................................... 4 2.3 Waste Collection and handling ...................................................................................... 8 2.4 Geo tagging of dhalaos in East Delhi district. .............................................................. 9 2.5 Assessment of SLCP from MSW management using SWEET ................................. 10

2.5.1 Short Lived Climate Pollutants (SLCPs) ...................................................... 11 2.5.2 Solid Waste Emission Estimation Tool ........................................................ 12

2.6 Assessment of existing manpower .............................................................................. 31 2.7 Assessment of existing financial mechanism ............................................................. 32

2.7.1 Total Budget of EDMC: .................................................................................. 33 2.7.2 Total Expenditure of EDMC: ......................................................................... 34 2.7.3 Total Income of EDMC: .................................................................................. 35 2.7.4 Expenditure related to Waste Management: ............................................... 36 2.7.5 Income and Expenditure related to Sanitation: .......................................... 36 2.7.6 Financing mechanisms in place .................................................................... 37

2.8 Gaps in waste management .......................................................................................... 38 3 PART B: ACTION PLAN ......................................................................................................... 41

3.1 MSW Collection with Segregation and Processing ................................................... 41 3.1.1 MSW collection ................................................................................................ 41 3.1.2 MSW Processing (centralized vs. decentralised) ........................................ 43

3.2 Waste processing facilities ............................................................................................ 44 3.3 Infrastructure for waste processing by East Delhi district ....................................... 44 3.4 Future financial mechanism ......................................................................................... 47 3.5 Help in identifying indicators of measurement, reporting and verification. ........ 49 3.6 Landfill Management .................................................................................................... 54

3.6.1 Landfill post closure plan along with its monitoring. ............................... 55 3.7 Alternate Scenarios for SLCP reduction from MSW management sector. ............ 58

3.7.1 Summary- Changes vs. Baseline ................................................................... 60 3.8 Other actions to reduce SLCP emissions .................................................................... 73

3.8.1 Waste Burning ................................................................................................. 73 3.8.2 Landfilling practices ....................................................................................... 73 3.8.3 Transportation of waste ................................................................................. 74

BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................. 75 ANNEXURE I.................................................................................................................................. 78 ANNEXURE II ................................................................................................................................ 89


vii

List of Figures Figure 1: Administrative Structure of EDMC .................................................................................. 1 Figure 2: Delhi constituency map as in 2017 .................................................................................... 4 Figure 3: Population growth pattern in Delhi (Source: Census of India) ........................................ 1 Figure 4: Population trend in EDMC area ........................................................................................ 2 Figure 5: Estimated waste disposal at Ghazipur landfill site ........................................................ 5 Figure 6: Dhalao locations and EDMC ward boundary ................................................................. 9 Figure 7: Black carbon emissions over time ................................................................................... 14 Figure 8: Baseline Methane emission over time from EDMC area ............................................. 15 Figure 9: Baseline Organic carbon emission from EDMC area over time .................................. 16 Figure 10: Total Emissions from CO2, NOx, BC, CH4, Organic Carbon .................................... 17 Figure 11: Black Carbon Emissions by Source ............................................................................... 18 Figure 12: Baseline SO2 emissions from EDMC area..................................................................... 19 Figure 13: Baseline Transportation PM10 emissions from EDMC area ....................................... 20 Figure 14 Baseline Climate Forcing Emissions by Source (CH4, Black Carbon, Organic.

Carbon, NOx, CO2) ................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 15: Baseline Dumpsite Emissions from Ghazipur in EDMC area .................................. 22 Figure 16 CO2 Emissions in Baseline ............................................................................................... 24 Figure 17 NOx Emissions in baseline ............................................................................................. 24 Figure 18 SOx Emissions in Baseline ............................................................................................... 25 Figure 19 PM10 Emissions in baseline ............................................................................................. 26 Figure 20 Total Climate Forcing from Waste Burning Emissions ............................................... 27 Figure 21: Climate Forcing from Open Burning Emissions ......................................................... 28 Figure 22 Climate Forcing from Landfill/Dumpsite Fire Emissions ........................................... 29 Figure 23 PM10 Emissions from Waste Burning Emissions ......................................................... 30 Figure 24: Staff requirement for road sweeping ............................................................................ 32 Figure 25: EDMC budget estimates ................................................................................................. 33 Figure 26: Expenditure share of EDMC in year 2015-16............................................................... 34 Figure 27: EDMC income in various years ..................................................................................... 35 Figure 28 Total Expenditure in Sanitation in various years ......................................................... 37 Figure 29: Municipal solid waste management lifecycle .............................................................. 41 Figure 30: EDMC dhalao location in a 1x1 km grid ...................................................................... 46 Figure 31: Reactions occurring in a completed landfill ................................................................ 55 Figure 32: Aspects for closure and post closure plan of a landfill .............................................. 56 Figure 33: Components of a landfill closure Methodology .......................................................... 57 Figure 34: Scenario Comparison for EDMC (MT CO2 Eq) ........................................................... 61 Figure 35: Scenario Comparison of Overall Black Carbon Emissions over Time ..................... 62 Figure 36: Scenario Comparison of Methane Emission over Time ............................................. 63 Figure 37: Scenario Comparison of Organic Carbon Emissions .................................................. 63 Figure 38: Total Emissions by Scenario including CO2, NOx, BC, CH4, and Organic Carbon

...................................................................................................................................................... 64 Figure 39: Baseline Black Carbon Emissions by Source over Time ............................................. 65 Figure 40: Combustion Related Sulphur Dioxide Emissions by Scenario ................................. 65 Figure 41: Baseline Transportation PM10 Emissions by Source ................................................... 66 Figure 42: Baseline All Climate Forcing Emissions by source ..................................................... 67


viii

Figure 43: Ghazipur Dumpsite Emissions by Scenario ................................................................ 68 Figure 44: Unknown Site Emissions by Scenario .......................................................................... 68 Figure 45: CO2 Emissions by Scenario ............................................................................................ 69 Figure 46: NOx Emissions by Scenario ........................................................................................... 69 Figure 47: SOx Emission by Scenario .............................................................................................. 70 Figure 48: PM10 emissions by scenario........................................................................................... 70 Figure 49: Total Climate Forcing From Waste Burning Emissions By Scenario ....................... 71 Figure 50: Climate Forcing From Open Burning Emissions By Scenario ................................... 71 Figure 51: Climate Forcing From Landfill/Dumpsite Fire Emissions By Scenario ................... 72 Figure 52: PM10 Emissions from Waste Burning Emissions by Scenario .................................. 72


ix

List of Tables

Table 1: Ward names and population in EDMC area in 2011 ........................................................ 2 Table 2: Population data for East Delhi district (in Lakh) .............................................................. 3 Table 3: Calculations for Arithmetic increase method .................................................................... 3 Table 4: Projected future population of EDMC area (East and North East District) in Lakh.... 3 Table 5: MSW collected from the EDMC area in past one year ..................................................... 4 Table 6: Garbage disposal at Ghazipur landfill site since 2009 ..................................................... 5 Table 7: Comparative analysis of physical and chemical characteristics ..................................... 6 Table 8: Comparison of Results of IRGSSA (June-July, 2005), COWI-Kadam (2004), JICA (IPE

2004) and NEERI (1996). ............................................................................................................. 7 Table 9: Projected Composition of Total municipal solid waste for 2021 .................................... 8 Table 10: Secondary collection fleet of EDMC ................................................................................. 8 Table 11: Effects by Global Warming .............................................................................................. 10 Table 12: Short lived climate pollutants .......................................................................................... 11 Table 13: Guidelines for deployment of vehicles and representative manpower for primary

collection of waste ..................................................................................................................... 31 Table 14: Potential Sources of Financial Support or In-kind Technical Assistance .................. 48 Table 15: Indicators of measurement, reporting and verification for MSWM. ......................... 49 Table 16: Service level Benchmarks for Solid Waste Management ............................................. 53 Table 17: Alternate Scenario Analysis ............................................................................................. 58 Table 18: Total emissions changes from Baseline (Metric Tons CO2e) ...................................... 60 Table 19 Total Emission (Metric Tons CO2e) ................................................................................ 78 Table 20 Baseline Pollutants by Sector (Metric Tons CO2e) ........................................................ 80 Table 21: Total Emissions Changes from Baseline (Metric Tons CO2e) ..................................... 86 Table 22: Mapping of number of EDMC Dhalaos as per GPS mapping on grid ...................... 89


1

1 Background

The Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC) is a voluntary partnership of governments, intergovernmental organizations, businesses, scientific institutions and civil society organizations committed to improving air quality and protecting the climate through actions to reduce short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs). CCAC’s global network includes over 100 state and non-state partners, and hundreds of local actors carrying out activities across economic sectors. One of the non-state partners committed to mitigate SLCPs is The Energy Resources Institute (TERI) in India. TERI’s objective of working with CCAC-Waste Initiative is to reduce SLCPs from solid waste sector and to contribute to the CCAC waste initiative priorities by developing workplans for two cities in India, East Delhi and Coimbatore, and the creation of city network for Indian cities.

This workplan is developed by the East Delhi and tailored for their local circumstances for identifying the actions to improve waste management practices in ways that address the development priorities and reduce SLCP emissions, and the strategies for implementing these actions.

1.1 East Delhi Municipal Corporation East Delhi Municipal Corporation (EDMC) caters to two districts out of 9 districts in Delhi as in 2011, North East and East Delhi districts. As per census 2011, the two districts span to 125 kilometre square area and have an average population density of about 31608 persons per kilometre, being the most densely populated part in Delhi (Census Organisation of India, 2011).

Figure 1: Administrative Structure of EDMC

EDMC has two zones; Shahdara North and Shahdara South, sixty four wards and 269 colonies in Shahdara South Zone and 200 colonies in Shadara North Zone. Figure 1 depicts the administrative structure of EDMC and Figure 2 showcases the constituency map of Delhi. Table 1 indicates the ward names and population (as per 2011 census).

EDMC

Shahdara North Zone Wards 200 Colonies

Shahdara South Zone Wards 269 Colonies


2

Table 1: Ward names and population in EDMC area in 2011 S.No Ward No Ward Name Total Population 1 001-E MAYUR VIHAR PHASE-I 61348 2 002-E TRILOKPURI-EAST 59678 3 003-E TRILOKPURI-WEST 64346 4 004-E NEW ASHOK NAGAR 56168 5 005-E KONDLI 62399 6 006-E GHAROLI 53891 7 007-E DALLUPURA 58056 8 008-E KALYAN PURI 59370 9 009-E MANDAWALI 49753 10 010-E VINOD NAGAR 58456 11 011-E MAYUR VIHAR PHASE-II 54346 12 012-E PATPAR GANJ 58762 13 013-E KISHAN KUNJ 54136 14 014-E LAKSHMI NAGAR 60900 15 015-E SHAKARPUR 64217 16 016-E PANDAV NAGAR 62169 17 017-E VISHWAS NAGAR 53057 18 018-E ANAND VIHAR 53415 19 019-E I.P. EXTENSION 60524 20 020-E PREET VIHAR 55192 21 021-E KRISHNA NAGAR 60732 22 022-E ANARKALI 64628 23 023-E GHONDLI 64117 24 024-E GEETA COLONY 64722 25 025-E GANDHI NAGAR 65050 26 026-E KANTI NAGAR 62354 27 027-E RAGHUBARPURA 69852 28 028-E DILSHAD COLONY 55045 29 029-E VIVEK VIHAR 48420 30 030-E JHILMIL 54027 31 031-E SHAHDARA 58357 32 032-E NAND NAGRI 64717 33 033-E SUNDER NAGRI 58346 34 034-E NEW SEEMAPURI 54572 35 035-E DILSHAD GARDEN 57715 36 036-E ASHOK NAGAR 59850 37 037-E RAM NAGAR 59837 38 038-E ROHTASH NAGAR 58354 39 039-E WELCOME COLONY 62940 40 040-E MAUJPUR 59055 41 041-E CHAUHAN BANGER 53523 42 042-E SEELAMPUR 63220


3

S.No Ward No Ward Name Total Population 43 043-E GAUTAM PURI 59928 44 044-E BHAJAN PURA 57248 45 045-E YAMUNA VIHAR 59939 46 046-E GHONDA 59300 47 047-E BRAHAM PURI 66892 48 048-E SUBHASH MOHALLA 66483 49 049-E KARDAM PURI 64940 50 050-E BABARPUR 53525 51 051-E JANTA COLONY 55365 52 052-E JOHARIPUR 71060 53 053-E GOKAL PURI 73943 54 054-E SABOLI 70104 55 055-E HARSH VIHAR 78698 56 056-E SHIV VIHAR 76661 57 057-E KARAWAL NAGAR-EAST 71811 58 058-E MUSTAFABAD 79384 59 059-E NEHRU VIHAR 83645 60 060-E SONIA VIHAR 66979 61 061-E KARAWAL NAGAR-WEST 69926 62 062-E SADATPUR 47790 63 063-E KHAJOORI KHAS 63784 64 064-E SRI RAM COLONY 72825

Source: EDMC

Delhi generates approximately 9260 Tonnes of Municipal solid waste (MSW) every day (Central Pollution Control Board, 2017), EDMC area which supports about 23.5 percent of Delhi’s population, is daily generating about 2132 MT (average) of MSW.

A waste to energy plant was commissioned in November 2016 at Ghazipur site in EDMC area with a capacity to handle 1300 Metric Tonnes per day (MTPD) MSW and generate 12 Mega Watt power. This plant has received less than 1000 Tonnes of waste per day on an average, there are plans to expand the capacity of the Waste to Energy plant in near future to 1900 MTPD, and further to 2500 MTPD with expansion in future phase (Thakur, 2017). EDMC has only one dumpsite for disposal of its waste, which is the Ghazipur disposal site, operating since 1984 and has exhausted its design air space capacity in 2002. The total garbage height has reached to a maximum of about 60 meters. At some sides, slope of the dumpsite is very steep (60-70 degrees) and poses a danger to humans, animals and establishments around (Project Report on Reclaimation of Ghazipur, 2010). EDMC other than being a CCAC city is also a C40 partner city, constantly putting in its efforts to manage its enormous quantity of MSW and reduce its impact on climate, thereby also fulfilling India’s commitment on nationally determined contributions to reduce emission intensity by 2030.


4

Figure 2: Delhi constituency map as in 2017


1

2 Part A: Situation analysis

2.1 Population growth As per census 2011, Delhi had a population of 167.53 lakh, and has grown with an average growth rate of 46.3% in past six decades. Only during the last one decade the growth rate has reduced to 20.96 percent. Figure 3 describes the growth pattern in Delhi since 1951 till 2011.

Figure 3: Population growth pattern in Delhi (Source: Census of India) Delhi is divided in to five constituencies managed by five different local municipal corporations, namely:

1. South Delhi municipal corporation, 2. North Delhi municipal corporation, 3. East Delhi municipal corporation, 4. New Delhi municipal corporation, and 5. Delhi Cantonment Board.

EDMC covers East Delhi and North East Delhi areas and the population trend has been shown in Figure 4.

17.4426.59

40.66

62.2

94.21

138.51

167.53

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2011

Popu

latio

n in

Lak

h

Population of Delhi

Population in lakh


2

Figure 4: Population trend in EDMC area (Source: (Census Organisation of India, 2011))

Population projection is dependent on factors governing future growth and development in the considered jurisdiction. Population growth can be estimated using multiple methods which are suited for cities of different sizes and stages of growth. Arithmetic increase method and geometrical increase method are the two most commonly used population projection methods (Central Public Health and Environmental Engineering Organisation, 2016)

1. Arithmetic Increase Method: If there has been a constant increase in population (in absolute numbers) over the past few decades, then for the purpose of future projection, arithmetic increase method could be used. In this method the increase of population per year/decade is calculated from past records and the average increase is added to the present population to find out population in next years/decade. This computation is suitable for historical, well settled and established cities.

2. Geometrical Increase Method: In this method the geometric mean of decadal averages is considered to be the rate of growth. This method is used for new and growing cities, which may have irregular growth patterns.

Since East Delhi is well settled and established city, arithmetic increase method has been used to forecast the future population.

2.1.1 Arithmetic Increase Method: The Arithmetic increase method states equation 1 as:

𝑷𝑷𝒏𝒏 = [𝑷𝑷𝒐𝒐 + 𝒏𝒏 ∗ 𝒙𝒙�] Equation 1

Where, 𝑃𝑃𝑛𝑛 = 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑓𝑓𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑓𝑓𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑓𝑓 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑓𝑓𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑝𝑝 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑝𝑝 𝑓𝑓𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑓𝑓𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑓𝑓 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑝𝑝𝑃𝑃 (𝑘𝑘𝑝𝑝𝑃𝑃𝑘𝑘𝑝𝑝 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑝𝑝𝑃𝑃𝑝𝑝𝑃𝑃). 𝑃𝑃𝑜𝑜 = 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑓𝑓𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑝𝑝 𝑓𝑓𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑝𝑝𝑃𝑃 (𝑃𝑃. 𝑃𝑃 𝑝𝑝𝑓𝑓𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑘𝑘𝑝𝑝𝑃𝑃𝑘𝑘𝑝𝑝 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑝𝑝𝑃𝑃𝑝𝑝𝑃𝑃) 𝑝𝑝 = 𝑁𝑁𝑝𝑝𝑓𝑓𝑚𝑚𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃𝑓𝑓 𝑓𝑓𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑚𝑚𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑘𝑘𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑝𝑝 𝑝𝑝𝑃𝑃𝑘𝑘 𝑓𝑓𝑝𝑝𝑓𝑓 𝑓𝑓𝑝𝑝𝑃𝑃𝑝𝑝𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃. �̅�𝑥 = 𝐴𝐴𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑓𝑓𝐴𝐴𝑃𝑃 (𝑓𝑓𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃ℎ𝑃𝑃𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑓𝑓𝑃𝑃𝑓𝑓𝑝𝑝) 𝑃𝑃𝑓𝑓 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑓𝑓𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑝𝑝 𝑃𝑃𝑝𝑝𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑓𝑓𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃𝑝𝑝 𝑃𝑃ℎ𝑃𝑃 𝑘𝑘𝑝𝑝𝑃𝑃𝑘𝑘𝑝𝑝 𝑓𝑓𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃

1991 2001 2011Population in Lakh 21.08 32.12 39.48

21.08

32.12

39.48

05

1015202530354045

Popu

latio

nPopulation of EDMC Area


3

The population of East Delhi was found from census of India and is tabulated in Table 2. Table 2: Population data for East Delhi district (in Lakh) Year 1991 2001 2011 Population 21.08336 32.12482 39.48474 This historical data was used to find the average arithmetic increase in population. Thereafter using Pn = [Po + n* x�] Equation 1 the population for year 2021, 2031, 2041 and 2051 has been estimated. Table 3 illustrates the calculations for Arithmetic increase method. Table 3: Calculations for Arithmetic increase method Year Population Increase in Population 1991 21.08336 2001 32.12482 11.04146 2011 39.48474 7.35992 Total 18.40138 Average increase per decade, 𝒙𝒙� 𝒙𝒙� = 9.20069 The future population is now computed by using Pn = [Po + n* x�] Equation 1 as follows:

1. Population in Year 2021 𝑃𝑃2021 = 𝑃𝑃2011 + 1 ∗ �̅�𝑥 Hence 𝑃𝑃2021 = 39.48474 + 1 * 9.20069 = 48.68543

Similarly, the future populations are as under Table 4: Projected future population of EDMC area (East and North East District) in Lakh S.No Year Projected Population 1 2021 48.68543 2 2031 57.88612 3 2041 67.08681 We can also see that the share of EDMCs population to Delhi’s population is approximately 22.37 % in 1991, 23.19% in 2001 and 23.56% in 2011. Thus, for calculation of population contributing waste to Ghazipur landfill site, we can assume that 23 % of Delhi population was contributing waste to Ghazipur landfill since 1984. However, using the same formula the average population of Delhi for 2021 is estimated to be 192.5 lakh, which is less than the Master plan population of 230 lakh (Master Plan 2021, DDA, 2007). The migrant population to Delhi is estimated to increase to about 24 percent from 2011 to 2021.


4

2.2 Quantity and Quality of generated MSW Five municipal authorities in Delhi are responsible for management of MSW, which is disposed at four landfill sites namely, Ghazipur (operating since 1984), Bhalswa (operating since 1994), Okhla (operating since 1996) and Narela Bawana. Three waste to energy (W-E) plants are operating, near Ghazipu, Okhla and Narela site. The capacity of Timarpur- Okhla W-E plant is 1950 MTPD generating 16 MW, Ghazipur W-E plant with a capacity of 1300MTPD, generating 12 MW, and Narela W-E plant with a capacity of 3000 MTPD generating 24MW (Central Pollution Control Board, 2017). The projected garbage generation per person per day by 2021 is 680 gms and in total about 15750 MTPD (Delhi Development Authority, 2016). EDMC collects approximately 2132 MTPD (average of 2016-17) of MSW from its jurisdiction. Table 5 depicts the average daily quantities of waste collected from Shahdara north and Shahdara south zones from November 2016 till October 2017. Table 5: MSW collected from the EDMC area in past one year

S.No Months and Year Average MSW collected (MTPM)

1. November 2016 61318.185

2. December 2016 64298.895

3. January 2017 62199.18

4. February 2017 64091.655

5. March 2017 69769.595

6. April 2017 66184.17

7. May 2017 71678.48

8. June 2017 78055.95

9. July 2017 85465.77

10. August 2017 83177.045

11. September 2017 65845.475

12. October 2017 68135.905

Average MSW collected per month 70018.36 Average MSW collected per day (MT) 2310.97 Source: TERIs Visit to East Delhi Municipal Corporation November 06, 2017


5

Looking at the past records, in absence of treatment options for MSW, the waste was being disposed at Ghazipur dumpsite since 1984. Ghazipur dumpsite has been receiving a huge quantity of waste; Table 6 depicts the quantity of waste received since April 2009.

Table 6: Garbage disposal at Ghazipur landfill site since 2009

S.No Year Total garbage disposed per year (in MT)

1. 2009-2010 444885.94 2. 2010-2011 498677.385 3. 2011-2012 523179.145 4. 2012-2013 364672.805 5. 2013-2014 704645.075 6. 2014-2015 777704.125 7. 2015-2016 752139.17 8. 2016-2017 773926.01 9. 2017-2018 518542.795 Source: TERIs Visit to East Delhi Municipal Corporation November 06, 2017

Based on the data on per capita waste generation and about 70 percent collection efficiency the average waste disposal at Ghazipur landfill site has been estimated and described in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Estimated waste disposal at Ghazipur landfill site

0500000

100000015000002000000250000030000003500000400000045000005000000

Year

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

2013

2015

EDMC Population and Garbage Disposal

EDMC Population

Garbage disposed


6

Table below highlights the proximate analysis of waste at various areas within Delhi city at Dalhao level in 2005. The analysis below is on wet weight basis, and depicts high moisture content in the range of 31.4 – 64.7 percent and organics in the range of 61.54 – 90.48 percent.

Table 7: Comparative analysis of physical and chemical characteristics Composition (%)

HIG MIG LIG EWS APMC* Local Fruits/ Vegetable Markets

Institutional Area

Commercial Area

Public & Semi Public Areas

Industrial Areas

Village Areas

Landfill

Biodegradable 74.9 72.86 72.96 71.28 90.48 76.59 74.63 68.76 74.03 61.54 71.08 62.5 Recyclables 3.86 4.74 5.2 5.99 1.85 4.25 5.00 5.07 5.11 8.24 4.38 3.84 Inert 1.01 1.67 1.43 2.16 0.33 1.16 1.43 1.37 2.37 2.02 1.30 2.75 Others 2.72 3.05 3.95 3.4 0.42 2.18 2.71 8.32 3.20 7.91 3.42 2.45 Bulk Density (MT/m3)

0.36759 0.373851 0.36774 0.374524 0.372024 0.374651 0.359392 0.375547 0.348429 0.3746 0.349915 0.356667

Ash and Fine Earth %

17.44 17.68 16.46 17.17 6.92 15.82 16.23 16.48 15.29 20.29 19.82 28.46

Moisture % 44.53 48.78 45.37 47.19 64.7 47.89 48.4 49.92 57.9 31.425 36.80 44.6 Calorific Value (kCal/kg)

1048 1109. 47

1048 1096 1760 1321 1139.8 1133.46 1451.75 1014.3 1346 1366

C/N Ratio 21.29 21.35 20.7 20.19 30.03 22.56 17.82 22.52 24.82 19.05 25.76 22.26 Source: Detailer Survey of Municipal solid waste collection, characterization and transportation for municipal corporation of Delhi, IRG Systems South Asia Pvt Limited, 2005

*Agriculture produce market committee


7

Table 8 highlights the comparison of physical composition of MSW generated at various levels and evaluated by IRG Systems South Asia Limited (IRGSSA) in 2005, COWI-Kadam in 2004, and JICA (IPE) in 2004, and National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) in 2006. The table depicts average biodegradables in range of 62.5% to 74.9% and average recyclables in range of 9.2% to 68%.

Table 8: Comparison of Results of IRGSSA (June-July, 2005), COWI-Kadam (2004), JICA (IPE 2004) and NEERI (1996). Parameters IRGSSA 2005* COWI-Kadam

2004 JICA (IPE) 2004

NEERI (1996)

No of Samples 138 (for Seven Days) (Dhalao Level)

160 (HH Level) - 137 (HH Level)

Higher Income Group (HIG) Avg. Biodegradables 74.9% 71.9% 64% 44.5% Avg. Recyclables 3.86%( does not

include rag Picker segregations)

23.1% 28% 15.4%

Avg. Inerts and Others 21.24% 5% 8% 40.1% Middle Income Group (MIG) Avg. Biodegradables 72.86% 75.9% 61% 39.9% Avg. Recyclables 4.74% (does not


21.1% 33% 12.6%

Avg. Inerts and Others 22.4% 3% 6% 47.5

Lower Income Group (LIG) Avg. Biodegradables 72.96% 63.2.4% 62% 36.4% Avg. Recyclables 5.2% (does not


16.6% 22% 11.9%

Avg. Inerts and Others 21.84% 20.2% 16% 51.7%

Commercial Area Avg. Biodegradables 68.76% 15.6% - 38.5% Avg. Recyclables 5.07(does not


68% - 20.2%

Avg. Inerts and Others 26.17% 16.4% - 41.3%

Landfill Avg. Biodegradables 62.5% 73.7% - 30.6% Avg. Recyclables 3.84% 9.2% - 9.8% Avg. Inerts and Others 33.66% 17.1% - 59.6% The Delhi development authority (DDA) has forecasted average composition of solid waste in its latest master plan for 2021 and is shown in Table 9. Bio degradable waste including kitchen waste, agriculture and dairy waste is projected about 38% of the total waste


8

generated. The non-biodegradable waste including non-recyclables, sanitary waste, inert material, domestic waste and combustibles will have a share of 38% and the rest 24% will be recyclables. Table 9: Projected Composition of Total municipal solid waste for 2021

Constituents Quantum (in tonnes) Percentage of total waste Bio-degradable 6000 38 Non Bio-degradable 6000 38 Recyclable 3750 24 Total 15750 100 Source: Master Plan 2021, DDA The waste management plans include segregation of biodegradable and recyclable waste at source and be treated in a decentralized manner.

2.3 Waste Collection and handling Primary collection consists of 302 light motor vehicles (TATA Ace) running on compressed natural gas (CNG) along with cycle rikshaw and wheel barrows. Secondary collection fleet consists of trucks, and loaders and have been illustrated in Table 10. Table 10: Secondary collection fleet of EDMC

S.No Trucks in waste collection

Numbers Capacity/utilization Fuel consumption Shadara North Zone

Shahdara South Zone

1 Tata BS IV 50 5-7/15 35-45 Lt/shift/truck ^

30-40 Lt/shift/truck ^

2 Ashok Leyland BSIV

30 5-7/15 35-45 Lt/shift/truck ^

30-40 Lt/shift/truck ^

3 Additional Private Trucks

39 5-7/15 N.A. N.A

4 Hiva trucks (10 tyre) 25 T capacity

16 10/25 N.A. N.A.

5 Loaders 13 35-40 Lt per shift (8 hrs)

40 Lt per shift (8 hrs)

6 Private loaders 14 N.A. N.A. ^ four rounds to SLF Source: Visit to EDMC workshop on November 08, 2017 The trucks owned by EDMC are of 2013 make (42 trucks) and 2014 make (28 trucks) and 2016 (10 trucks) make. To load the waste into the secondary collection vehicles at dhalao sites, loaders are used. Three of the loaders are from 2010 make and 10 loaders were recently purchased in 2017.

The solid waste landfill located at Ghazipur is spread in 27 acre area and operating since 1984. Waste handling equipment at Ghazipur landfill site include Four bulldozers consume about 12-13 Lt diesel/hr/vehicle, and the three excavators consume about 14-15 Lt diesel/hr/vehicle, Fleet also include one excavator (JCB), one water lorry tractor and one water tanker tractor.


9

2.4 Geo tagging of dhalaos in East Delhi district.

Figure 6: Dhalao locations and EDMC ward boundary Source: CURE


10

The CPHEEO guidelines suggest that a city with more than 10 lakh population should have four secondary collection places for every square kilometer area or one secondary collection point per 5000 persons (Central Public Health and Environmental Engineering Organisation, 2016). At present, EDMC has 242 dhalaos in all wards. This number is unevenly distributed in the total area under the municipality. The maximum number of dhalao per square km is found to range between 0 and 13. This unevenness can be attributed to concentration of population in certain areas and lack of space for a dhalao in certain others.

2.5 Assessment of SLCP from MSW management using SWEET

Global warming occurs when greenhouse gasses collect in the atmosphere and absorb sunlight and solar radiation which have bounced off the earth’s surface. Normally, this radiation would escape into space, but these pollutants, which linger for years to centuries in the atmosphere, trap the heat and cause the planet to get hotter. This is known as Greenhouse effect. Table 11: Effects by Global Warming Effect Description Higher temperatures:

Earth’s temperatures in 2016 were the hottest ever recorded in the history, annual average global temperature was 0.99°C (Climate Change: Vital Signs of the planet: Global Temperature, 2017). Due to change in even 0.06°C, which may sound small, can upset the delicate balance of ecosystems, and affect plants and animals which inhabit them. (Climate Change Threats & Solution | The Nature Conservancy, 2017)

Changing Landscapes and Wildlife Habitat

As rising temperatures and changing patterns of precipitation are changing, encouraging the propagation of species which impact native ocean habitat. Experts predicted, one-fourth of the Earth’s species will be led for extinction by 2050 if the warming trend continues at its current rate. (Climate Change Threats & Solution | The Nature Conservancy, 2017)

Rising Seas The rising seas threaten to submerge low-lying areas and islands, also threaten dense coastal populations, erode shorelines, damage property and destroy ecosystems such as wetlands and mangroves which protect coasts against storms. Rise in sea level could displace tens of millions of people in low-lying areas, especially in developing countries.

Health Risk Due to melting of ice, there is emerging threat, new as well as old diseases spreading in places once thought safe. Melting permafrost may release "zombie pathogens", which are frozen in ice for centuries. Majority of threats confined at higher latitudes. Like, in late July, 2016, Anthrax which outbreak in Siberia killing almost 2,000 people caused due to a reindeer carcass from 75 years ago (Pappas, 2016).

Increased Risk of Storms, Droughts, and Floods:

Draughts, storms and floods around the world are intensified due to climate change. Where nature has been destroyed by development, communities are at risk from these intensified climate patterns.

Economic Impact

It is hard to predict the true economic impact. But it can safe to say, many economic sectors, like fishing industries, tourism and recreation sectors which will be effected to changes in weather patterns as a disruption in global temperature due to global warming


11

2.5.1 Short Lived Climate Pollutants (SLCPs) SLCPs are those pollutants which are causing global warming, but persists for a short period of time as compared to long lasting Greenhouse Gasses (GHG) such as Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Black Carbon (BC), which is a Short-Lived Climate Pollutant (SLCP) lasts about two weeks in atmosphere as compared to CO2 which lingers in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. The Four SLCP’s are Black Carbon, Methane, Hydrofluorocarbons and Tropospheric Ozone. Table 12: Short lived climate pollutants S.No SLCPs Description

1 Black Carbon (BC): A major component of soot, which is produced by incomplete combustion of fossil fuel and biomass. Various sources of BC are trucks, forest fires, agricultural and waste open burning and industrial facilities. It’s warming impact on climate is about 460-1500 times more than CO2. It has a life span of about few days or weeks only. When it is deposited on ice and snow, BC causes both atmospheric warming and an increase melting of ice and snow. It also affects the cloud formation and impacts regional circulation and rainfall patterns. It also impacts human health. It is also the primary component of Particulate Matter (PM) in air pollution, which is the major component of environmental cause of premature death globally. It also makes up PM2.5 along with other co-pollutants which consist of particles 2.5 micrometers or are smaller in diameter, i.e. approx. 40 times smaller than the grain of salt. (Black Carbon | Climate and Clean Air Coalition, 2017) In India, emissions of BC were estimated at 483 Gg/yr in uncertainty range of 307–1035 Gg/y, based on emissions from fossil fuel and biomass combustion, and excluding open burning. India contributes to 10% of the total global BC emission. India is the second largest producer of BC, after China 1365 Gg/y which is almost 30% emission of BC. (Bond, Streets, Yarber, Nelson, Woo, & Klimont, 2004)

2 Methane (CH4) With a life span of about 12 years, Methane is produced naturally, through decomposition of organic matter, but it is also emitted by many man-made sources, like coal mines, landfills and oil systems. Approximately, 60% of CH4 is emitted from human activities (Methane | Climate and Clean Air Coalition, 2017).

3 Hydrofluorocarbons(HFCs):

HFCs are used in air conditioning, solvents, foams, refrigeration, aerosols, and blowing agents. As a GHG its life span is about 15 years. They are only less than 1% of current total greenhouse gases, though they have a stronger warming impact and, if left unchecked, HFCs could account for nearly 20% of global climate pollution by 2050. (Hydrofourocarbons-HFCs | Climate and Clean Air Coalition, 2017) Low-GWP (with zero ODP) or cleaner alternatives for HFCs are already available in the market, although with limited penetration due to a variety of reasons (Höglund-Isaksson, Winiwarter, & Purohit, 2013)

4 Tropospheric ozone (O3)

This is the ozone layer present in the bottom portion the atmosphere (up to 10-15 km above the ground). It is mostly responsible for a large part of the human enhancement of global GH-effect. Its life span is about few days two weeks only. (Troposheric ozone | Climate and Clean Air Coaliton, 2017)

India’s total GHG emission has grown in past from 8,17,023 Gg CO₂ eq in 1994 (Ministry of Environment and Forests, 1994) to 15,23,777.44 Gg CO₂ eq in year 2000 (Ministry of Environment and Forests, 2000) (CAGR 10.95%)and further increment to 21,36,841.24 Gg


12

CO2 equivalent by 2010 (Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, 2010). (Growing at a compounded annual growth rate of 3.44%).

The waste sector contribution in GHG emission was initially 23,233 Gg CO2 eq. in 1994 (Ministry of Environment and Forests, 1994), which grew to 52,552.29 Gg CO₂ eq in the year 2000(with a CAGR of 7.3%) (Ministry of Environment and Forests, 2000). Further increase was observed to 65,052.47 Gg CO₂ eq in 2010 (With a CAGR of 2.16%). (Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, 2010).

Municipal solid waste disposal emitted about 12,222 Gg CO₂ eq. in the year 1994 (Ministry of Environment and Forests, 1994) and about 10,251.99 Gg CO₂ eq. (Ministry of Environment and Forests, 2000) for the year 2000 which has increased to 13,963.74 Gg CO₂ eq. in 2010 (Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, 2010).

There is a strict need to reduce the GHG emissions from our activities, as the rate of near-term climate change slows down, it reduces its impacts on those alive today. Gradually, biodiversity loss will reduce, it will increase the time for adaptation to climate change, and reduce the risk of crossing the dangerous climate thresholds (e.g. the melting of permafrost which leads to the further emission of greenhouse gases). Reducing SLCPs have the additional benefits of reducing the disruption of rainfall patterns caused by particle pollution, and slowing the melting rate of ice in the artic and high elevation regions caused by deposition of BC particles. (Climate and Clean AIr Coalition (CCAC), 2013)

Stringent, precise and accurate reductions of CO2 and other long-lived GHGs are needed to avoid a substantial rise in sea level, SLCPs could reduce the cumulative rise in sea level by 22% at the end of the century relative to long-term uncontrolled SLCP emissions. (Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC), 2013)

As a part of the strategy, the emissions of GHGs from municipal solid waste activities in East Delhi Municipal Corporation area will be evaluated to estimate the baseline emissions using a CCAC tool –Solid waste emission estimation tool (SWEET) . This tool will help in establishing the baseline emission and selection of alternatives to further formulate policies/action plans to reduce SLCPs. Based on data collection tool for urban solid waste management (Version 1.0) baseline data from the city is collected. This data collected was used to run SWEET.

2.5.2 Solid Waste Emission Estimation Tool

Solid waste emissions estimation tool (SWEET) version 1 has been used to identify the emissions in baseline scenario from EDMC area.

The municipal solid waste (MSW) sector is a significant source of SLCP emissions, especially methane and black carbon. The Climate and Clean Air Coalition Municipal Solid Waste


13

Initiative (CCAC-Waste Initiative) developed the SWEET to assist stakeholders in estimating these emissions and comparing the emissions reduction benefits of different waste management scenarios. The tool can be used to inform MSW management decision-making and priority setting, and allows cities to benchmark and project their emissions over time.

The tool assists users in determining first-order city-level estimates of annual emissions of methane, black carbon, and other pollutants (e.g., carbon dioxide, SOx, NOx, PM) from various sources including:

a) Waste collection and transportation b) Waste burning (including open burning and fires and landfills and open dumps) c) Landfills and dumpsites d) Organic waste management facilities (e.g., composting facilities) e) Waste handling equipment (e.g., forklifts, bulldozers) f) Waste combustion equipment (e.g., waste-to-energy facilities)

Except for landfills and open dumps, the tool generates annual emissions using annual activity data and process-specific emissions factors. For landfills and open dumps, the tool uses disposal site data to calculate annual methane emissions into the future (i.e., to 2050) using a methodology developed by the U.S. EPA for the Colombia Landfill Gas model.

EDMC and other cities can use this information for multiple purposes, including establishing a city-level baseline, comparing city-level baseline scenarios to as many as four alternative scenarios, analysing specific projects for potential emissions reductions, estimating the contribution of activities in the waste sector to overall city emissions reduction goals, and tracking progress over time.

The emissions from all the sources in form of Carbon dioxide, Nitrous oxide, Black carbon, Organic carbon and methane have been estimated. The results of the baseline scenario predict the baseline emissions of EDMC area as 6,51,393 metric tonne CO2 eq in 2021 and 6,58,989 metric tonne CO2 eq in 2025, 9,19,529 metric tonne CO2 eq in 2031, 18,04,425 metric tonne CO2 eq in 2041 and 21,04,996 metric tonne CO2 eq in2050. The detailed results with sector wise contribution in Metric tonnes CO2 eq are given in Annexure 1.


14

2.5.2.1 Overall waste sector emissions in baseline

2.5.2.1.1 Black Carbon emission over time

Figure 7: Black carbon emissions over time Black carbon emissions have gone up from 5,017 MT CO2 eq in year 2000 to 17,129 MT CO2 eq in year 2017 and is expected to peak at 1,13,645 MT CO2 eq in 2044 as waste generation and disposal along with burning has increased, increasing the diesel vehicles for waste collection in turn increasing the black carbon emission. The drop in emissions from 1,13,645 MT CO2 eq in2044 to 55,780 MT CO2 eq in 2045 is expected to happen due to closure of the Ghazipur and the new dumpsite site by end of 2044. This would mean reduction in emissions from open burning and transportation. Though waste collection will increase in the future due to increase in the diesel vehicles / trips per vehicle to collect more waste that would be generated by an increased population. Emissions are expected to increase by a CAGR of 7.25% in the 2020-2044. Figure 7 highlights the trend of black carbon emissions from EDMC area over time.

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Met

ric T

ons

CO

2e


15

2.5.2.1.2 Methane Emissions over time

Figure 8: Baseline Methane emission over time from EDMC area In the baseline emissions analysis, maximum methane gas is emitted from waste disposal site a year after it has seized dumping. Hence, the emissions are estimated to reach 3,64,143 MT CO2 eq in 2018and is expected to further increase to 4,63,650 MT CO2 eq in 2024. as no new waste is expected to be disposed in the Ghazipur dumpsite after 2018 and thereafter due to new dumpsite coming up, emission is estimated topeak to 10,12,868 MT CO2 eq in 2045.due to new landfill site. Figure 8 describes the trend of methane emissions till 2050.

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Met

ric T

ons

CO

2e


16

2.5.2.1.3 Organic Carbon Emissions

Figure 9: Baseline Organic carbon emission from EDMC area over time

The cooling effect of organic carbon is higher than the direct warming effect, resulting in a negative global warming potential value. The cooling effect is due to negative radiative forcing. The Figure 9 depicts the reduced emissions due to organic carbon stored in waste. It has a negative global warming potential, hence the numbers portrayed are negative. The organic carbon emissions sharply increase after 2044 as the new landfill is expected to be closed and no organic carbon is assumed to be stored in form of waste organics. The emission will be -5,967 MT CO2 eq in 2017 and will decrease to -6,400 MT CO2 eq in 2018,-39,583 MT CO2 eq in 2044 and will suddenly drop in 2045 to -1359 MT CO2 eq and thereafter -1,938 MT Co2 eq by 2050.

-45,000

-40,000

-35,000

-30,000

-25,000

-20,000

-15,000

-10,000

-5,000

0

5,000

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Met

ric T

ons

CO

2e


17

2.5.2.1.4 Total Emissions including CO2, NOx, BC, CH4, Organic Carbon

Figure 10: Total Emissions from CO2, NOx, BC, CH4, Organic Carbon Figure 10 depicts overall emissions in form of Carbon Di Oxide, Nitrogen Oxide, Black Carbon, Methane and Organic Carbon combined. The emissions are increasing at an increasing rate from 1,13,830 MT CO2 eq in 2000 to 5,53,117 MT CO2 eq in 2017, followed by an increase to 7,75,812 MT CO2 eq in 2024. It drops from 22,22,970 MT CO2 eq in 2044 to 21,04,996 MT CO2 eq in 2050.

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Met

ric T

ons

CO

2e


18

2.5.2.2 Baseline scenario sector specific emissions

2.5.2.2.1 Baseline Black Carbon Emissions by Source Over Time

Figure 11: Black Carbon Emissions by Source

Figure 11 shows that the baseline emissions due to waste burning will peak in 2044 at 61,641MT CO2 eq and will near zero in 2045 due to expected closure of disposal site in end of 2044. We have assumed that 2% of waste is burnt at dumpsite by rag pickers and landfill fires. Waste collection and transportation steadily increases at an increasing rate, as 100% waste is being collected and waste generations is rises with a rise in the population served under the EDMC area. Emissions from waste collection and transportation are calculated to increase from 1140 MT CO2 eq in year 2000, to 5066 MT CO2 eq in 2020 to 20,580 MT CO2 eq in 2040 and peaking to 41479 MT CO2 eq in 2050. Waste handling equipment fleet is also expected to expand as the amount of waste is increasing in the area. Emissions from waste handling equipment increase from 1297 MT CO2 eq in 2000 to 4598 MT CO2 eq to 37647 MT CO2 eq in 2050.

-10,000

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Met

ric T

ons

CO

2e

Waste Collection & Transport Waste Burning

Landfills & LFG Combustion Organics Management

Waste Handling Equipment Waste Combustion


19

2.5.2.2.2 Combustion Related Sulphur Dioxide Emissions

Figure 12: Baseline SO2 emissions from EDMC area

Sulphur oxides are primarily released from Waste to Energy plant, which was commissioned in November 2016 in EDMC located right next to the Ghazipur dumpsite. The estimates depict these emissions shall increase at a steady rate 262 MT of SOx to 528 MT SOx to 2,487 MT SOx in 2050. As the waste treated in the waste to energy plant increases simultaneously with increasing waste. Figure 12 depicts the trend of sulphur oxide emissions over time.

-500

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Met

ric T

ons

of S

Ox


20

2.5.2.2.3 Baseline Transportation PM10 Emissions by Source

Figure 13: Baseline Transportation PM10 emissions from EDMC area

Figure 13 depicts emissions from waste burning increasing sharply from 43 MT CO2 eq in 2000 to peaking at 1,033 MT CO2 eq in 2044 , as regular dumping at the disposal site shall be continued till 2044. After 2044 , emission due to waste burning falls to zero as no open burning is expected on a closed dumpsite. The emissions from waste handling equipment increases to 18 MT CO2 eq in 2030, almost doubling to 37 MT CO2 eq in 2040 and further increasing to 74 MT CO2 eq in 2050.

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Met

ric T

ons

PM10

Waste Handling Equipment Waste Burning

Waste Collection & Transport Waste Combustion

Landfills & LFG Combustion


21

2.5.2.2.4 Baseline All Climate Forcing Emissions by Source (CH4, Black Carbon, Organic. Carbon, NOx, CO2)

Figure 14 Baseline Climate Forcing Emissions by Source (CH4, Black Carbon, Organic. Carbon, NOx, CO2)

Waste collection and transportation increases at an increasing rate from 3390 MT CO2 eq in 2000 almost doubling every decade to 7203 MT CO2 eq in 2010 , 15,065 MT CO2 eq in 2020 to 30,362 MT CO2 eq in 2030 to 61,195 MT CO2 eq in 2040 and 1,23,337 MT CO2 eq in 2050. Since waste burning is completely contained post dumpsite closure, there are no emissions foreseen from that activity.

Emissions from landfill and landfill gas combustion are projected to reduce sharply from 2024 to 2025 as the new landfill site is expected to have a LFG utilisation in year 2025, thereafter the emissions are estimated to increase to 1011923 MT CO2 eq in year 2045 and further reduce thereafter to 429049 MT CO2 eq in year 2050 as no new waste is disposed at the new landfill site.

Waste combustion emissions increases since 2016 as the quantity of waste are diverted to the waste to energy plant, where closed combustion shall happen to produce electricity. Hence, emissions from waste combustion are expected to rise sharply after 2017 to 1,69,261 MT CO2 eq in 2020 and reaching 13,85,766 MT CO2 eq in 2050. The emissions from waste handling equipments are also expected to increase to 66326 MT CO2 eq in year 2050.

Since there is no specific disposal and management mechanism for organics, there will be no emissions from organics management.

-200,000

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Met

ric T

ons

CO

2e





22

2.5.2.3 Landfill and Dumpsite Emissions Summary

2.5.2.3.1 Ghazipur Dumpsites Emissions

Figure 15: Baseline Dumpsite Emissions from Ghazipur in EDMC area

Figure 15: Baseline Dumpsite Emissions from Ghazipur in EDMC area depicts the present scenario, i.e. population increasing, with an increase in the waste generated under EDMC’s jurisdiction, existing dumpsite closing in 2018, waste burning happening at 2% approximately and waste to energy plant functioning at an increased capacity after 2019 (as per the expansion plans) and no LFG being captured. The new landfill site coming up from 2019 and LFG capture and utilisation happening since 2024. The emissions are estimated to increase at an increasing rate till 2019 (reaching 2,05,65,557 MT CO2 eq) one year after expected closure of dumpsite and sharply reducing 372121 MT CO2 eq by 2050.

0

5,000,000

10,000,000

15,000,000

20,000,000

25,000,000

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Met

ric T

ons

CO

2e


23

2.5.2.3.2 New unknown disposalsite emission

2.5.2.4 Baseline Transportation and collection emissions summary

Since a huge amount of emissions happen during waste transportation and management, the CO2 (Figure 16), sulphur oxide (Figure 17), Nitrogen oxide (Figure 18), and PM 10 (Figure 19) emissions keep increasing at an increasing rate with a rise in population and waste generation.

-10,000,000

0

10,000,000

20,000,000

30,000,000

40,000,000

50,000,000

60,000,000

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Met

ric T

ons

CO

2e

Scenario 4 Targeting SLCP Medium expectation

Low Expectation Baseline


24

2.5.2.4.1 Carbon dioxide Emissions

Figure 16 CO2 Emissions in Baseline Figure 16 CO2 Emissions depicts the carbon di oxide emissions increase from 2,501 MT CO2 eq in 2000 to 11,116 MT CO2 eq in 2020 to 91,011 MT CO2 eq in 2050.

2.5.2.4.2 Oxides of Nitrogen emissions

Figure 17 NOx Emissions in baseline Figure 17 NOx Emissions shows the increase of NOx emissions from 8 MT NOx in 2000 to 37 MT NOx in 2020 to 307 MT NOx in 2050.

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Met

ric T

ons

CO

2e

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

350.0

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Met

ric T

ons

NO

x


25

2.5.2.4.3 Oxides of Sulphur Emissions

Figure 18 SOx Emissions in Baseline

Figure 18 SOx Emissions shows the expected increase in SOx emissions till 2050. It rises from 1 in 2020 to 5 in 2050.

0.000

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000

3.500

4.000

4.500

5.000

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Met

ric T

ons

SOx


26

2.5.2.4.4 Particulate matter emissions

Figure 19 PM10 Emissions in baseline

Figure 19 PM10 Emissions 2017 onwards depict that from 2 MT PM10 in 2017 it is projected to increases to 5 MT PM10 in 2030 and further to 18 MT PM10 in 2050.

-5.000

0.000

5.000

10.000

15.000

20.000

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Met

ric T

ons

PM10


27

2.5.2.5 Waste burning emissions summaries - Baseline

2.5.2.5.1 Total Climate Forcing from Waste Burning Emissions

Figure 20 Total Climate Forcing from Waste Burning Emissions

Waste burning (on the dumpsite) is expected to reduce to zero since disposal site is expected to be closed in 2044. Figure 20 Total Climate Forcing from Waste Burning Emissions shows that the burning emissions peak to 1,78,110 MT CO2 eq in 2044 .

-50,000

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Met

ric T

ons

CO

2e


28

2.5.2.5.2 Climate Forcing from Open Burning Emissions

Figure 21: Climate Forcing from Open Burning Emissions

Figure 21 shows that since 100% of the waste generated is being collected by the municipal corporation using diesel trucks fleet, there is no open burning (outside houses, road sides, streets etc.)

Hence the emissions from open burning remains zero throughout. Open burning is banned as per the prevailing norms and regulations.

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Met

ric T

ons

CO

2e


29

2.5.2.5.3 Climate Forcing from Landfill/Dumpsite Fire Emissions

Figure 22 Climate Forcing from Landfill/Dumpsite Fire Emissions

Dumpsite fires burning about 2% of the waste due to surface and sub-surface fires and rag pickers have been generating emissions that will peak in 2044 to 1,78,110MT CO2 eq and are expected to drop sharply to zero immediately after the expected closure of disposal site as shown in Figure 22.

-50,000

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Met

ric T

ons

CO

2e


30

2.5.2.5.4 PM10 Emissions from Waste Burning Emissions

Figure 23 PM10 Emissions from Waste Burning Emissions

PM 10 emissions from burning of waste in the dumpsite increases from 52MT PM10 in 2000 to 189MT PM10 in 2017 to 1,254 MT PM10 in 2044, and drops to zero in 2045after the expected closure of the disposal site as shown in Figure 23.

-200

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Met

ric T

ons

PM10


31

2.6 Assessment of existing manpower Central Public Health and Environmental Engineering Organisation (CPHEEO) manual on solid waste management 2016, estimates for deployment of vehicles and manpower for primary collection of municipal solid waste is given in Table 13.

Table 13: Guidelines for deployment of vehicles and representative manpower for primary collection of waste Vehicles required for primary collection

Type of Area Number of HHs to be covered in different areas

Population served Staff required

Pushcart Congested 250-300 1250-1500 1 person per push cart

Medium density 200 1000

Scattered 125 625

Tricycle Congested 300 1500 1 person per tricycle

Medium density 250 1250

Scattered 200 1000

Light commercial vehicles having 500-700 kg capacity

1000 5000 1 driver and two labour per LCV

LCV with >700Kg capacity

1500-2000 7500-10000 1 driver and two labour per LCV

Source: CPHEEO Manual (Part II), 2016

Area of high, medium and low density can be categorised as areas with population density of >400, 400-100, >100 per square kilometre respectively.

Staff requirement for road sweeping is based on the density of the road and is depicted in Figure 24: Road sweeping is important to ensure timely and efficient cleaning of the city. Based on location, traffic intensity, type of street surface, character of area (residential or commercial) the frequency of sweeping will matter.


32

Transfer station should be made under following financial viability: Cost of disposal > (Cost of supplemental haul in large bulk haul transfer vehicle + cost of support transfer system infrastructure at transfer station and disposal site)

Figure 24: Staff requirement for road sweeping The following operational conditions should be considered for mechanised street sweeping: • It is essential to work mechanized sweepers in two shifts minimum to ensure economic

viability. CPHEEO suggests that using one self-propelled vacuum sweeper and one chassis mounted vacuum sweeper in conjunction will yield the best results and can cover a total of 50 km in two 8-hour stretches (Central Public Health and Environmental Engineering Organisation, 2016).

• One skilled operator and one semi-skilled cooperator are required to operate a mechanized sweeper.

• Given that the machine will not be able to clean all odd and uneven places, an additional group of four manual sweepers may also need to be deployed with every power sweeper.

Transfer stations If the one-way travel distance to disposal is over 15 km or over 30 minutes, the need for transfer stations should be assessed. Transfer stations should be made only when the cost of direct haul in collection vehicles would outweigh the cost of supplemental haul in large bulk-haul transfer vehicles plus the cost of the supporting transfer system infrastructure at the transfer station and disposal site.

2.7 Assessment of existing financial mechanism Financial mechanism is a method or source through which funds are made available for specific activities. Effective management of funds by the government is necessary for achieving the aims and objectives of government reforms, policies and programs. Effectively and efficiently managed funds lead to enhanced sustenance and performance of any organization. The two major components of funds with urban local bodies are, first, adequate generation and second, proper management. Improper management of funds adversely affects the performance of governments.

Staff requirement based on density of road in small town/ medium city and mega towns

High density roads: 1 person per 300-350 running meters of

road length

Medium density roads: 1 person per 500 running meters of road length

Low density roads: 1 person per 750-1000 meters of road

length


33

125497.82

347840.79

382887.51

141445.32

351940.78 382213

23700

0 07825.81 37 4400.330

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

2015-16 Approved revisedbudget estimate

2016-17

Approved budgetestimate 2017-18

INR

in L

akhs

Year

Opening Balance

Income

Expenditure

Loan from other funds

closing balance

2.7.1 Total Budget of EDMC: The position of the budget estimates 2016-17 and 2017-18 along with actuals of 2015-16 are depicted in Figure 25.

Income for the year 2015-16 was Rs 1,25,497.82 Lakhs and expenditure is Rs 1,41,445.32 Lakhs. In budget estimations for 2016-17, the income exceeded the expenditure, income being 3,50,353.51 Lakhs.

Figure 25: EDMC budget estimates


34

2.7.2 Total Expenditure of EDMC: Major areas of expenses include in 2015-16:

Figure 26: Expenditure share of EDMC in year 2015-16 The pie chart shows the expenditure of East Delhi Municipal Corporation (for 2015-16)in various areas. The expenses undertaken

a) as part of general administration are Rs 27524 Lakhs, b) for licensing – Rs 98.03 Lakhs, c) for community services it is Rs 661.88 Lakhs, d) in education Rs 31097.23 Lakhs, e) in Public health and Medical Relief it is Rs 13807.99 Lakhs, f) in sanitation its Rs 44767.01 Lakhs, g) for Public works and street lighting it is Rs 17904.64 Lakhs, h) for veterinary services it is Rs 754.17 Lakhs, i) for Horticulture it is Rs 3859.82 Lakhs, j) on Land and estate it is Rs 519.53 Lakhs and k) Exclusive Development Expenses are Rs 451.01 Lakhs.

19%

0%

0%

22%

10%

32%

13%

1%

3%

0% 0%

Areas of Expenditure - EDMCGeneral administration

Licensing

Community Services

Education

Public health and Medical Relief

Sanitation

Public works and street lighting

Veterinary Services

Horticulture

Land and estate

Exclusive Development Expenses


35

2.7.3 Total Income of EDMC:

Figure 27: EDMC income in various years Source: EDMC Comissioner’s proposal, Volume 1, Non Plan income and expenditure budget, revised budget estimates 2016-17 & Budget estimates 2017-18. The major sources of income are: a) Grants by the government: Including grant in aid for education, share of assigned taxes,

municipal reforms fund, grant for maintenance of school buildings and other municipal assets (Rs 44323.80 Lakhs in 2015-16)

b) Taxes: Including tax on property, vehicles, animals, theatre, advertisements, building applications, commerce, electricity supply or consumption, toll etc. (Rs 58681.04 Lakhs in 2015-16)

c) Rent, Fees and Fines: These include fines imposed by municipal magistrate, fines received from schools, from cattle ponds, hospitals, rickshaws and hawkers, parking, buildings, trade licence, slaughter and market fees etc. The amount collected in 2015-16 was Rs 4654.98 Lakhs.

d) Others: Other fines include fees from mobile phone towers, development charges, road restoration charges, reimbursement of cost of administrative charges, loans and miscellaneous income. These totaled to Rs 41537.99 Lakhs in 2015-16.

Income from waste collection charges proposed for the year 2016-17 were 100.00 though the actuals in 2015-16 was 0.

149197.82

347840.79382887.51

050000

100000150000200000250000300000350000400000450000

2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

Inco

me

Year

Receipts of EDMC


36

2.7.4 Expenditure related to Waste Management: Detailed expenses regarding waste management are the following:

S.No Account Code

Expenditure item Actual expenses 2015-16

Approved 2016-17

Approved 2017-18

1. Garbage management 1300 1300 2. Running Exp. Of

incinerators of bio medical waste

21.41 75 75

3. Privatization of sanitation services

29.07 50 80

Compost Plant 4. 1001,2,3,4 Salaries (Group

A,B,C,D) 0 462.86 0

Total 0 462.86 0 Refuse Removal

5. 1001,2,3,4 Salaries 887.41 6073.61 2635 6. 1119 Miscellaneous 4.21 6 6 7. 1156 Postage stamps 0.07 0.10 0.10 8. 1171 Labour Expenses 0.03 0 0 9. 1193 Telephone charges 0.15 0 0

Total 891.91 6081.21 2642.60 Source: EDMC Commissioner’s proposal, Volume 1, Non Plan income and expenditure budget, revised budget estimates 2016-17 & Budget estimates 2017-18.

2.7.5 Income and Expenditure related to Sanitation: During the year 2015-16, the total expenditure on sanitation was Rs 44767.99 Lakhs, the approved budget estimate for 2016-17 was 81925.41 Lakhs. The budget estimate for 2017-18 approved is Rs 94834.30 Lakhs. Detail of expenditure on sanitation and conservancy1:

S.no. Account Code

Expenditure Actual expenditure (2015-16)

2016-17 Budget Estimation Approved

2017-18 Proposed by commissioner

1. 1001,2,3,4 Salaries (group A,B,C,D)

42970.76 59281.19 86576

2. 1062 Improvement of Sanitation services

500 500

3. 1064 Garbage Management

1300 1300

4. 1075 Maintenance and repair of vehicles

6 6

1 The expenses undertaken under the head ‘Sanitation and Conservancy’ include sanitation expenses like garbage management, maintenance and repair of vehicles, dalaos, dustbins etc, and the conservancy part includes maintenance and repair of municipal buildings. Expenditures like salaries, miscellaneous expenses, telephone charges etc are clubbed under the head sanitation and conservancy.


37

S.no. Account Code

Expenditure Actual expenditure (2015-16)

2016-17 Budget Estimation Approved

2017-18 Proposed by commissioner

5. 1119 Miscellaneous 15.30 25 25 6. 1156 Postage stamps 0.03 0.20 0.20 7. 1193 Telephone

charges 0.23 3 3

8. 1208 Repair and maintenance of wheel barrows

2 2

9. 1241 Leave substitute

2 2

Total 42986.32 61119.38 88414.20 Source: EDMC Comissioner’s proposal, Volume 1, Non Plan income and expenditure budget, revised budget estimates 2016-17 & Budget estimates 2017-18.

Figure 28 Total Expenditure in Sanitation in various years

2.7.6 Financing mechanisms in place EDMC receives funds for enhancing its waste management services from various sources other than the allocated budget (1) Urban development fund, Swachh Bharat Mission Fund, and funds from private industries through extended producer responsibility (under e waste management and handling rules, 2016) and corporate social responsibility. In year 2017:

1. Urban development fund of INR 800 Million is with EDMC and INR 25000 Million have been demanded.

2. Swachh Bharat Mission has proportioned a fund of INR 870 Million for EDMC and a matching fund has to be given by EDMC for sanctioning projects. The share of SBM fund and matching fund is 46:54 (except for few items like dustbins).

3. There have been no trainings undertaken for EDMC officials focusing on financing for waste management projects last year.

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

100000

2015-16 actual2016-17

proposed 2017-18approved

44767.01

81925.41

94823.3

INR

in L

akhs

Year


38

4. EDMC is also involving EPR and CSR initiatives to improve waste management in the city: e.g. a pilot project ‘We Care’ initiated by Indian Pollution Control Association to collect and supply multilayer packaging (which is not economically recyclable), is collected against a payment (from EPR fund) and supplied to W2E plant for energy recovery.

5. Other fund generations can be through user fee collection, processing and sale of recyclables, compost and biogas sale etc.

2.8 Gaps in waste management Some of the identified gaps in waste management at EDMC are as below:

• Lack of segregation of waste: For effective and efficient waste management in the city, segregation at the household level is imperative. The collection of segregated waste both at primary and secondary levels of collection, along with formal incorporation of informal waste collectors (including rag pickers) is certainly needed.

• Lack of decentralised waste management options to reduce SLCPs: With mainstreaming of alternative waste management techniques like composting, recycling, incineration of domestic hazardous waste, illegal dumping and landfilling of MSW will drastically reduce. Further, decentralized treatments of organic wastes will reduce the transportation cost and greenhouse gas emissions from MSW management sector.

• Lack of funding: There is a lack of financial support to cater waste management problems which aggravates it. Due to financial crunches, ULBs do not have adequate infrastructure to provide suitable solutions. Lack of compaction equipment at landfill site, lack of mechanical sweeping machines are some of the issues faced by the East delhi municipal corporation.

• Under-utilised capacity of collection fleet: The secondary collection fleet comprises of trucks with capacity of 15 Tonne carrying about 6-8 tonne uncompacted and unsegregated waste. Similarly, the 25 Tonne (10 wheeled) waste collection vehicle carries about 10-14 Tonnes of uncompacted and unsegregated waste in a trip. This fleet is also running on Diesel fuel, despite availability of compressed natural gas(CNG) fuel in the city.

• Lack of implementation of Waste Management Rules, 2016: ULBs are not implementing Municipal Solid Waste Rules as given by various government reports; this makes difficult to manage the MSW properly. There is a huge need to create a special group of officers and skilled staffs for ULBs with specialization in MSWM. To identify bottlenecks at implementation level and take appropriate actions, adequate training and hands-on experiments are necessary

• Lack of processing capacity: More than half of the collected MSW from the city is disposed to solid waste disposal site at the moment. With more than sixty percent organic waste, there is a high amount of organics that can be diverted from disposal


39

site and help reduce SLCPs emitted from the disposal site. Decentralised processing units can have added advantage, with lowered transport requirements.

• Lack of incentives and penalties: At present there are no incentives for corporation employees/contractors for collecting more waste in an efficient manner, neither any reward or recognition system exists for employees / contractors for efficient utilisation or collection vehicles and equipment. This can help in motivating the employees engaged with waste management services and enhance their ergonomic.

• Lack of integration of unorganised waste pickers: There are a lot of rag pickers in Delhi, involved in extraction of recyclable materials like paper, plastics, glass, metals, and many other recyclable materials from MSW generated by the city. At the moment there is no integration of these waste pickers in system. Ragpickers can be engaged in organized sectors in improving MSW collection efficiency and source segregations.


41

3 Part B: Action Plan

3.1 MSW Collection with Segregation and Processing

3.1.1 MSW collection According to solid waste management rules 2016 notified by MoEFCC, waste generator is supposed to segregate and store the household waste generated in three streams, namely, bio-degradable, non-bio-degradable and domestic hazardous waste and handover the segregated waste to waste collectors. The hazardous waste is to be wrapped securely, construction and demolition waste to be stored separately, horticulture waste and garden waste to be stored separately and disposed as per municipal body’s guidelines. Waste generators are not allowed to burn, bury or throw waste in streets drains and water bodies. All waste generators are to pay fees for solid waste management as specified in bye-laws of ULBs. All resident welfare, gated communities and institutions with more than 5000sq km area and market associations are to ensure segregation of waste at source into biodegradable and non-biodegradable and treat organic waste through decentralised treatment process within their facility as far as possible.

As per the existing practice of EDMC, waste generated from households is collected either via door to door waste collector or brought to waste collection points (dhalao/dustbins) by the waste generators. This primary collection of waste involves a large amount of fleet with small trucks, handcarts, rikshaws and e-rikshaws. The authorities collect segregated waste at few locations. A significant amount of funds are spent on primary collection of waste. During door to

door collection the waste collectors at many locations segregate recyclables like paper, plastics, metals and glass and dispose the balance collected waste at waste collection points.

The waste collected at dhalao is loaded to trucks via loaders or lifted by mechanical means into the compactor truck and transported to processing/disposal sites. In case waste is processed via W2E plant, the rejects are transported back to disposal site. The scavengers collect recyclables at the dhalao locations as well as disposal sites. The remaining non-

Figure 29: Municipal solid waste management lifecycle Source: Life cycle assessment in MSW management by Abeliotis, 2011


42

recyclable materials like organics, inert, and construction and demolition waste, drain silts along with rejects from processing plants are disposed at the Ghazipur disposal site.

As per SWM Rules 2016, waste generators are not allowed to litter i.e throw or dispose of any waste such as paper, water bottles, liquor bottles, soft drink canes, tetra packs, fruit peel, wrappers, etc., or burn or burry waste on streets, open public spaces, drains, water bodies. Waste generators have to segregate the waste at source as prescribed under the rules and hand over the segregated waste to EDMC authorised waste pickers or waste collectors.

EDMC has to establish waste deposition centres for domestic hazardous waste and give direction for waste generators to deposit domestic hazardous wastes at this centre for its safe disposal. Such facility shall be established in a manner that one centre is set up for the area of twenty square kilometers or part thereof and notify the timings of receiving domestic hazardous waste at such centres. However, EDMC will have to ensure safe storage and transportation of the domestic hazardous waste to the hazardous waste disposal facility or as may be directed by DPCC.

EDMC has to train and enforce, direct street sweepers not to burn tree leaves collected from street sweeping and store them separately and handover to the waste collectors or agency authorised by EDMC; provide training on solid waste management to waste-pickers and waste collectors; EDMC can also collect waste from vegetable, fruit, flower, meat, poultry and fish market on day to day basis and could set up of compost plant or bio-methanation plant at suitable locations in the markets or in the vicinity of markets ensuring hygienic conditions. EDMC has to collect waste separately from sweeping of streets, lanes and by-lanes daily.

The collected horticulture, park and garden waste shall be processed in parks and gardens for composting and producing manure. EDMC shall transport segregated biodegradable waste to processing facility like composting and bio-methanation and non-biodegradable waste to material recovery facility or secondary storage facility for recovery of recyclables.

Further, to improve the MSW collection at EDMC, several actions need to be taken:

a. Capacity building of waste generators to increase waste segregation: A pilot study conducted in 15 localities of Delhi indicated that information on waste segregation and its advantages to the community, and economic incentives increased segregation from 3.69 percent to 54 percent (Shivani Wadehra, 2017). This shows that capacity building and incentivizing significantly aids in behavior change towards segregation of waste.

b. To ensure proper segregation, a three bin system needs to be introduced. The bin colors are to be green- for organic waste; white- for recyclables, non-recyclables, and combustibles and; black- for other domestic hazardous waste. sanitary waste including diapers shall be kept separately for collection and disposal. This needs to be enforced through waste collectors (by EDMC). Penalties like non collection of unsegregated waste from generator further helps in increasing the segregation practices. The two bin system also needs to be enforced in commercial establishments.

c. The waste collection fleet run by EDMC presently collects all the unsegregated waste. The fleet too needs colour coding, where the green truck will only pick up the organic


43

waste and the blue will pick up recyclables, non-recyclables, combustibles, etc. The blue trucks should be collecting waste bi-weekly and green waste should be collected daily. Secondary waste storage capacities should be designed to accommodate at least double the expected daily in-flow of waste that is the storage capacity should be 200% more than the expected daily in-flow of waste.

d. The primary waste collection fleet and Dhalao need to be divided into two compartments, green and blue. The households/micro enterprises like vendors and hawkers who dump waste directly into the dhalao will need to segregate and dump into the respective bins. Since more than half of the waste coming from the households is organic in nature, the fleet and compartmentalisation will have to be done accordingly.

3.1.2 MSW Processing (centralized vs. decentralised) Decentralised waste management systems or community level waste management systems not only reduces the burden of handling large volumes of MSW at a centralised location, but also reduces emissions from MSW management, with corresponding reduction in transportation and landfilling.

Decentralised waste management systems can be tailor made to suit the local conditions and be less mechanised for ease of operation and maintenance. These decentralised systems also provide job opportunities for informal workforce and small entrepreneurs.

However, with decentralised systems some of the aspects like maintenance of scientific and hygienic conditions, maintenance of end product quality and economic viability need to be taken care. The staff operating and maintaining the system has to be given proper trainings and capacity building for operating and maintaining the decentralised systems, beside reducing the SLCP emissions from waste management.

Decentralised systems at EDMC can be started with an initial step to start segregated waste collection from households at certain selected resident welfare associations and gated societies. Bulk generators like apartments and institutions should be roped in for segregation of waste at their end. Restaurants and hotels should be directed to manage their organic waste and handover the non-recyclables to municipal bodies.

The dhalaos can be converted to recycling centres where waste sorting can be practiced along with involvement of informal sector. However, EDMC must ensure proper personal protective equipments (PPEs) for man force involved in collection and sorting of waste. The non-recyclables having low moisture content and high calorific value can be sent to existing waste processing plant at Ghazipur (W2E).

The biodegradable organics should preferably be handled in decentralised manner with home composters/pit composting/mechanised organic waste composters and areas which have large amount of waste and high moisture contents should be preferably given anaerobic digesters for handling organic wastes. The gas generated from digesters should be utilised either by nearby commercial unit or for lightening within the RWA managed area.

Some of the decentralised methods to handle wet and dry waste are recycling for dry waste management and compositing and biomethanation for wet waste management.


44

In case of bulk waste generated from special streams like vegetable and fruit markets, dairy operations, slaughter house etc. where there is no space for decentralised treatment of waste, the waste should be mixed with green and wood waste generated from plantation and specific saw dust generated from furniture market to maintain the C/N ratio. Such types of generated wastes should be handled in a centralized processing system with anaerobic digestion.

3.2 Waste processing facilities The current waste treatment facility at EDMC includes a W2E plant of installed capacity 1300 TPD, though it has been receiving less than 1000 TPD on an average. The plant is built to produce about 12 MW of electricity, but has been able to produce only 7 to 8 MW. The average waste generation in EDMC is 2132 TPD and is expected to increase to 3622.5 TPD by 2021 (15750 TPD for Delhi by 2021* 23% - EDMC’s population share).

Of the waste processed at the processing plant (W2E plant at Ghazipur) RDF amounts to only about 35% of the total waste received, however of this RDF, 18.18% is rejected as bottom and fly ash. Thus in totality, only 28.6% of waste diverted to W2E plant is actually diverted from dumps, as the Ash is also disposed at the moment. The capacity of the W2E plant is soon expected to increase to 1900 MTD in the second phase with little modifications and to 2500 MTD in the third phase.

Out of the total waste generated, 62.5% are organic in nature. This waste when received in mixed form is segregated manually and mechanically to remove recyclables, inert, bulks and organics. The organics are dumped along with inert and other wastes at the Ghazipur disposal site. Hence the present treatment system is inadequate as it only takes care of non-biodegradable non-recyclable high calorific value and leaves out the organic part (responsible for GHG emissions) of MSW generated to be landfilled.

Decentralized waste processing facilities composting and bio-methanation) at RWA and institution level is required to reduce the quantity of waste collected and landfilled by the municipality, and a centralized bio-methanation plant for other bulk producers. For details on centralized and decentralized processing technologies, please refer to section 3.1.2.

3.3 Infrastructure for waste processing by East Delhi district EDMC collects 2132 MT of waste every day, there is no past study highlighting the quantity and composition of waste generated by EDMC based on income levels, nor is there any correlation found on the factors that affect waste generation in EDMC area. However, as per CPHEEO there is a requirement for minimum infrastructure of collection of waste.

The area of EDMC was divided into a grid of 1 km X 1 km and the existing dhalaos mapped by EDMC using Global Positioning System (GPS) was obtained. The numbers of dhalaos per square kilometer were counted and compared to the technical guidelines given by CPHEEO to estimate the additional requirements.

The CPHEEO guidelines suggest that a city with more than 10 lakh population should have four secondary collection places for every square kilometer area or one secondary collection point per 5000 persons (Central Public Health and Environmental Engineering Organisation, 2016).


45

At present, EDMC has 242 dhalaos in all wards. This number is unevenly distributed in the total area under the municipality. The maximum number of dhalao per square km is found to range between 0 and 13. This unevenness can be attributed to concentration of population in certain areas and lack of space for a dhalao in certain others. The outcome of the analysis shows the need for 216 additional dhalaos for meeting the criteria set by CPHEEO. In excessively congested areas where placing a dhalao is not possible, large metallic bins should be placed that can be mechanically emptied, for proper waste collection and management.

Annexure 2 shows a table with number of dhalaos present and required per Grid ID.


46

Figure 30: EDMC dhalao location in a 1x1 km grid


47

3.4 Future financial mechanism East Delhi have identified various projects under different alternate scenarios for reducing

SLCPs consisting of technologies like Composting, Bio-methanation and landfill gas capture.

Various financing options for projects beyond the outlined budget of EDMC are Loans,

Bonds, PPP, Grants, CSR, and carbon financing.

These have also been explained as follows:

a. Loans: Loans are among the most widely used source of financing for infrastructure

projects. They form a crucial part of initial financing for municipal projects.

b. Bonds: Municipal bonds are debt obligations issued by public entities, such as cities

or public utilities, which are used to finance public facilities and infrastructure. A

well-structured bond issued by a creditable source has a longer maturity and lower

interest rate than most other forms of debt (often 1-2 percent less than commercial

debt). These features are particularly helpful in financing municipal projects and

other infrastructure projects that have a natural lag between when capital investment

is required and when the project begins to generate revenue.

c. PPP: The main goals in partnering with the private sector are first, to increase the

technical efficiency of a project and second, to prevent the wasteful use of inputs. The

amount of control by each party can be decided at the very beginning of the project

along with the revenue sharing.

d. Grants: Internationally, there are funds available for reducing emissions in

countries/cities, improving green and distributed energy sources, etc. These funds

can be leveraged by municipalities for setting up projects like landfill gas capture.

e. CSR: Corporate social responsibility is a self-regulatory mechanism under which

Indian companies with a net profit of at least Rs 500 crore or Rs 1000 crore turnover

or Rs 500 crore net worth, are obligated under CSR Act 2013 to spend 2% of their

three year average annual net profits on CSR activities in each financial year, starting

from 2015. This can be an additional funding opportunity for the municipalities.

f. Carbon Finance: Carbon markets exist on a number of scales—there are markets that

mediate sales of carbon credits or offsets internationally and those that operate on a

national, regional or local basis. These markets may either be compliance-based or

voluntary. Leveraging carbon finance can help increase marginal revenue or bring


48

down project risk profiles though it should not be expected to cover capital costs of a

project in addition to generating profit.

Other than these options there are other financial mechanisms of solid waste management

projects, such as:

a. Municipal own revenue (local taxes, fees, lease/sale of municipal assets) b. Environmental compensation tax- levied by Government of NCT c. Land based financing- sale or lease of municipal land, d. Private sector financing mechanisms e. Syndicated loans- retail bank loans f. Equity investment- private equity g. Public Private Partnerships

- Design-bid-build contracts/service contracts - Design build operate type partnership - Build-operate-transfer type partnership - BOOT type - Design- build-finance-operate - Leasing arrangements - Design-Build-Own-Operate (DBOO)

h. Renewable Energy certificates/ renewable premium pricing

A list of some international financial institutions that fund development projects are given in table below:

Table 14: Potential Sources of Financial Support or In-kind Technical Assistance

S.No. Financing Institutions 1. 100 Resilient Cities (as pioneered by Rockefeller Foundation) www.100resilientcities.org 2. Asian Cities Climate Change Resilience Network (as pioneered by the Rockefeller

Foundation) http://acccrn.net/ 3. Bloomberg Philanthropies’ Government Innovation http://www.bloomberg.or g/ 4. C40 Cities Finance Facility www.c40.org 5. Citi Foundation http://www.citigroup.com /citi/about/citizenship/do

wnload/2015/global/2015-citi-global-citizenship-citifoundation-en.pdf 6. Cities Development Initiative for Asia (hosted at the Asian Development Bank)

www.cdia.asia 7. Inter-American Development Bank: Emerging and Sustainable Cities Initiative

http://www.iadb.org/en/t opics/emerging-andsustainablecities/implementing-theemerging-and-sustainablecities-programapproach,7641.html

8. World Bank Sub-National Technical Assistance Program: City Creditworthiness Academy 9. World Bank Sub-National Technical Assistance Program: City Creditworthiness

Implementation Programs Organizations Providing Financial Support for City Assessments, Feasibility Studies, and Financial Structuring

10. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation: Development Policy and Finance


49

S.No. Financing Institutions www.gatesfoundation.org

11. CAF (Development Bank of Latin America) www.caf.com 12. French Development Agency www.afd.org 13. Global Environment Facility https://www.thegef.org 14. GIZ (German Society for International Cooperation) www.giz.de 15. United States Environmental Protection Agency https://www.epa.gov/inter national-

cooperation 16. United States Agency for International Development www.usaid.gov

Multilateral 17. European Bank of Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) 18. International Finance Corporation (IFC) 19. World Bank (WB), specifically International Bank for Reconstruction and Development

(IBRD) and International Development Association (IDA) Bilateral

20. Proparco (private sector financing arm of French Development Agency) 21. KfW Bankengruppe (KfW) 22. Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC)

For further assistance on financing mechanisms and the above mentioned institutions, CCAC can be referred: Please refer to http://www.waste.ccacoalition.org/document/financing-landfill-gas-projects-developing-countries and http://www.waste.ccacoalition.org/document/primer-cities-accessing-financing-municipal-solid-waste-projects

3.5 Help in identifying indicators of measurement, reporting and verification.

A monthly progress report of MRV should be made and shared with concerned department to monitor the progress and necessary actions. Table 15 provides the various indicators for measurement, reporting and verification at EDMC.

Table 15: Indicators of measurement, reporting and verification for MSWM.

S.No Parameter Compliance criteria as per SWM Rules, 2016 Indicators and units

1 Collection of MSW

Arrange for door to door collection of segregated solid waste from all households including slums and informal settlements, commercial, institutional and other non residential premises. From multi-storage buildings, large commercial complexes, malls, housing complexes, etc., this may be collected from the entry gate or any other

Population in Millions Area of ULB in sq km MSW generated in Tonnes/day Waste collection efficiency i.e waste collected to waste generated

- Primary collection by ULB, % - Primary collection by private

contractor, %. No of SHGs or informal waste picker organisations issued identity cards Cost of primary collection as % of total MSWM expenditure

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/

http://www.caf.com/

http://www.afd.org/

https://www.thegef.org/

http://www.giz.de/

http://www.usaid.gov/

http://www.waste.ccacoalition.org/document/financing-landfill-gas-projects-developing-countries

http://www.waste.ccacoalition.org/document/financing-landfill-gas-projects-developing-countries

http://www.waste.ccacoalition.org/document/primer-cities-accessing-financing-municipal-solid-waste-projects

http://www.waste.ccacoalition.org/document/primer-cities-accessing-financing-municipal-solid-waste-projects


50

S.No Parameter Compliance criteria as per SWM Rules, 2016

Indicators and units

designated location; Integration of these authorised waste-pickers and waste collectors to facilitate their participation in solid waste management

Revenue generated from every tonne of SW collected. Expenditure by ULB on every tonne of SW collected. Total fuel consumption from primary collection and transportation of waste. Fuel consumption per unit waste transportation i.e fuel (for primary) to tonne of MSW collected. No of employees incentivised for efficient collection of segregated waste.

2 Segregation of MSW

Direct waste generators to segregate the waste at source as prescribed under the rules and hand over the segregated waste to authorised waste pickers or waste collectors. Educate workers including contract workers and supervisors for door to door collection of segregated waste and transporting the unmixed waste during primary and secondary transportation to processing or disposal facility;

Percentage of wards segregating waste. Percentage of wards where segregated collection of waste is done. No of waste collectors and households trained per ward. i.e total waste collectors trained to total number of wards in municipality. And total households trained to total number of wards in municipality Expenditure incurred on awareness program per capita No of awareness program and expenditure incurred per program. Revenue generated from such program, if any? No of RWA, gated society, institution, commercial establishment, waste picker association, SHG incentivised for efficient segregation of waste.

3. Waste storage

Setup material recovery facilities or secondary storage facilities with sufficient space for sorting of recyclable materials to enable informal or authorised waste pickers and waste collectors to separate recyclables from the waste and provide easy access to waste

Total Bin to Area Ratio Green Bin to population ratio, White bin to population ratio and black bin to population ratio Capital cost spent on storage facility? Capital cost spent on recycling centers? No of hazardous waste (HW)


51



pickers and recyclers for collection of segregated recyclable waste Bins for storage of bio-degradable wastes shall be painted green, those for storage of recyclable wastes shall be printed white and those for storage of other wastes shall be printed black Establish waste deposition centres for domestic hazardous waste and give direction for waste generators to deposit domestic hazardous wastes at this centre for its safe disposal. Such facility shall be established in a city or town in a manner that one centre is set up for the area of twenty square kilometres or part thereof and notify the timings of receiving domestic hazardous waste at such centres

collection centres in EDMC area. Amount of hazardous waste collected per day at hazardous waste collection centres. Revenue generated from HW collection centres. Percent of total MSWM expenditure on maintenance of storage and recycling facilities

4 Transportation of MSW

Ensure safe storage and transportation of the domestic hazardous waste to the hazardous waste disposal facility Transport segregated bio-degradable waste to the processing facilities like compost plant, bio-methanation plant or any such facility. transport non-bio-degradable waste to the respective processing facility or material recovery facilities or secondary storage facility;

Cost of secondary transportation per tonne of waste Cost of secondary collection as % of total MSWM expenditure. Total diesel consumption from secondary collection and transportation of waste. Fuel consumption per unit waste transportation i.e diesel (for secondary) to tonne of MSW collected. % of secondary waste transportation handled by EDMC % of secondary transportation handled by private contractors No of employees incentivised for efficient transportation of waste.

5 Processing of MSW

Collect waste from vegetable, fruit, flower, meat, poultry

No of households involved in processing of waste (eg home


52



and fish market on day to day basis and promote setting up of decentralised compost plant or bio-methanation plant at suitable locations in the markets or in the vicinity of markets ensuring hygienic conditions; Collect horticulture, parks and garden waste separately and process in the parks and gardens, as far as possible; Involve communities in waste management and promotion of home composting, bio-gas generation, decentralised processing of waste at community level subject to control of odour and maintenance of hygienic conditions around the facility;

composting units). No of community level composting in EDMC area. Amount of waste handled and treated in W2E tonnes per day Amount of waste handled and treated through composting in tonnes per day Amount of waste handled and treated in anaerobic digestion in tonnes per day Cost incurred per tonne of waste treated on all three technologies Cost of treatment as percent of total MSWM expenditure Revenue generated on per tonne of waste treated

6 Disposal Undertake on their own or through any other agency construction, operation and maintenance of sanitary landfill and associated infrastructure as per Schedule I for disposal of residual wastes in a manner prescribed under these rules; Stop land filling or dumping of mixed waste soon after the timeline as specified in rule 23 for setting up and operationalization of sanitary landfill is over; Allow only the non-usable, non-recyclable, non-biodegradable, non-combustible and non-reactive inert waste and pre-processing rejects and residues from waste processing facilities to go to sanitary landfill and the

Amount of waste disposed in tonnes per day Diesel consumed by waste handling fleet at the disposal facility per day Diesel consumed by waste handling equipment at disposal site per tonne of waste disposed Total amount of waste collected to total amount of waste disposed per day. Average composition of waste received at disposal site Operation and maintenance cost of disposal facility as % total MSWM expenditure (including cost of fuel in handling equipment, leachate treatment, and gas collection and utilisation system). Amount of leachate and gas collected and treated per day Revenue generated from LFG capture and utilisation Amount of waste burnt openly at


53



sanitary landfill sites shall meet the specifications as given in Schedule–I, however, every effort shall be made to recycle or reuse the rejects to achieve the desired objective of zero waste going to landfill;

disposal site per day Amount of waste burnt due to surface and subsurface fires at Ghazipur site

Various service level benchmarks as per Swachh bharat mission guidelines are indicated in Table 16 Table 16: Service level Benchmarks for Solid Waste Management S.No. Indicator Unit and Definition Value 1 Household level

coverage of SWM services

As % of households and establishments that are covered by daily doorstep collection system

100%

2. Efficiency of MSW collection

As % of total waste collected by ULB and authorized service providers versus the total waste generated within the ULB, excluding recycling or processing at the generation point

100%

3. Extent of MSW segregation

As % of segregation waste from households and establishments (segregation should at least be at the level of separation of wet and dry waste at source)

100%

4. Extent of recovered MSW As % of waste collected (this is an indication of quantum of waste collected, which is either recycled or processed)

80%

5. Extent of scientific disposal of MSW

As% of waste disposed in a sanitary landfills sites versus total quantum of waste disposed in all sanitary landfills and dumping sites

100%

6. Efficiency in redressal of customer complaints

As % of total number of SWM related complaints resolved in 24 hours versus total number of SWM complaints received within the period

80%

7. Extent of cost recovery in SWM services

As % recovery of all operating expenses related to SWM services that the ULB is able to meet from the operating revenues of sources related exclusively to SWM

100%

8. Efficiency in collection of SWM charges

Current year revenues collected as a % of the total operating revenues for the corresponding period

90%

Source: Swachh Bharat Mission Guidelines-Urban


54

3.6 Landfill Management The solid wastes that are collected and of no further use, processing rejects and ashes from waste to energy will ultimately have to be dealt with. The option which lies with a land locked city like Delhi and most commonly used is to dispose these rejects on land. Land disposal in form of a sanitary landfill has proved to be the most accepted method for disposal of solid waste, as per experience in many cities globally. Sanitary landfill means an operation in which the wastes to be disposed of are compacted and covered with a layer of soil at the end of each day’s operation. When the site for disposal has reached its design capacity-a final cover of 0.6m or more is applied.

Some of the disadvantages of sanitary landfill that needs attention are as below:

1. Methane, an explosive gas and a SLCP contributing to global warming, and the other gasses produced from the decomposition of the wastes may interfere with the use of completed landfill

2. A completed landfill will settle sometime unevenly and require periodic maintenance.

3. In highly populated areas, suitable land may not be available within economic hauling distance.

Some of the suitable site selection must consider (1) available land area, (2) impact of processing and resource recovery, (3)haul distance, (4) soil conditions and topography, (5) climatological conditions, (6)surface water hydrology, (7) geologic and hydrogeological conditions, (8) local environmental conditions, (9)potential ultimate uses for the completed site.

In principal landfills may be classified as (1) area, (2) trench, and (3) depression. EDMC presently has an area landfill at Ghazipur area. Figure below indicates the reactions that occur in a completed landfill.


55

Figure 31: Reactions occurring in a completed landfill

3.6.1 Landfill post closure plan along with its monitoring. Once the landfill site reaches its ultimate capacity post closure plan is to be implemented. It is important to note, in-case fresh waste is allowed at the dumpsite, the waste should be placed only in select zones. A closure and post closure plan for landfill require attention on various aspects, as described in Figure 32.

For at least 1.5 decade, the post closure care of a landfill site shall have to be undertaken, as per SWM Rules, 2016. The authority or concessionaire that operated the sanitary landfill shall be responsible for post closure activities and monitoring.

Monitoring of leachate, landfill gas generated and ground water quality along with inspection and prompt repair of subsidence, cracks and fissures in top cover are important aspects in post closure care.

Reactions occuring in a completed

landfill

Biological decay of organic material

chemical oxidation of

materials

movement of liquids

(leachate) due to

differential heads

uneven settlement caused by

consolidation of material into voids

escape of gases and

lateral diffusion of

gases


56

Figure 32: Aspects for closure and post closure plan of a landfill As per the provisions in Waste Management Rules, 2016 those sites which will not receive additional waste after setting up of new and properly designed landfills should be closed and rehabilitated by examining following options (Central Public Health and Environmental Engineering Organisation, 2016).

a. Reduction of waste by bio mining and waste processing followed by placement of residues in new landfills or capping

b. Capping with solid waste cover or solid waste cover enhanced with geomembrane to enable collection and flaring / utilisation of greenhouse gases.

c. Any other method suitable for reducing environmental impact to acceptable level.

Landfill closure should be by • Re-grading to a stable slope (minimum 1:3, V : H), and top cover system should be

provided to reduce percolation of rainwater. • In areas close to water bodies, creek, and coastal zones, a vertical cut-off wall should

be planned at an appropriate depth. • There should be grading of the existing dumpsite to ensure slope stability. • Gas wells have to be sunk into the waste dump, equivalent to the average height of

the landfill from ground level. • Over time, leachate generation from such covered dumps will be reduced. • Closure by other means should be with approval from the Delhi State Pollution

Control Committee (DPCC).

Aspe

cts f

or C

losu

re a

nd p

ost

clos

ure

plan

of a

land

fill

Vegetative stabilisation of the final landfill cover

Management of surface water runoff with an effective

drainage system

Periodical inspection and maintenance of landfill cover

(settlements) and facilities

Quantity and quality of leachate monitoring in the

landfill

Quantity and quality of landfill gas monitoring

Groundwater quality (up gradient and down gradient),

Surface water quality at the periphery of landfill and at

receiving water bodies


57

Figure 33: Components of a landfill closure Methodology A landfill closure plan should include slope stabilisation of utilised landfill, a final cover system, a cut off wall (if required), a leachate and landfill gas collection and management system, a surface water drainage system and an environmental monitoring plan for site. A plan for post closure maintenance is of also utmost importance. A brief description on these components are given as under

The stability of the slopes: developer should indicate the stability of the slopes after provision of the cover system. If a geomembrane is included in the cover, the stability of the components of the cover against slippage should be reported and considered.

Cut-off Walls: If a cutoff wall is desired to be build alongside the landfill site, its dimensions and components and the method of construction / installation should be carefully analysed.

Leachate Collection and Management: Strategy for leachate collection and management should include (a) leachate collection trench along the perimeter, (b) leachate collection drain along existing preferential drainage paths, (c) leachate collection wells (if provided) and (d) leachate storage tank.

Gas Collection and Management: Strategy for management of collected LFG covering passive venting, flaring, active collection system, and utilisation of collected LFG as a potential Renewable energy source.

Surface water Drainage: Developer should clearly indicate the ways to handle precipitation on the site as well as that entering from neighbouring areas. The assessment of surface drainage should contain (a) an estimate of the quantity of surface water to be handled every year, (b) the location of storm water drains on the cover and on the ground surface, (c) location of interceptor / diversion hydraulic structures, and (d) size and location of the sedimentation chamber.

Environmental Monitoring : This is an important aspect from post closure monitoring perspective and developer should clearly identify the location and depth of environmental monitoring facilities comprising of ground water wells (atleast 4: one upstream, three

Cut-off Walls

stability of the slopes

Cover System Post Closure Maintenance

Gas Collection and

Management

Leachate Collection and Management

Environmental Monitoring

Surface water Drainage


58

downstream), air samplers and surface water sampling points. It is equally important to define the method and frequency of environmental monitoring; and the background values of various parameters observed prior to the setting up of the landfill.

Post Closure Maintenance: The periodic inspection and maintenance activities should be undertaken with respect to the (a) landfill cover, (b) surface water drainage system, (c) leachate and LFG management facilities; (d) environmental monitoring systems and (e) other infrastructure facilities.

3.7 Alternate Scenarios for SLCP reduction from MSW management sector.

Black Carbon and Methane(CH4) are emitted from various natural and anthropogenic sources, a 2011 United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) or World Meteorological Organization (WMO) assessment, out of 130 existing controls, a set of 16 optimal measures was identified, which if realized worldwide can reduce 90% of the total mitigation potential of the 130 measures from BC, CH4 and O3 (Climate and Clean Air Coalition, 2013). These include these feasible actions like:

• upgrading the brick kilns, • upgrading or installing particle filters on diesel engines, • recovering fugitive methane from energy facilities, • replacing high-GWP HFCs with more climate-friendly alternatives, • ban on open burning of agricultural waste, • improve manure management and animal feed, • Eliminate high-emitting diesel vehicles.

If we can implement all these measures by 2030, in all parts of the world, then it can slow down the speed of global warming between now and 2050 by half, relative to a reference case with no reductions beyond current policies. This means, there will be decreased in temperature, globally, by 0.5 °C than the reference value and even in the artic region. (Climate and Clean AIr Coalition (CCAC), 2013). Thus targeting emission reduction, three alternate scenarios have been adopted, as explained under Table 17. Table 17: Alternate Scenario Analysis

Alternate Scenario Composting(TPD) Anaerobic digestion(TPD)

Waste combustion(TPD)

Recycling (TPD)

Low expectation 200 0 1300 0

Medium expectation 300 100 1900 0

SLCP’s reduction 400 250 1300 0

SLCP’s reduction-High expectation

400 800 1300 0

Four alternate scenarios have been analysed using SWEET tool for calculating and comparing baseline emissions from waste management in EDMC area.


59

The first alternate scenario is the low expectation scenario for waste processing by composting and waste combustion methods starting from 2019. According to this scenario EDMC has a decentralised organics waste management with segregated waste collection system for 200 TPD (73,000 Metric Tons per year) of waste in some selected wards. It is also presumed that the wood waste and green waste collected from the RWAs shall be composted. and help maintain C/N ratio. The W2E plant is expected to run at its increased capacity of 1300 TPD (i.e.474500 Metric Tons per year) in 2019 against the present usage being 700 TPD (255500 Metric Tons per year). However, no waste is assumed to be processed by anaerobic digestion or being recycled. There is also no change presumed in the fleet fuel under this scenario. This scenario considers Ghazipur landfill site to be operational till 2018 and thereafter a new landfill site shall be operationalized, which shall be operational till 2050. This new site will have flaring and LFG utilisation facility, but with no high BTU energy source.

The second alternate scenario is the medium expectation scenario in which EDMC decentralises its organic waste management of 300 TPD (109500 Metric Tons per year) with segregated waste being collected in some selected wards from the year 2019. It is presumed that the wood waste and green waste released from the RWAs will be composted and help maintain C/N ratio. The W2E plant will be augmented to handle 1900 TPD by 2020. Anaerobic digestion of 100 TPD of waste will be setup for organic wastes, presently received at the landfills by 2022. Waste recycling is assumed to be zero, since the recycling activity is under unorganised sector and EDMC has no hold until the informal sector is organised. This scenario also considers the diversion of private secondary collection fleet on CNG fuel. This scenario considers Ghazipur landfill site to be operational till 2018 and thereafter a new landfill site shall be operationalized, which shall be operational till 2055. The landfill sites will have flaring and LFG utilisation facility, but with project utilising high-BTU LFG as an energy source.

The third alternate scenario targets SLCP reduction with EDMC diverting 400 TPD(146000 Metric Tons per year) waste more to the waste to Compost unit in year 2020, and 250TPD waste (91250 Metric Tons per year)to anaerobic digestion by 2022 (with waste segregation). The W2E plant is expected to be augmented to handle 1300 TPD (474500 Metric Tons per year) by 2019. This scenario also considers secondary collection fleet of 119 heavy duty vehicles to be converted to CNG fuel. This scenario considers Ghazipur landfill site to be operational till 2018 and thereafter a new landfill site shall be operationalized, which shall be operational till 2055. The new site will have flaring and LFG utilisation facility, but with project utilising high-BTU LFG as an energy source.

The fourth alternate scenario targets a composting facility of 400 TPD (146000 Metric Tons per year) from 2020 and a 800 TPD (292000 Metric Tons per year) anaerobic digestion unit (combined capacity for centralised and decentralised unit) by year 2022. This scenario also considers a 1300 MTPD (474500 Metric Tons per year) by 2019. It is also considered that the complete 119 heavy duty vehicles under secondary waste collection fleet shall be converted to CNG fuel. This scenario considers Ghazipur landfill site to be operational till 2018 and thereafter a new landfill site shall be operationalized, which shall be operational till 2060. The new site will have flaring and LFG utilisation facility, but with project utilising high-BTU LFG as an energy source.


60

3.7.1 Summary- Changes vs. Baseline Table 18: Total emissions changes from Baseline (Metric Tons CO2e)

Year BASELINE ALT 1- Low expectation

ALT 2-Medium

expectation

ALT 3-Targeting SLCP’s reduction

ALT 4-SLCPs

reduction- High

expectation Emission Change from Baseline

2020 618,623 58,502 191,169 -4,888 103,318 2030 863,854 25,243 57,850 -291,575 -464,407 2040 1,683,666 29,414 114,908 -574,195 -930,267 2050 2,104,996 1,328,568 1,504,719 117,456 -604,205

Source: SWEET run

As shown in the Table 18, in the case of low expectation scenario, the total emissions are expected to continuously increase when compared to baseline scenario due to waste combustion methods.

In the second scenario of medium expectation, the total emissions are expected to increase as compared to baseline scenario due to waste diversion to anaerobic digestion and the expected increase in capacity of waste to energy plants as per scenario.

In the third scenario of targeting SLCP reduction, the total emissions are expected to decline when compared to baseline scenario. This is due to diversion of more waste to composting and anaerobic digestion.

In fourth scenario due to high organics treatment in composting and anaerobic digestion, the SLCPs are expected to reduce substantially. Figure below highlights the difference in the various scenarios.


61

Figure 34: Scenario Comparison for EDMC (MT CO2 Eq) Refer to annexure 1 for detailed information.

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

4,000,000

2020 2030 2040 2050

Scenerio Comparision

BASELINE ALT 1- Low expectation

ALT 2-Medium expectation ALT 3-Targeting SLCP’s reduction

ALT 4-SLCPs reduction- High expectation


62

3.7.1.1 Overall emissions summary figures 2000 to 2050

Figure 35: Scenario Comparison of Overall Black Carbon Emissions over Time The overall BC emissions are lowest with Targeting SLCP and targeting SLCP-high expectation reduction scenario due to 1300 TPD W2E capacities in both scenarios and elimination of open burning from landfills.

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Met

ric T

ons

CO

2e

Targetting SLCP - High expectation Targeting SLCPMedium expectation Low ExpectationBaseline


63

Figure 36: Scenario Comparison of Methane Emission over Time The methane emissions are lowest in second alternate scenario (medium expectation) due to highest capacity of W2E plant and new landfill coming up with project utilising high –BTU LFG as an energy source.

Figure 37: Scenario Comparison of Organic Carbon Emissions

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Met

ric T

ons

CO

2e


-70,000

-60,000

-50,000

-40,000

-30,000

-20,000

-10,000

0

10,000

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Met

ric T

ons

CO

2e

Targetting SLCP - High expectationTargeting SLCPMedium expectationLow Expectation


64

Due to high quantity of waste getting dumped and disposed on landfill in low expectation scenario the amount of organic carbon stored is highest and reaches (-)60118 Tons CO2 eq in 2050.

Figure 38: Total Emissions by Scenario including CO2, NOx, BC, CH4, and Organic Carbon Total emission of CO2, NOx, BC, CH4 and organic carbon is lowest when SLCP reductions are targeted and are reduced to 41.6 percent from emissions in medium expectation scenario in 2050. The main reason for this reduction is lower W2E capacity and increased composting and bio-methanation.

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

4,000,000

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Met

ric T

ons

CO

2e



65

3.7.1.2 Sector specific emissions sources 2000 to 2050

Figure 39: Baseline Black Carbon Emissions by Source over Time In baseline scenario waste collection and transportation is the second highest contributor to black carbon after waste burning at the landfill site. Thereafter waste handling equipment has been contributing to Black Carbon emissions.

Figure 40: Combustion Related Sulphur Dioxide Emissions by Scenario

-10,000

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Met

ric T

ons

CO

2e




-1,000

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Met

ric T

ons

of S

Ox

Targetting SLCP - High expectation Targeting SLCP

Medium expectation Low Expectation

Baseline


66

The sulphur dioxide emissions are projected to be highest from medium expectation scenario with highest waste to energy capacity (1900 MTPD). The SOx emissions are lowest with targeting SLCP-high expectation scenario whereby the fleet is also converted to Compressed Natural Gas.

Figure 41: Baseline Transportation PM10 Emissions by Source Waste burning, which has been assumed to be 2% of the waste disposed in baseline emission is seen as the major contributor of PM10 emissions. Due to closure of the alternate disposal site in 2044, a drop in emission is predicted.

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Met

ric T

ons

PM10

Waste Handling Equipment Waste Burning

Waste Collection & Transport Waste Combustion

Landfills & LFG Combustion


67

Figure 42: Baseline All Climate Forcing Emissions by source When looking at all climate forcing emissions by source, waste combustion is seen as the highest contributor.

-200,000

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Met

ric T

ons

CO

2e





68

3.7.1.3 Landfill and Dumpsite Specific Information 2000 to 2050

Figure 43: Ghazipur Dumpsite Emissions by Scenario With Ghazipur site planned to be closed in 2018 the emissions are expected to be drastically reduced in time ahead, with least emissions in medium expectation scenario.

Figure 44: Unknown Site Emissions by Scenario The emissions from new site are minimum with diversion of waste to 1900 MTPD waste to energy plant.

0

5,000,000

10,000,000

15,000,000

20,000,000

25,000,000

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Met

ric T

ons

CO

2e



Baseline

-10,000,000

0

10,000,000

20,000,000

30,000,000

40,000,000

50,000,000

60,000,000

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Met

ric T

ons

CO

2e



Baseline


69

3.7.1.4 Transportation sector emissions summaries 2000 to 2050

Figure 45: CO2 Emissions by Scenario Carbon dioxide emissions are highest from transportation under scenarios targeting SLCP and targeting SLCP-high expectation.

Figure 46: NOx Emissions by Scenario NOx emissions are also highest from transportation for scenarios targeting SLCP and Targeting SLCP in high expectation.

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Met

ric T

ons

CO

2e



Baseline

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

350.0

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Met

ric T

ons

NO

x



Baseline


70

Figure 47: SOx Emission by Scenario SOx emissions are lowest with fleet conversion to alternate fuel like compressed natural gas and is expected to be lowest with targeting SLCP-high expectation scenario.

Figure 48: PM10 emissions by scenario Particulate matter emissions from transportation fleet are expected to reduce with diversion of waste from landfills to alternate processing technologies like composting, biomethanation and W2E. Though, a major game changer would be conversion of transportation fleet from Diesel to alternate fuel like CNG.

0.000

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000

3.500

4.000

4.500

5.000

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Met

ric T

ons

SOx



Baseline

-5.000

0.000

5.000

10.000

15.000

20.000

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Met

ric T

ons

PM10



Baseline


71

3.7.1.5 Waste burning emissions summaries 2000 to 2050

Figure 49: Total Climate Forcing From Waste Burning Emissions By Scenario Targeting SLCPs and Targeting SLCP-high expectation scenario indicate lowest emissions from waste burning as they have targeted having new sanitary landfill and no open burning of waste at the landfill.

Figure 50: Climate Forcing From Open Burning Emissions By Scenario There is no open burning foreseen from waste as SWM Rules 2016 and NGT has banned open burning of waste and imposed heavy penalty on non-compliance.

-50,000

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Met

ric T

ons

CO

2e



Baseline

00000111111

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Met

ric T

ons

CO

2e

Scenario 4 Targeting SLCP Medium expectation

Low Expectation Baseline


72

Figure 51: Climate Forcing From Landfill/Dumpsite Fire Emissions By Scenario Targeting SLCPs and Targeting SLCP-high expectation scenario indicate lowest emissions from waste burning as they have targeted having new sanitary landfill and no open burning of waste at the landfill.

Figure 52: PM10 Emissions from Waste Burning Emissions by Scenario PM10 emissions from waste burning are estimated to reduce from 1254 MT in 2044 to zero with scenarios Targeting SLCP reduction and targeting SLCP-high expectation.

-50,000

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Met

ric T

ons

CO

2e



Baseline

-500

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Met

ric T

ons

PM10



Baseline


73

3.8 Other actions to reduce SLCP emissions

3.8.1 Waste Burning Repeated burning of wastes on dumpsites causes deleterious environmental impacts. As per SWM Rules, 2016 burning of solid waste by generators in the open is strictly forbidden. The rules also prohibit burning of leaves collected from street sweeping. The street sweeping waste is to be collected and stored separately and handed over to waste collectors or agencies authorized by the EDMC. National green tribunal has also imposed a heavy penalty on open burning in year 2016. Further to reduce/eliminate open waste burning, the following measures need to be taken:

• Through increasing collection efficiency of waste in segregated form, waste burning will be reduced since no waste shall be left behind for open burning.

• After waste is dumped at the landfill, proper daily and intermediate covers with compaction to cut off oxygen supply thereby reducing fires. This daily cover, according to SWM rules 2016 can be either soil/earth or construction and demolition debris, however, minimum porosity to eliminate rodents’ and insect breeding at the site needs to be ensured.

• Proper compaction of waste at landfill will eliminate sub-surface fires by cutting off oxygen supply.

• Fires are also set by informal waste pickers for extraction of valuables using rudimentary methods from waste. These methods include burning of tires to extract metal, etc. As a practice EDMC should not allow waste pickers at the landfill site.

3.8.2 Landfilling practices As per the SWM Rules 2016, disposing waste at a sanitary landfill is of least priority; recycling, reduction, recovery etc. being preferable. EDMC should minimize health impact of solid waste disposal at landfill sites through various measures

• Proper segregation at household, institutional and commercial levels will eliminate landfilling of organic and other usable, recyclable, combustible and reactive waste. The organics shall be treated through decentralized management techniques like composting and bio-methanation.

• Compaction of waste coming to the landfill to reduce air voids. This will not only prevent surface and subsurface fires but will also increase the air space capacity of the landfill.

• Daily and intermediary covers of earth/soil or construction and demolition debris also helps in avoiding fires by cutting oxygen supply, hence reducing emissions from landfills.

• Landfills gas (LFG) contributes a significant amount of GHG to the emissions form waste sector. Capturing and utilizing LFG (through enclosed flare system) will help in reducing the emissions. The capture zone at Ghazipur landfill site should be enhanced while closing the landfill.


74

• The existing Ghazipur dumpsite should be reclaimed partially and developed in a new engineered sanitary landfill for future use.

3.8.3 Transportation of waste The emissions of SLCPs can be reduced from waste transportation in following ways

1. Eliminating high emitting diesel vehicles from transportation fleet is one of the potential mitigation measures for reducing SLCPs from waste sector. The secondary collection fleet (15 Tonne trucks) utilizing diesel fuel should be eventually retrofitted to run on Compressed Natural Gas (CNG). To start with EDMC should target CNG fleet for private hired trucks and thereafter for EDMC owned trucks.

2. Segregated waste collection will deploy two colour vehicles-Green and Blue. The Non bio-degradable waste shall be picked bi-weekly from recycling centers / secondary storage bins. This will increase the collection efficiency of recyclables, thereby reducing the amount of waste to be collected and reduce the number trips for collection fleet.

3. Segregation of waste will help to maintain the bulk density of waste and thereby increase the amount of waste collection per truck. Currently only 5-7 Tonnes is utilized in a 15 Tonne truck, thus indirectly; the number of trips shall be reduced.

4. Decentralized treatment of waste shall reduce the number of distance travelled by biodegradable waste. Thus helping to reduce SLCP emissions.

5. Measuring, reporting and verification of fuel consumption and vehicle routes can also help increase the efficiency of transportation fleet. In addition rewarding the best collection vehicles (i.e average weight of waste bought to disposal site per trip/ capacity of vehicle in tonne) every month will help to boost good practices among the fleet operators.

6. For efficient transportation of solid waste, a transfer station can be set up in the municipality if it is financially and environmentally viable.


75

Bibliography

(2001). Census Data 2001 / Metadata. GOI. Black Carbon | Climate and Clean Air Coalition. (2017). Retrieved from Climate and Clean Air

Coalition- Reducing Short-Lived Climate Pollutants: http://www.ccacoalition.org/en/slcps/black-carbon

Climate Change Threats & Solution | The Nature Conservancy. (2017). Retrieved June 09, 2017, from The Nature Conservancy: https://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/urgentissues/global-warming-climate-change/threats-solutions/index.htm

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the planet: Global Temperature. (2017, June 1). Retrieved June 09, 2017, from NASA: Global Climate Change: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ https://climate.nasa.gov/system/internal_resources/details/original/647_Global_Temperature_Data_File.txt

Global Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Causes. (2017, June 26). Retrieved June 27, 2017, from NASA Global Climate Change: Vital Signs of the PLanet: https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

Hydrofourocarbons-HFCs | Climate and Clean Air Coalition. (2017). Retrieved June 08, 2017, from Climate and Clean Air Coalition- Reducing Short-Lived Climate Pollutants: http://www.ccacoalition.org/en/slcps/hydrofluorocarbons-hfc

Methane | Climate and Clean Air Coalition. (2017). Retrieved June 07, 2017, from Climate and Clean Air Coalition- Reducing Short-Lived Climate Pollutants: http://www.ccacoalition.org/en/slcps/methane

Overview of Greenhouse Gases | Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions | US EPA. (2017, April 14). Retrieved June 14, 2017, from EPA- United States ENvironmental Protection Agrncy: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases

Troposheric ozone | Climate and Clean Air Coaliton. (2017). Retrieved June 12 2017, from Climate and Clean Air Coaliton- Reducing Short-Lived Climate Pollutants: http://www.ccacoalition.org/en/slcps/tropospheric-ozone

Understanding Global Warming Potentials | Greenhouse gas (GHG) Emissions | US EPA. (2017, Febuary 14). Retrieved June 08, 2017, from U.S. Environment Protection Agency: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials

Bhatia, A., Pathak, H., & Aggrawal, P. (2014, August 10). Inventory of methane and nitrous oxide emissions from agricultural soils of India and their global warming potential. Current Science, 87(3), 314-324.

Bhide, A., Parasher, D., Sharma, C., & Mitra, A. (1998). Methane Emission from Landfills. Global Environmental Chemistry, 116-127.

Bond, T., Streets, D., Yarber, K., Nelson, S., Woo, J.-H., & Klimont, Z. (2004). A technology based global inventory of black carbon and organic carbon emissions from combustion. Journal of Geophysical Research, 109(D14203), 43.

Census Organisation of India. (2011). Census 2011. Retrieved January 2018, 15, from District Census 2011: http://www.census2011.co.in/district.php

Central Pollution Control Board. (2017). Consolidated Annual Review Report on Implementation of Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016. Delhi: Ministry Of Environment, Forests & Climate Change.


76

Central Public Health and Environmental Engineering Organisation. (2016). Manual on solid waste management. New Delhi: Ministry of Urban Development.

Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC). (2013). SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL 2013 ANNUAL SCIENCE UPDATE. CLIMATE AND CLEAN AIR COALITION TO REDUCE SHORT-LIVED CLIMATE POLLUTANTS, 3.

Climate and Clean AIr Coalition (CCAC). (2013). SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL 2013 ANNUAL SCIENCE UPDATE.

Climate and Clean Air Coalition. (2013). SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL 2013 ANNUAL SCIENCE UPDATE. CLIMATE AND CLEAN AIR COALITION TO REDUCE SHORT-LIVED CLIMATE POLLUTANTS, 2.

Delhi Development Authority. (2016). Master Plan for Delhi-2021. Delhi: DDA. Delhi Integrated Multi-Modal Transit System Ltd. (2010). Project Report on Reclaimation of

Ghazipur. Delhi. DELHI INTEGRATED MULTI-MODAL TRANSIT SYSTEM LTD. (2010). PROJECT REPORT

ON RECLAMATION OF GHAZIPUR. Delhi. Global Warming: News, Facts, Causes & Effects. (n.d.). Retrieved June 08, 2017, from Live

Science: https://www.livescience.com/topics/global-warming Gurjar, B., Aardenne, J., Lelieveld, J., & Mohan, M. (2004). Emission Estimates and Trends

(1990-2000) for Megacity Delhi and Implications. Atmospheric Environment, 38(33), 5663-5681.

Höglund-Isaksson, L., Winiwarter, W., & Purohit, P. (2013). Non-CO2 Greenhouse gas Emission: Mitigation Potentials and Costs in the EU-28 from 2005 to 2050. Laxenburg, Austria: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA).

IRG systems south asia Pvt ltd. (n.d.). Detailed survey of Municipal solid waste collection, characterization and transportation for municipal corporation of Delhi. New Delhi.

Kennedy, C., & Lindsey, R. (2015, June 17). What's the difference between global warming and climate change? 1-2.

Leifer I., C. D. (2013). Transcontinental methane measurements:Part 2, Mobile surface investigation of fossil fuel industrial fugitive emissions,. ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT, 74, 432-441.

MacMillan, A. (2016, March 11). Global Warming Facts, Definition, Causes and Effects. Retrieved June 09, 2017, from Natural Resources Defence Council (NRDC): https://www.nrdc.org/stories/global-warming-101

Ministry Of Environment & Forests. (1994). National Communication I. New Delhi: Ministry Of Environment & Forests.

Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India. (2016). Press Information Bureau: India submits its First Biennial Update Report to UNFCCC.

Ministry of Environment and Forests. (1994). Initial National Communication to the United. NEW DELHI: Ministry of Environment and Forests.

Ministry of Environment and Forests. (2000). India. Second national communication to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. NEW DELHI: Ministry of Environment and Forests.

Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. (2010). First Biennial Update Report to the. NEW DELHI: Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change.

Myhre, G., Shindell, D., Bréon, F.-M., Collins, W., Fuglestvedt, J., Huang, J., et al. (2013). Anthropogenic and Natural Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.


77

O’Sullivan F., &. P. (2012). Shale gas production: potential versus actual greenhouse gas emissions. ENVIRONMENTAL RES. LETT., 7(4), 044030.

Pappas, S. (2016, August 3). 5 Deadly Diseases Emerging from Global Warming. Retrieved June 08, 2017, from LIVESCIENCE: https://www.livescience.com/55632-deadly-diseases-emerge-from-global-warming.html

Peischl R., e. a. (2013). Quantifying sources of methane using light alkanes in the Los Angeles basin. JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH ATMOSPHERES, 118(10), 4974-4990.

Purohit, P., Höglund-Isaksson, L., Bertok, I., Chaturvedi, V., & Sharma, M. (2016). Scenario Analysis for HFC Emissions in India:Mitigation potential and costs. CEEW-IIASA.

Shivani Wadehra, A. M. (2017, December 30). Delhi’s Waste Woes: Is There a Way Out? EPW Engage.

Siddiqui, F. Z. (2013). Evaluation of energy potential from unsecured landfill site. Jamia Milia islamia, Department of Mechanical Engineering,. New Delhi: Unpublished.

Thakur, V. S. (2017, September 05). Ghazipur landfill collapse: Despite L-G ban, waste dumped at Delhi’s garbage mound. Retrieved November 10, 2017, from hindustan times: http://www.hindustantimes.com/delhi-news/ghazipur-landfill-collapse-despite-l-g-ban-waste-dumped-at-delhi-s-garbage-mound/story-FckyKnY52VUHhqaphrPBeO.html

Townsend-Small, A. (n.d.). Isotopic measurements of atmospheric methane in Los Angeles, California, USA reveal the influence of “fugitive” fossil fuel emissions. JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH.

Vyawahare, M. (2017, September 22). NGT wants Delhi’s Ghazipur landfill site to be at least 10 feet lower. Retrieved November 10, 2017, from Hindustan Times: http://www.hindustantimes.com/delhi-news/ngt-wants-ghazipur-landfill-to-be-atleast-10-feet-lower/story-Z9GNJtVzl6xs6h9kPjatOJ.html


78

Annexure I

Table 19 Total Emission (Metric Tons CO2e)

Year Baseline Low Expectation

Medium expectation Targeting SLCP

Targeting SLCP - High expectation

2000 113,830 113,830 113,830 113,830 113,830 2001 123,204 123,204 123,204 123,204 123,204 2002 133,245 133,245 133,245 133,245 133,245 2003 144,016 144,016 144,016 144,016 144,016 2004 155,583 155,583 155,583 155,583 155,583 2005 168,015 168,015 168,015 168,015 168,015 2006 181,387 181,387 181,387 181,387 181,387 2007 195,778 195,778 195,778 195,778 195,778 2008 211,272 211,272 211,272 211,272 211,272 2009 227,958 227,958 227,958 227,958 227,958 2010 245,934 245,934 245,934 245,934 245,934 2011 265,302 265,302 265,302 265,302 265,302 2012 286,175 286,175 286,175 286,175 286,175 2013 308,671 308,671 308,671 308,671 308,671 2014 332,920 332,920 332,920 332,920 332,920 2015 382,547 382,547 382,547 382,547 382,547 2016 387,238 387,238 387,238 387,238 387,238 2017 553,117 553,117 553,117 553,117 553,117 2018 569,143 553,323 539,508 533,415 549,093 2019 590,268 668,110 500,475 686,360 717,348 2020 618,623 677,125 809,792 613,735 721,941 2021 651,393 693,114 690,563 514,957 632,066 2022 688,510 715,552 674,420 463,011 373,255 2023 729,969 744,044 695,717 405,253 304,880 2024 775,812 778,309 669,811 419,529 310,609 2025 658,989 694,683 699,113 437,128 319,144 2026 690,212 722,656 733,575 457,926 330,313 2027 726,355 756,219 773,079 481,850 343,992 2028 767,341 795,196 817,581 508,871 360,098 2029 813,158 839,495 867,097 538,999 378,588 2030 863,854 889,097 921,704 572,279 399,447 2031 919,529 944,046 981,531 608,789 422,692 2032 980,333 1,004,448 1,046,754 648,637 448,363 2033 1,046,462 1,070,461 1,117,598 691,960 476,526 2034 1,118,154 1,142,295 1,194,328 738,920 507,270 2035 1,195,689 1,220,207 1,277,255 789,708 540,702 2036 1,279,389 1,304,498 1,366,728 844,537 576,952


79

Year Baseline Low Expectation

Medium expectation Targeting SLCP

Targeting SLCP - High expectation

2037 1,369,614 1,395,518 1,463,141 903,648 616,169 2038 1,466,767 1,493,657 1,566,927 967,308 658,521 2039 1,571,289 1,599,351 1,678,564 1,035,809 704,195 2040 1,683,666 1,713,080 1,798,574 1,109,471 753,399 2041 1,804,425 1,835,372 1,927,523 1,188,643 806,361 2042 1,934,140 1,966,799 2,066,026 1,273,701 863,329 2043 2,073,432 2,107,987 2,214,747 1,365,054 924,572 2044 2,222,970 2,259,610 2,374,404 1,463,144 990,385 2045 2,192,438 2,422,397 2,545,772 1,568,444 1,061,083 2046 2,116,688 2,597,136 2,729,682 1,681,468 1,137,009 2047 2,073,605 2,784,674 2,927,032 1,802,766 1,218,530 2048 2,059,290 2,985,925 3,138,784 1,932,931 1,306,045 2049 2,070,593 3,201,870 3,365,975 2,072,598 1,399,979 2050 2,104,996 3,433,564 3,609,715 2,222,452 1,500,791


80

Table 20 Baseline Pollutants by Sector (Metric Tons CO2e)

Year Waste Collection & Transport Waste Burning Landfills & LFG

Combustion Organics Management

Waste Handling Equipment

Waste Combustion Total

1960 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1961 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1962 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1963 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1964 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1965 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1966 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1967 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1968 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1969 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1970 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1971 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1972 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1973 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1974 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1975 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1976 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1977 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1978 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1979 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1980 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1981 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1982 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1983 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1984 1,015 2,232 0 0 684 0 3,931


81





1985 1,094 2,407 7,153 0 738 0 11,392 1986 1,180 2,595 13,702 0 796 0 18,273 1987 1,273 2,798 19,792 0 858 0 24,721 1988 1,372 3,017 25,546 0 925 0 30,861 1989 1,480 3,253 31,072 0 997 0 36,802 1990 1,595 3,508 36,462 0 1,076 0 42,641 1991 1,720 3,783 41,800 0 1,160 0 48,462 1992 1,855 4,079 47,158 0 1,250 0 54,343 1993 2,000 4,398 52,605 0 1,348 0 60,352 1994 2,157 4,743 58,201 0 1,454 0 66,554 1995 2,326 5,114 64,002 0 1,568 0 73,009 1996 2,508 5,514 70,064 0 1,691 0 79,776 1997 2,704 5,946 76,437 0 1,823 0 86,910 1998 2,916 6,411 83,174 0 1,966 0 94,466 1999 3,144 6,913 90,324 0 2,119 0 102,500 2000 3,390 7,454 97,938 0 2,285 0 111,067 2001 3,655 8,038 106,068 0 2,464 0 120,225 2002 3,941 8,667 114,767 0 2,657 0 130,033 2003 4,250 9,346 124,092 0 2,865 0 140,552 2004 4,583 10,077 134,098 0 3,089 0 151,848 2005 4,941 10,866 144,849 0 3,331 0 163,988 2006 5,328 11,717 156,408 0 3,592 0 177,045 2007 5,745 12,634 168,843 0 3,873 0 191,096 2008 6,195 13,623 182,228 0 4,176 0 206,223 2009 6,680 14,689 196,641 0 4,503 0 222,514 2010 7,203 15,839 212,165 0 4,856 0 240,063 2011 7,767 17,079 228,890 0 5,236 0 258,972 2012 8,375 18,416 246,912 0 5,646 0 279,350


82





2013 9,031 19,858 266,335 0 6,088 0 301,312 2014 9,737 21,413 287,269 0 6,565 0 324,984 2015 10,500 23,089 333,323 0 7,078 0 373,990 2016 11,322 24,896 334,160 0 7,633 0 378,011 2017 12,208 26,845 360,384 0 6,565 137,165 543,167 2018 13,094 28,794 362,418 0 7,042 147,123 558,471 2019 14,045 30,885 368,535 0 7,553 157,804 578,821 2020 15,065 33,127 380,792 0 8,101 169,261 606,345 2021 16,158 35,532 396,295 0 8,689 181,549 638,224 2022 17,331 38,112 414,893 0 9,320 194,729 674,385 2023 18,590 40,879 436,486 0 9,997 208,867 714,818 2024 19,939 43,846 461,023 0 10,723 224,031 759,562 2025 21,387 47,030 321,346 0 11,501 240,295 641,559 2026 22,940 50,444 328,056 0 12,336 257,741 671,516 2027 24,605 54,106 337,907 0 13,232 276,453 706,302 2028 26,391 58,034 350,692 0 14,192 296,523 745,832 2029 28,307 62,247 366,260 0 15,223 318,051 790,088 2030 30,362 66,767 384,511 0 16,328 341,141 839,109 2031 32,567 71,614 405,386 0 17,513 365,908 892,987 2032 34,931 76,813 428,863 0 18,785 392,473 951,865 2033 37,467 82,390 454,955 0 20,148 420,966 1,015,927 2034 40,187 88,371 483,703 0 21,611 451,529 1,085,401 2035 43,105 94,787 515,178 0 23,180 484,310 1,160,559 2036 46,234 101,668 549,472 0 24,863 519,470 1,241,708 2037 49,591 109,050 586,706 0 26,668 557,184 1,329,198 2038 53,191 116,967 627,019 0 28,604 597,635 1,423,416 2039 57,053 125,458 670,576 0 30,681 641,024 1,524,792 2040 61,195 134,567 717,561 0 32,908 687,562 1,633,793


83





2041 65,638 144,336 768,181 0 35,297 737,479 1,750,931 2042 70,403 154,815 822,665 0 37,860 791,020 1,876,763 2043 75,514 166,055 881,263 0 40,609 848,448 2,011,888 2044 80,996 178,110 944,250 0 43,557 910,046 2,156,959 2045 86,877 0 1,011,923 0 46,719 976,115 2,121,634 2046 93,184 0 850,468 0 50,111 1,046,981 2,040,743 2047 99,949 0 715,458 0 53,749 1,122,992 1,992,147 2048 107,206 0 602,542 0 57,651 1,204,521 1,971,919 2049 114,989 0 508,084 0 61,836 1,291,969 1,976,878 2050 123,337 0 429,049 0 66,326 1,385,766 2,004,478 2051 132,291 0 362,901 0 71,141 1,486,373 2,052,706 2052 141,895 0 307,520 0 76,306 1,594,283 2,120,005 2053 152,197 0 261,137 0 81,846 1,710,028 2,205,208 2054 163,247 0 222,274 0 87,788 1,834,176 2,307,484 2055 175,098 0 189,695 0 94,161 1,967,337 2,426,292 2056 187,810 0 162,369 0 100,997 2,110,166 2,561,343 2057 201,445 0 139,435 0 108,329 2,263,364 2,712,574 2058 216,070 0 120,171 0 116,194 2,427,684 2,880,120 2059 231,757 0 103,978 0 124,630 2,603,934 3,064,299 2060 248,583 0 90,351 0 133,678 2,792,980 3,265,592 2061 266,630 0 78,872 0 143,383 2,995,750 3,484,635 2062 285,987 0 69,189 0 153,792 3,213,242 3,722,211 2063 306,750 0 61,010 0 164,958 3,446,523 3,979,241 2064 329,020 0 54,090 0 176,934 3,696,741 4,256,784 2065 352,907 0 48,224 0 189,779 3,965,124 4,556,034 2066 378,528 0 43,240 0 203,557 4,252,992 4,878,317 2067 406,009 0 38,997 0 218,335 4,561,759 5,225,100 2068 435,485 0 35,374 0 234,187 4,892,943 5,597,989


84





2069 467,101 0 32,272 0 251,188 5,248,171 5,998,732 2070 501,013 0 29,607 0 269,425 5,629,188 6,429,232 2071 537,386 0 27,310 0 288,985 6,037,867 6,891,548 2072 576,401 0 25,321 0 309,965 6,476,216 7,387,903 2073 618,247 0 23,593 0 332,469 6,946,389 7,920,698 2074 663,132 0 22,084 0 356,606 7,450,697 8,492,519 2075 711,275 0 20,760 0 382,496 7,991,618 9,106,148 2076 762,914 0 19,592 0 410,265 8,571,809 9,764,580 2077 818,302 0 18,557 0 440,050 9,194,122 10,471,031 2078 877,710 0 17,635 0 471,998 9,861,616 11,228,959 2079 941,432 0 16,808 0 506,265 10,577,569 12,042,074 2080 1,009,780 0 16,063 0 543,019 11,345,501 12,914,363 2081 1,083,090 0 15,388 0 582,443 12,169,184 13,850,104 2082 1,161,722 0 14,772 0 624,728 13,052,667 14,853,889 2083 1,246,063 0 14,207 0 670,083 14,000,290 15,930,644 2084 1,336,528 0 13,688 0 718,731 15,016,711 17,085,658 2085 1,433,559 0 13,206 0 770,911 16,106,925 18,324,601 2086 1,537,636 0 12,758 0 826,879 17,276,287 19,653,561 2087 1,649,268 0 12,340 0 886,911 18,530,546 21,079,064 2088 1,769,005 0 11,947 0 951,300 19,875,863 22,608,116 2089 1,897,435 0 11,577 0 1,020,365 21,318,851 24,248,227 2090 2,035,189 0 11,227 0 1,094,443 22,866,600 26,007,458 2091 2,182,943 0 10,895 0 1,173,900 24,526,715 27,894,453 2092 2,341,425 0 10,579 0 1,259,125 26,307,354 29,918,483 2093 2,511,412 0 10,278 0 1,350,538 28,217,268 32,089,496 2094 2,693,741 0 9,990 0 1,448,587 30,265,842 34,418,159 2095 2,889,307 0 9,714 0 1,553,754 32,463,142 36,915,917 2096 3,099,070 0 9,450 0 1,666,557 34,819,966 39,595,043


85





2097 3,324,063 0 9,195 0 1,787,549 37,347,896 42,468,702 2098 3,565,390 0 8,950 0 1,917,325 40,059,353 45,551,017 2099 3,824,237 0 8,714 0 2,056,522 42,967,662 48,857,135 2100 4,101,877 0 8,486 0 2,205,826 46,087,114 52,403,303 2101 4,399,673 0 8,266 0 2,365,969 49,433,039 56,206,947 2102 4,719,089 0 8,054 0 2,537,738 53,021,877 60,286,758 2103 5,061,695 0 7,848 0 2,721,978 56,871,265 64,662,786 2104 5,429,174 0 7,648 0 2,919,594 61,000,119 69,356,535 2105 5,823,332 0 7,455 0 3,131,556 65,428,728 74,391,071 2106 6,246,106 0 7,268 0 3,358,907 70,178,854 79,791,134 2107 6,699,573 0 7,086 0 3,602,764 75,273,838 85,583,261 2108 7,185,962 0 6,910 0 3,864,324 80,738,719 91,795,915 2109 7,707,663 0 6,739 0 4,144,874 86,600,350 98,459,626 2110 8,267,239 0 6,572 0 4,445,792 92,887,536 105,607,139 2111 8,867,441 0 6,411 0 4,768,557 99,631,171 113,273,579 2112 9,511,217 0 6,254 0 5,114,754 106,864,394 121,496,619 2113 10,201,731 0 6,102 0 5,486,085 114,622,749 130,316,667 2114 10,942,377 0 5,954 0 5,884,375 122,944,360 139,777,066 2115 11,736,794 0 5,810 0 6,311,580 131,870,121 149,924,305 2116 12,588,885 0 5,670 0 6,769,801 141,443,891 160,808,247 2117 13,502,838 0 5,534 0 7,261,289 151,712,718 172,482,378 2118 14,483,144 0 5,401 0 7,788,458 162,727,061 185,004,065 2119 15,534,620 0 5,272 0 8,353,900 174,541,046 198,434,839 2120 16,662,434 0 5,147 0 8,960,393 187,212,726 212,840,700


86

Table 21: Total Emissions Changes from Baseline (Metric Tons CO2e)

Year Low Expectation

Medium expectation Targeting SLCP Targetting SLCP - High

expectation 1960 0 0 0 0 1961 0 0 0 0 1962 0 0 0 0 1963 0 0 0 0 1964 0 0 0 0 1965 0 0 0 0 1966 0 0 0 0 1967 0 0 0 0 1968 0 0 0 0 1969 0 0 0 0 1970 0 0 0 0 1971 0 0 0 0 1972 0 0 0 0 1973 0 0 0 0 1974 0 0 0 0 1975 0 0 0 0 1976 0 0 0 0 1977 0 0 0 0 1978 0 0 0 0 1979 0 0 0 0 1980 0 0 0 0 1981 0 0 0 0 1982 0 0 0 0 1983 0 0 0 0 1984 0 0 0 0 1985 0 0 0 0 1986 0 0 0 0 1987 0 0 0 0 1988 0 0 0 0 1989 0 0 0 0 1990 0 0 0 0 1991 0 0 0 0 1992 0 0 0 0 1993 0 0 0 0 1994 0 0 0 0 1995 0 0 0 0 1996 0 0 0 0 1997 0 0 0 0 1998 0 0 0 0 1999 0 0 0 0 2000 0 0 0 0 2001 0 0 0 0


87



expectation 2002 0 0 0 0 2003 0 0 0 0 2004 0 0 0 0 2005 0 0 0 0 2006 0 0 0 0 2007 0 0 0 0 2008 0 0 0 0 2009 0 0 0 0 2010 0 0 0 0 2011 0 0 0 0 2012 0 0 0 0 2013 0 0 0 0 2014 0 0 0 0 2015 0 0 0 0 2016 0 0 0 0 2017 0 0 0 0 2018 -15,820 -29,635 -35,728 -20,050 2019 77,842 -89,793 96,092 127,080 2020 58,502 191,169 -4,888 103,318 2021 41,721 39,170 -136,436 -19,327 2022 27,041 -14,090 -225,500 -315,255 2023 14,075 -34,251 -324,715 -425,089 2024 2,497 -106,001 -356,283 -465,203 2025 35,694 40,124 -221,861 -339,845 2026 32,444 43,363 -232,286 -359,899 2027 29,864 46,724 -244,505 -382,364 2028 27,855 50,239 -258,470 -407,243 2029 26,337 53,939 -274,159 -434,570 2030 25,243 57,850 -291,575 -464,407 2031 24,517 62,002 -310,740 -496,838 2032 24,114 66,421 -331,696 -531,971 2033 23,999 71,136 -354,502 -569,936 2034 24,141 76,174 -379,233 -610,884 2035 24,517 81,566 -405,981 -654,987 2036 25,110 87,339 -434,852 -702,436 2037 25,904 93,526 -465,966 -753,445 2038 26,890 100,160 -499,459 -808,246 2039 28,061 107,275 -535,480 -867,094 2040 29,414 114,908 -574,195 -930,267 2041 30,946 123,098 -615,783 -998,064 2042 32,659 131,885 -660,439 -1,070,812 2043 34,555 141,315 -708,377 -1,148,859 2044 36,640 151,434 -759,826 -1,232,585 2045 229,959 353,334 -623,993 -1,131,354


88



expectation 2046 480,448 612,995 -435,219 -979,679 2047 711,069 853,427 -270,839 -855,075 2048 926,634 1,079,494 -126,360 -753,246 2049 1,131,277 1,295,381 2,005 -670,615 2050 1,328,568 1,504,719 117,456 -604,205


89

Annexure II Table 22: Mapping of number of EDMC Dhalaos as per GPS mapping on grid

Grid ID Dhalao ID Join

Count

Dhalao required (As per CPHEEO guidelines)

Additional Dalhaos required

6 0 0 2 2 7 15 1 2 1 8 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 2 2 17 11, 12 2 4 2 18 13, 14, 108, 109 4 4 0 19 0 0 3 3 20 0 0 1 1 27 0 0 4 4 28 145 1 4 3 29 10, 105,106,107,110,111,112,113,114,119 10 4 30 4, 5,6,7,8,122,123 7 4 31 91 1 4 3 32 0 0 3 3 33 0 0 1 1 38 0 0 2 2 39 139, 140,141,142,143,144 6 4 40 115, 116 , 117, 118, 120,121,155,156 8 4 41 3,9,124,125,126,127,128,129,135,136,137,138,

157 13 4

42 130, 131,132 3 4 1 43 0 0 4 4 44 0 0 2 2 49 98,99,103 3 4 1 50 95, 96 2 4 2 51 32, 97, 146,147,148,158, 6 4 52 89, 134, 149, 150, 151, 152, 154 7 4 53 88, 90, 133, 153 4 4 0 54 0 0 4 4 55 0 0 1 1 59 101 1 4 3 60 104 1 4 3 61 92, 93 2 4 2 62 30, 31, 33, 35, 94 5 4 63 34 1 4 3 64 0 0 3 3


90


Count



65 0 0 1 1 70 44, 102 2 4 2 71 100 1 4 3 72 0 0 4 4 73 0 0 4 4 74 0 0 4 4 81 2, 41, 42, 43 4 4 0 82 40, 45, 46 3 4 1 83 47, 48 2 4 2 84 20 1 4 3 85 19, 21 2 4 2 91 1 1 3 2 92 36, 54, 55 3 4 1 93 38, 39 2 4 2 94 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 37 6 4 95 0 0 4 4 96 18 1 4 3 97 0 0 1 1 101 49, 50, 51, 52, 56, 236 6 2 102 53 1 4 3 103 58 1 4 3 104 57, 63, 64 3 4 1 105 27, 28, 60, 61, 62 5 4 106 29, 65, 66, 67, 70 5 4 107 17, 71, 72, 73, 83, 86 6 4 108 16, 82, 87 3 2 112 0 0 2 2 113 232, 233, 234, 235, 237 5 4 114 59, 221 2 4 2 115 220 1 4 3 116 0 0 4 4 117 68, 74, 75, 183, 184 5 4 118 69, 76, 84, 85, 182 5 4 119 78, 79, 80, 81, 168, 169, 170, 216 8 3 123 231 1 2 1 124 239 1 4 3 125 218, 219, 241 3 4 1 126 240 1 4 3 127 0 0 4 4 128 185, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 203 7 4


91


Count



129 77 , 159, 177, 178, 179,180,181 7 4 130 160,

161,162,165,166,167,171,172,173,174,175,176 12 4

131 0 0 1 1 134 0 0 2 2 135 0 0 4 4 136 238 1 4 3 137 227, 242 2 4 2 138 201, 202, 228 3 4 1 139 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 211, 212 7 4

140 186, 187, 193, 194, 195 5 4 141 163, 164 2 3 1 144 0 0 1 1 145 229 1 3 2 146 0 0 4 4 147 0 0 4 4 148 205, 206, 207, 230 4 4 0 149 208, 209 2 3 1 150 0 0 4 4 151 214 1 4 3 152 213 1 3 2 155 225 1 4 3 156 217, 226 2 4 2 157 0 0 4 4 158 0 0 4 4 159 204 1 3 2 161 0 0 2 2 162 0 0 2 2 163 0 0 2 2 166 0 0 3 3 167 0 0 4 4 168 222, 223 2 4 2 169 210, 215 2 4 2 170 0 0 4 4 177 0 0 2 2 178 0 0 4 4 179 0 0 3 3 180 224 1 3 2 181 0 0 1 1


92


Count



188 0 0 2 2 189 0 0 3 3 199 0 0 1 1 200 0 0 2 2 Total 242 391 216


About TERI

A dynamic and flexible organization with a global vision and a local

focus, TERI was established in 1974, with initial focus on

documentation and information dissemination. Research activities,

initiated towards the end of 1982, were rooted in TERI’s firm

conviction that efficient utilization of energy and sustainable use of

natural resources would propel the process of development.

All activities in TERI, the largest developing-country institution

working towards sustainability, move from formulating local and

national-level strategies to shaping global solutions to critical issues.

Buoyed by more than 43 years of excellence in research and

innovation, TERI is now poised for future growth, driven by a global

vision and outreach, with a philosophy that assigns primacy to

enterprise in government, industry, and individual actions.

Documents

Assessment of the Municipal Solid Waste Management in East ... · East Delhi Municipal Corporation (EDMC) caters to two districts out of 9 districts in Delhi as in 2011, North East