Air Pollution due to Improper Waste Management - Open Burning and Landfill Fires

Contents

1. Emissions of Particulate Matter, Hydrocarbons, and Carbon Monoxide 

2. Carcinogenic Dioxins/Furans Emissions

1. Emissions of Particulate Matter, Hydrocarbons, and Carbon Monoxide 

A 2010 study by the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute, “Air Quality Assessment, Emissions Inventory and Source Apportionment Studies: Mumbai” found out that open burning and landfill fires are a major source of air pollution in Mumbai. The study found that about 2% of the total MSW (Municipal Solid Waste) generated in Mumbai is openly burnt on the streets and 10% of the total MSW generated is burnt in landfills by humans or due to landfill fires.

In Mumbai, open burning of MSW is (Appendix 4, Table 11, Figure 16, Figure 17, Figure 18, Figure 19)

1.      the largest emitter of carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM), carcinogenic hydrocarbons (HC) and nitrous oxides (NO_x), among activities that do not add to the economy of the city;

2.      the second largest emitter of hydrocarbons (HC);

3.      the second largest emitter of particulate matter (PM);

4.      the fourth largest emitter of carbon monoxide compared to all emissions sources in Mumbai; and

5.      the third largest emitter of CO, PM and HC combined together in comparison to all emission sources in the city.

Figure 19, Open burning contributes to 19% of Mumbai’s Air Pollution due to Carbon Monoxide, Hydrocarbons and Particulate Matter

Figure 16, Open burning is a Major Contributor to Carbon Monoxide Pollution in Mumbai  

Status of Current Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Handling Techniques in India

This post is Section 3 from this blog's source and Columbia University's report Sustainable Solid Waste Management in India.

Contents:

1. Summary
2. Aerobic Composting or Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) Facilities
3. Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) facilities
4. Waste-to-energy combustion (WTE) facilities
5. Sanitary Landfills (SLFs)

1. Summary

Out of the 57 cities surveyed, all of them continue uncontrolled dumping to a large extent. However, twenty one (21) cities have reported applying earth cover (how frequently is unknown) to the wastes in the landfills and 24 cities reported compaction and alignment of wastes as opposed to uncontrolled dumping! 

Thirty eight (38) cities have mechanical biological treatment facilities treating more than 4,300 tons per day (TPD) of mixed solid waste, 6 cities have refuse derived fuel (RDF) or Waste-to-Energy (WTE) facilities treating about 1,600 tons per day (TPD) of mixed waste. Small scale biomethanation is practiced in more than 9 cities, but these efforts are generally scattered. They are successful near markets, slaughter houses and other such large sources of separated organic wastes.

Eight (8) cities have constructed sanitary landfills (SLFs). It is important to note that five (5) of them generating less than 1,000 TPD of municipal solid waste (MSW), and three of them generating about 2,000 TPD of MSW. Sanitary landfills (SLFs) in larger cities has proven unsuccessful and cities generating less than 500 TPD do not have enough resources to build and maintain SLFs. A regional facility model suggested by MOUD should be followed to make a SLF a reality when it comes to those cities.

Three (3) cities: Mumbai, Pune and Agra are known to be carrying out landfill gas (LFG) recovery, even though Mumbai's landfill where the LFG recovery operation is taking place was an open dump and not a sanitary landfill as it is in Pune and Agra.

Advice to Thiruvananthapuram might not help alleviate the city's looming solid waste crisis

The original post is on blog.wtert.org

This is a response to an article published by FirstPost.com with the title "Thiruvananthapuram sinks in its own waste as rulers look for shortcuts" on October 16, 2012.


Public protests - The Hindu

This critique is not about the conceptual or factual validity of the article but it is to distinguish between the short-term and long-term priorities and solutions for the city. In the absence of such a distinction, various stakeholders with the same goal of solving the crisis and with correct models will end up debating ideals and fighting within each other, finally doing no good to the city.

While depicting the situation as: 

When the residents of Vilappilsaala said "no more garbage" to their neighbourhood, the corporation, which is used to an archaic collect-transport-dump routine, didn’t know what to do. They just stopped garbage collection and it started piling up everywhere. The city is putrid today.

FirstPost suggests a 4-step approach (edited for brevity)

1. Ask the city residents to mandatorily separate waste at source. Once recyclables and organic matter are removed, only about 20 per cent needs to be dumped in a sanitary landfill. 

2. Once the source-segregation is made mandatory, the city corporation can collect both the recyclables door-to-door (women-run self help groups have been doing this). Engage scrap dealers to whom the materials can be sold.

3. The bio-degradable materials can be collected door-to-door and used in compost facilities at several locations in the city.

4. The remaining 20% of waste need to be disposed off in landfills.

Thiruvananthapuram - Deccan Chronicle

The 4-step advise can be followed if the City can get over the current crisis. For whatever reason, if it fails to do so, the crisis will continue like in Campania, Italy. In that case, Firstpost's advise will provide some relief but not real solutions. Therefore, it is irrelevant to the article's subject line. Let me explain how:
The subject line and the article speak about the imminent solid waste crisis in Thiruvananthapuram, but the solution suggested is not a process but a future state that should be achieved. To achieve such a state, the suggested components should evolve together with gradually increasing infrastructure, changing social habits and the city's institutional and financial abilities. Such a change cannot be brought in with sudden interventions in a short span of time.