Sadhan Kumar Ghosh

Ulhas V. Parlikar
Kåre Helge Karstensen

Sustainable
Management
of Wastes Through
Co-processing
Sustainable Management of Wastes Through
Co-processing
Sadhan Kumar Ghosh · Ulhas V. Parlikar ·
Kåre Helge Karstensen

Sustainable Management
of Wastes Through
Co-processing
Sadhan Kumar Ghosh Ulhas V. Parlikar
Department of Mechanical Engineering Ex. Geocycle India
International Society of Waste Mumbai, India
Management, Air and Water (ISWMAW),
Jadavpur University
Kolkata, West Bengal, India

Kåre Helge Karstensen

SINTEF
Oslo, Norway

ISBN 978-981-16-6072-6 ISBN 978-981-16-6073-3 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-6073-3

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse
of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar
or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721,
Singapore
“Sustainable Management of Wastes through
Co-processing”
is globally the first comprehensive book on
Co-processing.
This book is being dedicated to
Mrs. Pranati Ghosh, beloved wife
of Prof Sadhan K Ghosh,
Mrs. Rashmi Parlikar, beloved wife
of Mr. Ulhas V. Parlikar,
Mrs. Eilen Henningsen, beloved wife
of Dr. Kåre Helge. Karstensen,
who have been constant support &
inspiration while writing the book
and
to the researchers, academia, policy makers,
engineers, designers, cement plant operators,
municipal administration, cement industries
involved in co-processing, cement
manufacturers Associations, other related
stakeholders, waste management agencies,
AFR traders, pre-processing agencies,
analytical testing laboratories who all
participate in the act of co-processing and
also to the whole of the civil society who get
benefited by the act of co-processing
Preface

Alternative fuels and raw materials (AFR) from waste can play an important role
in contributing towards reducing the use of fossil fuel and costs while conserving
natural resources, lowering global CO2 emissions, and reducing the need for landfills.
The use of AFR in resource and energy intensive industries is called co-processing.
Emission reductions from co-processing AFs are dependent on the emissions factor
and biomass content. Agricultural residues and biomass residues such as waste wood,
rice husks, dried sewage sludge or animal meal and other fuels with high biogenic
carbon content can be considered as carbon neutral. AFs derived from waste materials
such as waste oil and non-recyclable plastics have varying emissions values, which
are usually lower than traditional fossil fuels. Increasingly, fuels are used which
contain both fossil and biogenic carbon, e.g., pre-treated industrial wastes, waste
tires, or RDF from MSW which contains biogenic carbon.
Co-processing in cement kilns is a technology that is practiced globally on large
scale for environmentally sound and ecologically sustaining management of wastes
from agricultural, industrial, and municipal sources. Although co-processing may
also be carried out in other energy & resource intensive industries like power gener-
ating plants, steel plants, refractory, lime, etc., it is widely practiced in cement plants
due to versatility of the cement kiln operation in utilizing wastes.
Considerable amount of scientific and technological advancements have been put
in place while developing and implementing this technology at the cement plant oper-
ational scales. This technology is in practice for about 40 years or so and has been
recommended by Basel Convention for the sustainable management of Hazardous
wastes and by the Stockholm Convention for the sustainable management of persis-
tent organic pollutants (POPs). Co-processing promotes mitigation of the climate
change impacts and also conservation of the natural capital in addition to building
circular economy on large scale with a potential to provide large scale employ-
ment. Co-processing is an energy and material recovery process and addresses the
issues related to sustainable management of industrial wastes. In cement kiln, the
combustible portion of the waste gets used as fuel and the non-combustible portion
gets used as the raw material leaving nothing to be disposed in landfill or any other

vii
viii Preface

option of treatment. The combustible portion replaces the fossil fuels and the non-
combustible portion (Ash) replaces the raw materials such as Calcium, Aluminium,
Silica, and Iron. Due to high temperature, long residence time and alkaline environ-
ment present in cement kilns, the environmental impact of the waste management in
cement kilns is negligible.
Co-processing technology has been encouraged in some countries incorporating
in national policies, strategies, and programmes. Co-processing technology has been
included in the waste management rules notified by the government of India in the
year 2016 as a preferred option for wastes management over the conventional options
of incineration and landfill. The regulatory framework for co-processing and their
subsequent amendments have been established in several countries, namely European
countries, Australia, Brazil, China, India, Japan, South Africa, and United States.
The understanding and awareness of the stakeholders belonging to the academic and
other relevant sections is increasing at a slower rate which needs to be accelerated.
Number of researchers and research publications on co-processing in a few coun-
tries in Asia, Europe, and USA is increasing though more research efforts have to
be encouraged. To be more specific, research on co-processing and associated publi-
cations is found concentrated mainly in Austria, China, Germany, India, Japan, and
Norway. The understanding of co-processing technology is found to be very limited
within the stakeholders involved in various aspects, namely a) the implementation
of the policy framework, b) design and engineering of the waste processing facilities
to suit the co-processing operation, c) environmental consideration in implementing
co-processing, and d) operation and management of the cement plant, quality and
parameter controls, safety, etc. A huge potential of co- processing of waste exists
worldwide. The stronger national legislation will make the co-processing widening
the scopes in the countries.
Globally, co-processing in cement kilns is in practice for more than four decades
for utilizing a large quantum of hazardous and non-hazardous waste. The cement kilns
in Austria and Germany manage over 70% of their fuel requirement derived from co-
processing AFRs. Almost entire quantum of organic hazardous waste generated in
Norway is co-processed in the cement kilns. Cement kiln co-processing technology
has the advantage that barring a few waste materials which are termed as “banned
items”, most of all the possible waste materials can be co-processed in a sustainable
manner with 100% material recovery and 100% energy recovery. Co-processing is
fully aligned to the concept of waste management hierarchy and circular economy.
In the current requirement of resource efficiency improvement, co-processing has
opportunity to play a substantially large role.
Municipal Solid Waste Incinerators with waste to energy (WtE) normally involves
generation of heat and electricity. The conversion efficiency to electricity in WtE
plants is poor and will usually not recover the construction costs. WtE-plants are
expensive to build and operate; they represent an additional emission source and
produce large amounts of residues (exit gas scrubbing residues, fly ash, bottom
ash, etc.) that need to be treated and landfilled. Incineration of wet wastes in the
rainy season is another challenge, which causes difficult burning conditions and
often results in elevated emissions. Countries with cement industry may to a certain
Preface ix

degree forego building expensive WtE’s/incineration plants. The cement kilns are
already in operation and may increase the waste treatment capacity significantly if
integrated into the waste management strategy. They are usually cost-efficient and do
not produce any residues that needs disposal. Cement kilns have proven to be effective
means of recovering value from waste materials and co-processing in cement kilns
is now an integral component in the spectrum of viable options for treating several
waste categories, practised in developed countries for the last four decades.
Presently, the two cement plants in Norway replace more than 75% of its coal with
waste and this has been the only treatment option for disposal of organic hazardous
wastes in Norway for the last 30 years—a dedicated incinerator for hazardous wastes
was never built. This practice has been cost-effective, resource-efficient, and environ-
mentally sound compared to incineration. The energy utilization efficiency is much
better than in an Incinerator with WtE—and no residues are produced, compared to
around 30% in a WtE.
This book entitled Sustainable Management of Wastes through Co-processing is
the first comprehensive book on Co-processing as there is possibly no book available
in the world covering all aspects of co-processing. To the best of our understanding,
no specific book could be found that is written on the subject of co-processing
which could serve the need of all the relevant stakeholders related to sustainable
management of wastes. There are a few guidelines brought out by different agencies
such as UNEP, GIZ, HOLCIM, CPCB, WBCSD, and CSI on the subject of co-
processing. A publication has been brought out by Dr. Dirk Lechtenberg and Dr.
Hansjorg Diller with the title “Handbook of Alternative Fuels and Raw materials for
cement and lime industries” which covers aspects related to different AFR materials.
This book consists of fifteen chapters divided into six sections given in the
following table. The book covers all the aspects of co-processing of wastes in cement
plants. It presents a collection of comprehensive relevant definitions relevant to co-
processing taken from different sources, presents a status review of research carried
out on co-processing, cement chemistry, theories and practices on cement manu-
facturing, pre-processing and co-processing, different guidelines, legislation, AFR,
operations management and emission considerations, plants and equipment, Busi-
ness Models, Case studies from significant co-processing operators in India, global
scenario, Growth and Advocacy. The book has an appendix for search at the end.
More than 100 references in each chapter.
The summary of contents in each of the chapters has been given in Chap. 1.

Section I Introducing the subject

1 Introduction
2 Terms and Definition related to Co-processing of waste in cement
kiln
Section II Literature Review
3 Status Review of Research on Co-Processing
Section III Cement: Theory, Production Technology, and operations
x Preface

4 Cement manufacturing—Technology, Practice, and Development

5 Fundamentals of Cement Chemistry, Operations, and Quality
Control
Section IV Co-processing: Guidelines, Sustainability, and Legislation
6 Guidelines on Pre-processing and Co-processing of AFRs—Inter-
national Best Practices
7 Sustainability Considerations in Cement manufacturing and Co-
processing
8 Waste Management rules in India and other countries focusing on
co-processing
Section V Co-processing, Pre-processing and AFR in cement kiln: Operations,
maintenance, and Emission controls
9 Emission Considerations in Cement Kiln co-processing
10 Co-processing of wastes as AFRs in cement kilns
11 Pre-processing of Wastes into AFRs
12 Operational Considerations in Co-processing
Section VI Co-processing: Business Models, Case studies, global scenario,
Growth, and Advocacy
13 Case Studies and business models in Pre- and co-processing
14 Global Status of Co-processing
15 Journey of the Growth of Co-processing in India

A major gap in the knowledge on co-processing and its associated aspects has been
observed among the policy makers, cement plant operators, engineers, designers,
researchers, academia, and as a whole in the civil society while co-processing should
be evolved as the best energy and materials recovery option with zero residue for
waste management in cement kilns. Co-processing is an important technology for
the sustainable management of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes derived out of
Municipal, Industrial and Agricultural sources and it needs to be studied in universi-
ties, colleges, and schools as a course subject of waste management, Environmental
Science, Environmental Engineering, Civil Engineering, Chemical Engineering, and
Sustainability engineering, etc. Robust endeavour is essential to carry out quality
research on co-processing and allied areas by the researchers and funding support
for the research by the industry and the government. More international cooperation
is required for strengthening the co-processing system, technology, strategies, and
implementation. This book has been developed with an objective to fulfil these needs.
The book has been written in simple and lucid language focusing the target
audience, namely researchers, academia, policy makers, cement plant operators,
engineers, designers, municipal administration, cement industries involved in co-
processing, cement manufacturers Association, other related stakeholders, waste
management agencies, AFR traders, pre-processing agencies, and as a whole in the
civil society. The book will also be helpful for the waste suppliers for cement plants
Preface xi

involved in Co-processing. The book will be helpful for the researchers, students who
work on resource efficiency, circular economy, waste management, policy making,
environment management and engineering and in allied areas of academic fields.
This book will also serve as a reference book/course book to the students world-
wide studying Environmental Science, Environmental Engineering, Civil Engi-
neering, Chemical Engineering and Sustainability to learn the concept and business
associated with cement kiln co-processing for sustainable management of waste
materials. The book will be a treasure for the libraries.
We are hopeful that the book will be helpful for the readers and enhance the
sustainability in waste management sectors through co-processing of AFRs.

Kolkata, India Sadhan Kumar Ghosh

Mumbai, India Ulhas V. Parlikar
Trondheim, Norway Kåre Helge Karstensen
2021
Acknowledgements

We express our gratitude to the following organizations and individuals who

supported during the preparation of the book.
Cement Manufacturers Association (CMA)
Centre for Sustainable Development & Resource
Efficiency Management, Jadavpur University
CII (GBC),
Consortium of Researchers in International
Cooperation (CRIC),
CPCB, New Delhi
Geocycle India,
GIZ,
Prof. S. P. Gautam, Ex-Chairman CPCB,
Dr. B. Sengupta and J. S. Kamyotra,
Ex-Member Secretary, CPCB.
Hardik Shah, IAS, Ex-MS, GPCB,
V. J. Anantharaman, Ex Director, D. I. Ltd.,
Monika Srivastava (Ms.), Srinivas Raju, ACC Ltd. K Ananth, K. Muralikrishnan, V.
Kannan, CII(GBC),
Ravi Chikatmala, JSW
International Society of Waste Management, Air and Water (ISWMAW)
ISWMAW-IconSWM
Holcim,
Jadavpur University
M/s. Springer India Pvt. Ltd
Quality Management Consultants
The Royal Norwegian Embassy, New Delhi
SINTEF, Norway
TERI, New Delhi
Moumita Chakraborty (Ms.), Jean Pierre Degre, Ramesh Suri, Berthold Kren, Axel
Peters and Deepak Ahuja, of Geocycle Ltd.

xiii
xiv Acknowledgements

Milind Murumkar, Ex-Bharati Vicat Ltd.

Dr. S. B. Hegde, Pennsylvania State University.
Dr. Sannidhya Kumar Ghosh, UCB, USA.
Dr. J. D. Bapat, Consultant.
K. N. Rao, Consultant.
Cement industries and Equipment and System Suppliers for sharing details of
their growth journey in co-processing through case studies, details description of
equipment and systems for inclusion in this book for better understanding by the
readers.
ACC Limited, India,
Ambuja Cement Ltd, India
ATS, France,
BEIL, India,
Dalmia Cement Ltd., India
GEPIL, India,
HIRAOKA, Japan,
J K Cement Ltd., India,
JSW Cement Ltd., India,
J K Lakshmi Cement Ltd., India
KHD Germany,
Loesche, Germany,
My home Industries Ltd., India Schenck Process, UK,
Sanghavi Engineering Pvt. Ltd., India
VICAT India,
VIMTA, India,
All researchers, friends, and others who helped directly or indirectly in preparing
this book.

Sadhan Kumar Ghosh

Contents

Part I Introducing the Subject

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1 Backdrop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1.1 Sustainable Development and Waste
Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2 Co-processing in 70 and 80s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.3 Co-processing in 90s Until 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.4 Co-processing in Post 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.5 National Rules, Regulations, Standards Supporting
Co-processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.6 Criteria for the Success of an Alternative Fuel Project . . . . . . . . 11
1.7 The Structure of This Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2 Terms and Definition Related to Co-processing of Waste
in Cement Kiln . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.2 Materials-Related Terms and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.3 Process and System-Related Terms and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.3.1 Legal and Permission-Related Terms
and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.4 Infrastructure-Related Terms and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.5 Stakeholder-Related Terms and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Part II Literature Review

3 Status Review of Research on Co-processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.2 Feedstock and Raw Materials for Co-processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.2.1 Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

xv
xvi Contents

3.2.2 Spent Pot Liner Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

3.2.3 Hazardous Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3.2.4 Biomass Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3.2.5 Tyre Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.2.6 Summary of Energy Available From Different
Waste Streams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3.3 Guiding Principles for Co-processing of Waste in Cement
Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.4 Previous Research on Co-processing and Allied Fields . . . . . . . . 47
3.5 Co-processing Supply Chain Issues and Challenges . . . . . . . . . . 58
3.6 Sustainable Development and Sustainability Index
of Recovery (SIR) of Different Waste Treatment
Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
3.7 Scopes of Co-processing in the Indian Cement Industry . . . . . . . 64
3.8 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Part III Cement: Theory, Production Technology and Operations

4 Cement Manufacturing—Technology, Practice,
and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
4.2 Main Process Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
4.2.1 Quarrying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
4.2.2 Raw Materials Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
4.2.3 Fuel Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
4.2.4 Manufacturing of Cement Clinker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
4.2.5 Cement Grinding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
4.2.6 Cement Dispatch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
4.3 Characteristics of Material Used in Cement Production . . . . . . . 78
4.3.1 Raw Mix Constituents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
4.3.2 Usage of Fuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
4.4 Different Cement Manufacturing Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
4.4.1 The Dry Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
4.4.2 The Semi-Dry Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
4.4.3 The Semi-Wet Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
4.4.4 The Wet Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
4.4.5 Vertical Shaft Kiln . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
4.5 Kiln Exhaust Gases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
4.6 Fuel Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
4.7 Preparation of Pozzolanic and Mineral Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
4.8 Specific Features of Cement Production Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
4.9 Cement Production in Developing Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Contents xvii

5 Fundamentals of Cement Chemistry, Operations, and Quality

Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
5.2 Replacement of Conventional Materials with AFRs . . . . . . . . . . 93
5.3 Chemical Analysis Associated in Cement Manufacture . . . . . . . 93
5.4 Cement Chemistry and Manufacturing Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
5.4.1 Raw Mix Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
5.4.2 Raw Meal to Clinker Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
5.4.3 Clinker Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
5.4.4 Alumina Modulus AM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
5.4.5 Silica Modulus SM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
5.4.6 Lime Saturation Factor (LSF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
5.4.7 Hydraulic Modulus (HM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
5.4.8 Bogue’s Formula for Cement Constituents . . . . . . . . . 99
5.5 Operational Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
5.5.1 Degree of Calcination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
5.5.2 Loss on Ignition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
5.5.3 % Liquid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
5.5.4 Sulphur to Alkali Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
5.5.5 Free Lime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
5.5.6 Excess Sulphur (Gm SO3 / 100 Gm Clinker) . . . . . . . . 102
5.5.7 Blending Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
5.5.8 Ash Absorption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
5.5.9 Kiln Feed to Clinker Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
5.5.10 Clinker to Cement Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
5.5.11 Insoluble Residue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
5.5.12 Volumetric Loading of Kiln . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
5.5.13 Thermal Loading of Kiln . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
5.5.14 Feed Moisture Evaporation Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
5.5.15 False Air Estimation O2 Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
5.5.16 % Excess Air . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
5.6 Thermal Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
5.7 Burner Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
5.8 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Part IV Co-processing: Guidelines, Sustainability and

Legislation
6 Guidelines on Pre-processing and Co-processing
of AFRs—International Best Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
6.2 Important Operational Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
6.3 Waste Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
6.4 Waste Collection, Handling, and Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
xviii Contents

6.5 Waste Reception and Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

6.5.1 Management of Non-Compliant Deliveries . . . . . . . . . 121
6.5.2 Analysing Incoming Wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
6.5.3 Reception and Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
6.5.4 Labelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
6.6 Waste Pre-Treatment and Pre-Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
6.6.1 Types of AFRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
6.6.2 Pre-Processing of AFRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
6.6.3 Segregation of Waste Types for Safe Processing . . . . . 125
6.6.4 General Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
6.6.5 Waste Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
6.6.6 Best Available Techniques (BAT) and Best
Environmental Practice (BEP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
6.6.7 Co-processing of AFRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
6.6.8 Cement Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
6.6.9 Emission Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
6.6.10 Test Burn and Performance Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
7 Sustainability Considerations in Cement Manufacturing
and Co-processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
7.2 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
7.3 Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
7.4 CSI and Low-Carbon Technology Road (LCTR) Map . . . . . . . . 145
7.5 GCCA and Getting Numbers Right . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
7.6 Carbon Footprint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
7.6.1 Scope 1 Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
7.6.2 Scope 2 Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
7.6.3 Scope 3 Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
7.7 Conservation of Natural Resources and Circular Economy . . . . 152
7.8 Reduction in Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
7.9 Water Conservation and Harvesting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
7.10 Plastic Packaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
7.11 Biodiversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
7.12 Challenges Faced in Implementing Sustainability
Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
7.13 Sustainability and Co-processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
7.14 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
8 Waste Management Rules in India and Other Countries
Focussing on Co-processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
8.2 Environmental Regulation and Legal Framework
in India—Constitutional Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
Contents xix

8.3 Indian Legislative Framework Related to Environmental

Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
8.4 Important Acts Related to Environment and Co-processing . . . . 160
8.4.1 The Indian Factories Act 1948 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
8.4.2 The Water Act 1974 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
8.4.3 The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
8.4.4 The Air Act 1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
8.4.5 Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (EPA) . . . . . . . . . 162
8.4.6 Motor Vehicle Act 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
8.4.7 Public Liability Insurance Act (PLIA), 1991 . . . . . . . . 163
8.4.8 National Environment Tribunal Act, 1995 . . . . . . . . . . 163
8.4.9 The National Environmental Appellate
Authority Act, 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
8.5 Important Rules Related to Environment
and Co-processing in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
8.5.1 Hazardous and Other Waste (Management
and Trans-Boundary Movement) Rules, 2016 . . . . . . . 164
8.5.2 Plastic Waste Management Rules 2016 . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
8.5.3 Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
8.6 Environment Policy Framework of India and Option
of Co-processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
8.7 Co-processing Related Documents Published by Different
Agencies Internationally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
8.8 Recognition of Co-processing by Different Global Bodies . . . . . 168
8.8.1 UNEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
8.8.2 SINTEF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
8.8.3 GIZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
8.8.4 ADEME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
8.8.5 MOEFCC, Government of India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
8.8.6 Five-Year Plan on Ecology and Environment
Protection, China Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
8.9 Co-processing Related Regulations in Different Countries . . . . . 170
8.9.1 European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
8.9.2 Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
8.9.3 United States of America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
8.9.4 Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
8.9.5 South Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
8.9.6 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
8.10 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
xx Contents

Part V Co-processing, Pre-processing and AFR in Cement Kiln:

Operations, Maintenance and Emission Controls
9 Emission Considerations in Cement Kiln Co-processing . . . . . . . . . . 179
9.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
9.2 Different Kinds of Emissions Encountered During
Thermal Treatment of Fossil Fuels and Wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
9.2.1 Particulate Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
9.2.2 Acidic Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
9.2.3 GHG Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
9.2.4 VOC Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
9.2.5 Heavy Metal Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
9.2.6 Dioxin and Furan Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
9.2.7 Other Toxic Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
9.3 Description of the Cement Kiln Co-processing Operation . . . . . 187
9.4 Impact of Co-processing on the Emissions
from the Cement Kiln . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
9.5 Monitoring of the Emissions from the Cement Kiln . . . . . . . . . . 189
9.6 Notified Emission Standards for the Cement Kilns
in Different Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
9.7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
10 Co-processing of Wastes as AFRs in Cement Kilns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
10.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
10.2 Co-processing of Wastes as AFRs in the Cement Kilns . . . . . . . 197
10.3 Cement Kiln Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
10.4 Important Aspects in Respect of Co-processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
10.4.1 TSR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
10.4.2 AFR/Waste Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
10.5 Salient Features of Cement Kiln Co-processing
Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
10.5.1 Zero Waste Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
10.5.2 Kiln Emissions are Not Influenced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
10.5.3 Acidic Gases Get Absorbed in the Calcined
Lime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
10.5.4 Dioxins and Furans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
10.5.5 Heavy Metals Get Fixed in the Clinker . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
10.5.6 High Efficiency in Material and Energy
Recycling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
10.5.7 Reduction in Global Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
10.5.8 Local and Cheaper Solution for the Local
Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
10.6 Different Kinds of Wastes Suitable for Co-processing . . . . . . . . 203
10.6.1 Municipal Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
10.6.2 Industrial Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
Contents xxi

10.6.3 Agricultural Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

10.7 Items Which Cannot/Should Not Be Co-processed . . . . . . . . . . . 207
10.7.1 Items that Can Be Co-Processed Only After
Pre-processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
10.7.2 Items that Cannot Be Pre-Processed
or Co-processed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
10.8 Typical Examples of AFRs and Their Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
10.9 Important Considerations for Smooth and Successful
Co-processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
10.9.1 Pre-Processing of Wastes into AFRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
10.9.2 Monitoring and Control of AFRs While
Co-processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
10.9.3 Emission Monitoring During Co-processing . . . . . . . . 210
10.9.4 Permissions for Co-processing of Wastes . . . . . . . . . . . 210
10.10 Principles of Co-processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
10.11 Co-processing Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
10.11.1 Receipt of Waste/AFR Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
10.11.2 Quality Assessment of Incoming Waste/AFR
Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
10.11.3 Storage of Waste/AFR Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
10.11.4 Pre-Processing of the AFR Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
10.11.5 Feeding the AFR Material into Kiln
for Co-processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
10.11.6 Flow Schemes for Co-processing of AFRs
with Different Feeding Arrangements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
10.12 Other Relevant Considerations in Co-processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
10.12.1 Statutory Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
10.12.2 Liability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
10.12.3 Sustainability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
10.13 Challenges Faced in Co-processing of AFRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
10.13.1 Specifications and Availability of the AFR
Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
10.13.2 Increase in the Specific Thermal Energy
Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
10.13.3 Impact on the Emissions from the Kiln . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
10.13.4 Coating in the Preheater Section of the Kiln . . . . . . . . 240
10.14 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
11 Pre-processing of Wastes into AFRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
11.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
11.2 Permitting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
11.3 Unit Operations in Pre-processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
11.3.1 Size Reduction or Shredding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
11.3.2 Drying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
xxii Contents

11.3.3 Impregnation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253

11.3.4 Bailing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
11.3.5 Segregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
11.3.6 Blending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
11.4 Waste Acceptance Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
11.5 Salient Features of the AFR Pre-processing Facility . . . . . . . . . . 257
11.5.1 Entry Gate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
11.5.2 Weigh Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
11.5.3 Laboratory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
11.5.4 Storage Shed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
11.5.5 Pre-processing Plant and Machinery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
11.5.6 Environmental and Safety Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
11.6 Other Pre-processing Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
11.7 Production of Alternative Fuels by Pre-processing
and Supply to Cement Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262
11.8 Pre-processing of Different Kinds of Wastes into AFRs . . . . . . . 262
11.8.1 Pre-processing of Solid Wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
11.8.2 Pre-processing of Sludges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
11.9 Management of Drums and Other Packaging Types . . . . . . . . . . 268
11.10 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
12 Operational Considerations in Co-processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
12.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
12.2 Operational Guidelines for Co-processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
12.2.1 Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
12.2.2 Legal Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
12.2.3 Acceptance Process of Wastes and AFRs . . . . . . . . . . . 272
12.2.4 Manpower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
12.2.5 Operation and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
12.2.6 Emergency Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
12.2.7 External Communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273
12.2.8 Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273
12.2.9 Material Receipt and Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273
12.2.10 Material Handling and Feeding Systems . . . . . . . . . . . 273
12.2.11 Material of Non-Compliant Deliveries . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
12.2.12 Quality Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
12.2.13 Process Control for AFRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
12.2.14 Management of the Co-processing Activity . . . . . . . . . 275
12.3 Technical Considerations for Successful Co-processing . . . . . . . 275
12.3.1 Raw Mix Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275
12.3.2 Alkalis, SO3 , and Chloride Balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276
12.3.3 Chlorine Limits in Clinker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278
12.3.4 Fuel Mix Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278
12.3.5 Burner Momentum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
Contents xxiii

12.3.6 Odour Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280

12.3.7 Occupational Health Hazards and Safety
Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
12.4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283

Part VI Co-processing: Business Models, Case Studies, Global

Scenario, Growth and Advocacy
13 Case Studies and Business Models in Pre and Co-processing . . . . . . 287
13.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
13.2 Economic Parameters Utilized in Co-processing Business . . . . . 287
13.2.1 Production Cost of Clinker Manufacture . . . . . . . . . . . 288
13.2.2 Transport Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288
13.2.3 Gate/Tipping Fee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
13.2.4 Price of AFR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
13.2.5 Savings from Use of AFR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
13.2.6 Cost of the Pre-processing Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
13.2.7 Cost of the Co-processing Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
13.3 Principles of AFR Business . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290
13.4 Concepts Related to Costs, Prices, and Viability of Use
of AFRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
13.4.1 Cost of Natural Raw Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
13.4.2 Cost of Natural Fuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
13.4.3 Operation and Management Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
13.4.4 Resource Replacement Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292
13.5 Business Models with Pre-processing and Co-processing . . . . . 296
13.5.1 Business Model—Elementary Co-processing
Facility for Solid AFRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296
13.5.2 Business Model—Elementary Pre-processing
and Co-processing Facility for Solid AFRs . . . . . . . . . 298
13.5.3 Business Model—Mechanized Co-processing
Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301
13.5.4 Business Model—Mechanized Pre-processing
and Co-processing Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304
13.5.5 Co-processing Facility for Liquid AFRs . . . . . . . . . . . . 308
13.5.6 Co-processing of Alternative Raw Materials
Through Raw Meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310
13.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311
Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312
14 Global Status of Co-processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313
14.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313
14.2 Status of Co-processing in Cement Industry in Different
Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314
14.2.1 Country Average TSR% of Different Countries . . . . . 314
xxiv Contents

14.2.2 Volume of Alternative Fuels Co-processed

by Different Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315
14.2.3 Additional Evaluations on the Global Status
of Co-processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316
14.3 Country Specific Status on Co-processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318
14.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321
15 Journey of the Growth of Co-processing in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323
15.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323
15.2 Stakeholder Engagement and Policy Advocacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324
15.2.1 Stakeholder Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324
15.2.2 Policy Advocacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326
15.3 Journey—2003–2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328
15.4 Journey 2008–2020 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332
15.4.1 Demonstration of Co-processing Technology
for the Sustainable Management of Wastes . . . . . . . . . 332
15.4.2 Stakeholder Awareness and Advocacy
Initiatives on Co-processing Technology . . . . . . . . . . . 336
15.4.3 Notification of Rules, Emission Standards,
Monitoring Protocol, and Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 346
15.4.4 Status of Co-processing in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347
15.5 Case Studies of Cement Companies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347
15.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 360
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 360

Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373
About the Authors

Prof. Dr. Sadhan Kumar Ghosh having all degrees up

to Ph.D. (Engg.) from Jadavpur University, is Professor
in Mechanical Engineering and Chief Coordinator &
Founder of, Centre for Sustainable Development and
Resource Efficiency Management at Jadavpur Univer-
sity, India. He served as Dean, Faculty of Engineering
and Technology at JU, and Director, CBWE, Ministry
of Labour and Employment, Government of India, and
Larsen & Toubro Ltd. He is a renowned personality in
the fields of waste management, circular economy, green
manufacturing, supply chain management, sustainable
development, co-processing of hazardous and MSW
in cement kiln, plastic waste and E-waste manage-
ment and recycling, management system standards
(ISO), and TQM having three patents approved. He is
Founder Chairman of the IconSWM; Founder and Pres-
ident, International Society of Waste Management, Air
and Water (ISWMAW); and Chairman, Consortium of
Researchers in International Collaboration (CRIC). He
received several awards in India and abroad including the
distinguished visiting fellowship by the Royal Academy
of Engineering, UK. He wrote 9 books, 52 edited
volumes, and more than 230 national and interna-
tional articles and chapters and is Associate Editor of
IJMC&WM. His significant contribution has been able
to place the name of Jadavpur University in the world
map of research on waste management. He is consul-
tant and international expert of UNCRD/DESA; Asian
Productivity Organization; China Productivity Council;
SACEP, Sri Lanka; IGES, Japan; SINTEF, Norway, etc.
His research funding as PI includes EU Horizon 2020,

xxv
xxvi About the Authors

Erasmus +, UKIERI, DST, DBT, GCRF UK, Royal

Academy of Engineering, Georgia Government, Jute
Technology Mission, and many other funding agencies.
He is involved in policy making bodies in India and
standard development in ISO and BIS.

Mr. Ulhas V. Parlikar is Chemical Engineer with

B. Tech from Osmania University and M. Tech from
IIT Madras. He has also undergone the Senior Manage-
ment Training Program (2010) and Senior Leadership
Training Program (2012) from IMD, Switzerland. He
has a total of 36 years of experience in Hindustan Lever
Ltd, National Peroxide Ltd, & ACC Limited and has
handled different responsibilities such as R&D, Process
Engineering, Project Management, Business Develop-
ment, Technology Collaborations, apart from building a
large Geocycle (AFR) Business organization in ACC. He
superannuated as Director of geocycle business at ACC
Ltd. and Deputy Head of Geocycle India. Currently, he
is extending consultancy services globally in the area
of waste management, circular economy, policy advo-
cacy, alternative fuels and raw materials (AFR), and
co-processing. He successfully promoted the concept
of co-processing in the Indian cement industry in the
capacity of being Chairman of this initiative of Confed-
eration of Indian Industries (CII) and successfully led the
policy advocacy drive for the inclusion of co-processing
as a preferred option for waste management in Indian
policy framework. He has served as Member of many
strategic committees of Holcim, ACC, and Geocycle
and also as an expert on committees constituted by
CPCB and Government of India. He has published >30
papers in national and international journals of repute
with scientists, academicians, and officers of CPCB and
SPCBs as co-authors. He has also served as Expert
Member in drafting the Technology Roadmap Low-
Carbon Technology for the Indian Cement Industry that
was published by IEA and WBCSD.
About the Authors xxvii

Dr. Kåre Helge Karstensen received his Bachelor

and Master of Science from the University of Oslo,
Faculty of Natural and Mathematical Sciences, Depart-
ment of Chemistry, and his Doctor of Philosophy from
the Norwegian University of Science and Technology
(NTNU), Faculty of Natural Sciences and Technology,
Department of Chemistry. He is Chief Scientist at
the Foundation of Scientific and Industrial Research
(SINTEF) in Norway. SINTEF is one of the leading
research organizations in Europe with more than 2000
employees from 75 countries. He has been working
globally with circular economy, resource optimiza-
tion, waste management, emission reduction, and co-
processing for more than thirty years and is regarded
to be a pioneer in the use of high-temperature cement
kilns for management of hazardous wastes. He has tested
and documented the feasibility of using cement kilns
for environmentally sound destruction of hazardous
organic chemicals like toxic pesticides, various persis-
tent organic pollutants like DDT and PCBs, as well as
ozone-depleting CFC gases. He has been instrumental
in developing regulatory frameworks and guidelines
for numerous governments, industries, and international
organizations. He has been assisting leading interna-
tional industry in raising their performance and sustain-
ability benchmark. He has extensive experience from
Asia and initiated and implemented co-processing prac-
tice in several Asian countries. He is Adjunct Faculty at
Asian Institute of Technology in the period 2006–2016,
where he is still active in research. He has published
crucial R&D findings on the possibilities and limita-
tions of co-processing in key scientific and technical
journals with more than 120 peer-reviewed publica-
tions, books and chapters, >400 scientific reports, and
>300 oral presentations at international conferences. He
founded the company Global Sustainability in 2001 and
is currently President and CEO.
Abbreviations

A/S Alkali/sulphur
ACC The Associated Cement Ltd
AF Alternative Fuel
AFR Alternative Fuels and Raw materials
AFRs Alternative Fuels and Raw materials
AM Alumina Modulus
APCD Air Pollution Control Device
AR Alternative Raw material
ATMA India Tyre Manufacturing Association
AVL Approved Vendor List
BAT Best Available Techniques
BAT Best Available Technology
BATs Best Available Techniques
BEP Best Environmental Practice
BIS Bureau of Indian Standards
C&D Construction and demolition
CCS Carbon Capture and Storage
CCU Carbon capture and utilization
CEMS Continuous Emission Monitoring System
CII Confederation of Indian Industries
CII Confederation of India Industry
CISWI commercial and industrial solid waste incineration units
CMA Cement Manufacturers Association
CPCB Central Pollution Control Board
CSI Cement Sustainability Initiative
CSR Corporate Social Responsibility
DE Destruction Efficiency
DGFASLI Directorate General Factory Advice Service & Labour Institutes
DMP Disaster Management Plan
DRE Destruction and removal efficiency
EIA Environmental Impact Assessments

xxix
xxx Abbreviations

EJ Exa Joules
EPR Extended Producer Responsibility
ESM Environmentally Sound Management
ESP Electrostatic precipitator
EuCIA European Composites Industry Associate
FAKS Fluidized bed advanced cement kiln system
GBFS Granulated Blast Furnace Slag
GCCA Global Cement and Concrete Association
GCV Gross Calorific Value
GEPIL GreenGene Enviro Protection & Infrastructure Ltd
GFRP Glass Fibre Reinforced Polymer
GHG Green House Gas
GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit
GNR Getting Numbers Right
GOI Government of India
GTZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit
HHV Higher Heating Value
HM Heavy metal
HM Hydraulic Modulus
HOWM Hazardous and Other Wastes Management
IconSWM-CE International Conference on Sustainable Waste Management and
Circular Economy
ICPE Indian Centre for Plastics in Environment
IEA International Energy Agency
IFC International Finance Corporation
ILC In Line Calciner
INDC Intended Nationally Determined Contribution
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IPPC Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control
IPPC International Plant Protection Convention
ISWMAW International Society of Waste Management, Air and Water
IUCNNR International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural
resources
LCA Life Cycle Analysis
LCTR Low-Carbon Technology Road
LHV Lower Heating Value
LOI Loss on ignition
LSF Lime Saturation Factor
MNRE Ministry of New and Renewable Energy
MoEF Ministry of Environment and Forest
MoEFCC Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change
MoHUA Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs
MoNRE Ministry of Non-renewable Energy
MSDS Material Safety Data Sheets
MSW Municipal Solid waste
Abbreviations xxxi

MTPA Million tons per annum

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NCV Net Calorific Value
NCV Gross Calorific Value
NIMBY Not In My Back Yard
NRPW Non-Recyclable Plastic waste
NSR/PSD New Source Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration
ODS Ozone Depleting Substances
OH&S Occupational Health and Safety
OH&S Occupational Health and Safety
OPC Ordinary Portland Cement
PCC Portland Composite Cement
PCDD Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin
PCDD/Fs polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans
PCDF Polychlorinated dibenzofuran
PICs Products of incomplete combustion
PLC Portland Limestone Cement
PM Particulate matter
POHC Principal Organic Hazardous Compounds
POPs Persistent Organic Pollutants
POPs Persistent Organic Pollutants POPs
PPC Plain cement concrete
PPC Portland Pozzolana Cement
PPE Personal protective equipment
PSC Portland Slag Cement
PWM Plastic Waste Management
QAP Quality Assurance Plans
RDF Refuse-Derived Fuel
RDF Refuse-Derived Fuel
RII Resource Intensive Industries
RIIs Resource Intensive Industries
RPM Rounds-per-minute
SBM Swachh Bharat Mission
SCF Segregated Combustible Fraction
SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction
SDGs Sustainable Development Goals
SIR Sustainability Index of Recovery
SLC Separate Line Calciner
SLF Storage Land filling
SM Silica Modulus
SNCR Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction
SOP Standard Operating Procedure
SOPs Standard Operating Procedures
SPCB State Pollution Control Board
SPL Spent Pot Liner
xxxii Abbreviations

SSEF Shakti Sustainable Energy Foundation

SUPs Single Use Plastics
SWM Solid Waste Management
TDF Tyre Derived Fuel
TOC Toxic Organic Compounds
TOE Ton of oil equivalent
TPD Tons per day
TSDFs Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities
TSR Thermal Substitution Rate
UNDP United Nation Development Programme
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
VSK Vertical Shaft Kiln
WBCSD World Business Council for Sustainable Development
WFD Waste Framework Directive
WTE waste-to-energy
WWF World Wide Fund for Nature
XRD X-ray Diffraction
List of Figures

Fig. 2.1 Classification of terms and definition related

to co-processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Fig. 3.1 Classified wastes used as an alternative fuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Fig. 3.2 Sources of different raw materials for co-processing
in cement kiln . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Fig. 3.3 A modern cement plant: Carthage Cement, Tunisia.
(Source Amine Abdelkhalek, entrant to the Global
Cement Photography Competition and feedstock
transportation and preparation for RDF facility) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Fig. 3.4 a Photographs of a Waste dump site; b Agricultural
Wastes; c Tyre Wastes, d Hazardous Wastes. Potential
feedstock for RDF/co-processing facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Fig. 3.5 Energy in percentage of TSR available from different
fuels. (Source CII, 2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Fig. 3.6 Percent energy using different fuels for TSR. (Source CII,
2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Fig. 4.1 a. Largest Limestone Quarry in Michigan. b Limestone
quarry in China. c Limestone Quarry in Gujarat, India
(Formed by calcite, calcium carbonate, CaCO3) . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Fig. 4.2 Modern dry process cement production process . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Fig. 4.3 Rotary kiln with cyclone preheater and gas dust collection . . . . 77
Fig. 4.4 Main burner at the kiln outlet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Fig. 4.5 Modern dry preheater process with pre-calciner . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Fig. 4.6 Suspension preheater cyclone tower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Fig. 4.7 Semi-dry process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Fig. 4.8 Semi-wet process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Fig. 4.9 Wet process of the cement production process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Fig. 4.10 Vertical shaft kiln cement production process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Fig. 4.11 Exit gas dedusting system with the electrostatic
precipitator (ESP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Fig. 4.12 Kiln with planetary cooler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

xxxiii
xxxiv List of Figures

Fig. 4.13 Gas-fired cement kiln . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Fig. 4.14 Gas and material temperature profiles inside the kiln . . . . . . . . . 89
Fig. 5.1 Position of the burner in the cement kiln . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Fig. 6.1 Waste acceptance criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Fig. 6.2 Transport vehicle carrying well-stacked drums containing
waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Fig. 6.3 UN Dangerous goods labelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
Fig. 6.4 Compatibility and reactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Fig. 6.5 Storage of drummed waste at a pre-processing facility . . . . . . . 128
Fig. 6.6 Tanks for liquid hazardous wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Fig. 6.7 Liquid hazardous waste fed through the main burner . . . . . . . . . 132
Fig. 6.8 Feeding of solid waste to the kiln inlet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
Fig. 6.9 Feeding of mineral inorganic wastes in the raw mill . . . . . . . . . 134
Fig. 6.10 Sampling and analysis of AFRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Fig. 6.11 Bomb calorimeter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Fig. 6.12 Flash point analyser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
Fig. 6.13 Chloride titrator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
Fig. 6.14 Sulphur analyser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
Fig. 6.15 GC–MS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
Fig. 6.16 ICP AES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
Fig. 6.17 Stack gas emission monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
Fig. 7.1 United nations sustainable development goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
Fig. 7.2 Reduction in Primary CO2 Emissions from the cement
industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
Fig. 7.3 AFR utilized in the cement industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
Fig. 7.4 Use of different fossil Fuels by the cement industry . . . . . . . . . . 148
Fig. 7.5 Use of different Alternative Fuels by the cement industry . . . . . 149
Fig. 7.6 Use of different Biomass Fuels by the cement manufacture . . . 149
Fig. 7.7 Electrical energy consumption in cement manufacture . . . . . . . 150
Fig. 7.8 Thermal energy consumption in clinker manufacturer . . . . . . . . 150
Fig. 7.9 Clinker factor improvement achieved by the cement
industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
Fig. 8.1 Framework and key policies across lifecycle stages
in India focussing SDGs, Resource conservation Circular
Economy and 5R. (Source Ghosh, 2020) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
Fig. 9.1 Salient features of cement Kiln operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
Fig. 9.2 Features of an emission testing laboratory—VIMTA Labs
Ltd. India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
Fig. 10.1 Cement kiln features and material feed points
for co-processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
Fig. 10.2 Co-processing reduces GHG emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
Fig. 10.3 Non-recyclable plastic waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
Fig. 10.4 SCF from MSW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
Fig. 10.5 Dried sewage sludge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
Fig. 10.6 Hazardous waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
List of Figures xxxv

Fig. 10.7 Non-hazardous waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206

Fig. 10.8 Agro-waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
Fig. 10.9 Items that can be co-processed only after pre-processing . . . . . 207
Fig. 10.10 Items that cannot be pre-processed or co-processed . . . . . . . . . . 208
Fig. 10.11 Storage of the waste/AFR material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
Fig. 10.12 Impervious concrete flooring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
Fig. 10.13 Automated bridge crane with hydraulic grab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
Fig. 10.14 Features Deodoratex Mesh for odour control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
Fig. 10.15 Storage of incompatible materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
Fig. 10.16 Feeding devices for solid AFRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
Fig. 10.17 Doseahorse for feeding AFR uniformly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
Fig. 10.18 Electrical double valve airlock with safety shut-off gate . . . . . . 229
Fig. 10.19 Description of multiplex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
Fig. 10.20 KHD PYROJET BURNER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
Fig. 10.21 KHD PYROJET® . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
Fig. 10.22 KHD PYROCLON® calciners with combustion . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
Fig. 10.23 KHD PYROJET® calciners with combustion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
Fig. 10.24 Typical flow sheet of a winch-based preliminary
co-processing system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
Fig. 10.25 Typical flow sheet of a conveyor-based standard system . . . . . . 235
Fig. 10.26 Typical flow sheet of a liquid firing in the main burner . . . . . . . 236
Fig. 10.27 Typical flow sheet of a solid firing in the main burner . . . . . . . . 236
Fig. 10.28 Case study on universal use of multiplex for different
alternative fuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
Fig. 10.29 Waste Management Hierarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
Fig. 11.1 Typical industrial shredder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
Fig. 11.2 Different types of shredder designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
Fig. 11.3 Industrial double-shaft shredder by Sanghavi Engineering
Pvt. Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
Fig. 11.4 Typical Hammer Mill Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
Fig. 11.5 Waste Conditioning System offered by Loesche GMBH
(www.loesche.com) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
Fig. 11.6 Different types of dryers utilized for drying AFRs . . . . . . . . . . . 251
Fig. 11.7 Drums with hydrocarbon sludge are emptied in a mixing
pit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
Fig. 11.8 Typical bailing machine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
Fig. 11.9 Manual Sorting Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
Fig. 11.10 Automatic sorting machine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
Fig. 11.11 Supply of Pre-processed Alternative Fuels by GGEPIL,
India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
Fig. 11.12 Supply of pre-processed Alternative Fuels by BEIL, India
(www.beil.co.in) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
Fig. 11.13 Typical flow sheet for the pre-processing of solid wastes . . . . . 265
Fig. 11.14 Typical flow sheet for the pre-processing of liquid wastes . . . . . 266
Fig. 11.15 Container arrangement for sludges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
xxxvi List of Figures

Fig. 11.16 Typical flow sheet for Pre-processing of Pasty Wastes . . . . . . . . 268
Fig. 11.17 Pre-processing facility by M/s Sanghavi Engineering Pvt.
Ltd., India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
Fig. 12.1 Guideline for identifying the critical concentration
of Chlorine and SO3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
Fig. 12.2 Operations with additional quantum of Chlorine and SO3 . . . . . 279
Fig. 13.1 Illustration of wastes and resource . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
Fig. 13.2 Business model for Co-processing
of Biomass/Agro-wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297
Fig. 13.3 SCF generation in towns and cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
Fig. 13.4 Business model for Co-processing of SCF / RDF
from MSW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300
Fig. 13.5 Business model for Co-processing of Mix of processed
AFRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303
Fig. 13.6 Business model for Co-processing of Hazardous
industrial wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306
Fig. 13.7 Business model for Co-processing of industrial Liquid
hazardous wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309
Fig. 13.8 Business model for Co-processing of industrial waste
as Raw material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311
Fig. 14.1 Development of per capita cement demand (kg/capita)
with increasing wealth (GDP in US$/capita) (Global
Cement Magazine, May 2019). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314
Fig. 14.2 Country average TSR% of cement industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315
Fig. 14.3 Volume of AF utilized by cement plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316
Fig. 14.4 Biomass utilization TSR% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317
Fig. 14.5 Biomass utilization AF tonnes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317
Fig. 14.6 AF utilization as TSR% in cement industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317
Fig. 14.7 Biomass utilization AF tonnes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318
Fig. 14.8 TSR% growth trend-Austria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319
Fig. 14.9 TSR% growth trend-USA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319
Fig. 14.10 TSR% growth trend-India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320
Fig. 14.11 TSR% growth trend-Egypt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320
Fig. 14.12 TSR% growth trend-Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321
Fig. 14.13 TSR% growth trend-Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321
Fig. 15.1 Communication improvement process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325
Fig. 15.2 Mapping of stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327
Fig. 15.3 Stakeholder meet organized in Chandigarh 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . 331
Fig. 15.4 Operating framework of the trial-based permitting system . . . . 334
Fig. 15.5 Banner on the Facility set up for co-processing of CFCs
in ACC Kymore Cement Works along with authors
Dr. Kare Helge Karstensen and Mr. Ulhas V. Parlikar . . . . . . . . 336
Fig. 15.6 Awareness and Advocacy initiatives by CII-Godrej GBC.
Top: Mr. Ulhas V. Parlikar, author of the book addressing
the seminar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338
List of Figures xxxvii

Fig. 15.7 Awareness and advocacy initiatives of CII-Godrej GBC . . . . . . 339

Fig. 15.8 Stakeholder workshops organized by CPCB, India,
and SINTEF, Norway, in different cities in India. Dr.
Kare Helge Karstensen, the author of the book, is seen
along with CPCB and SPCB dignitaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342
Fig. 15.9 The ISWMAW instituted “IconSWM-CE Excellence
Award 2019” for co-processing are being handed
over to the organizations and individuals who contributed
significantly to the promotion of co-processing in India.
The awards were handed over by Prof. Sadhan K
Ghosh, Chairman, IconSWM-CE, and President
of ISWMAW, the author of the book, in the presence
of the IconSWM-CE Co-chairs, Mr. Arne Ragossnig,
President, ISWA, Austria, Dr. Abas Basir, DG, SACEP,
Sri Lanka, Mr C. R. C. Mohanty, Env. Coordinator,
UNCRD, Japan, Mr. K. Onogawa, Director, CCET-IGES,
Japan, Dr. H. N. Chanakya, CST, IISc, the Vice
chancellor, KIIT and the Jt. Secretary, UD, Government
of Odisha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345
List of Tables

Table 1.1 Proposed general principles for co-processing in cement

plant. Source Guidelines on co-processing Waste
Materials in Cement Production, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Table 2.1 Definitions of Materials-related Terms associated
with co-processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Table 2.2 Definitions of process and system-related terms
associated with co-processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Table 2.3 Definitions of legal and permission-related terms
associated with co-processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Table 2.4 Definitions of infrastructure-related terms associated
with co-processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Table 2.5 Definitions of stakeholder-related terms associated
with co-processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Table 3.1 Different categories of liquid, solid, and gaseous
alternative fuels that can be used in the cement industry . . . . . 38
Table 3.2 Value of key parameters of alternate fuels used
in cement plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Table 3.3 Spent pot liner waste: estimated projections in India.
(Source CII, 2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Table 3.4 Hazardous waste: estimated projections. (Source CII,
2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Table 3.5 Biomass waste: estimated projections. (Source CII,
2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Table 3.6 Tyre waste: estimated projections. (Source CII, 2016) . . . . . . 46
Table 3.7 Percent share of alternate fuel and total thermal energy
in India. (Source CII, 2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Table 3.8 The excerpts of the guiding principles for co-processing
waste materials in cement production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Table 3.9 Selected literature review on co-processing of waste
and allied areas of research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Table 3.10 Issues and Challenges through the supply chain of AFR . . . . . 58

xxxix
xl List of Tables

Table 3.11 Sustainability index of recovery (SIR) of waste

treatment technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Table 3.12 Projected growth and fuel requirements in Cement
industry by 2025 in India. Source CII, (2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Table 5.1 Standards for cement products from different countries . . . . . 92
Table 5.2 Natural and Alternative materials supplying required
elements in cement manufacture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Table 5.3 Clinker Phases in the cement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Table 5.4 Major focus of analysis of raw materials and fuels
and determinants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Table 5.5 Case study data on the composition of Raw mix . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Table 5.6 Case study raw mix data converted into clinker data . . . . . . . . 97
Table 6.1 Requirements by the cement plant or waste / AFR
materials handling agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Table 6.2 Co-incineration of hazardous waste: Daily average
values of pollutants in cement plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
Table 7.1 Production of Clinker & Cement by member companies
of GCCA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
Table 8.1 List I—union list . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
Table 8.2 List II—state list . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
Table 8.3 List III—Common or Concurrent List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
Table 9.1 Principle of operation of emission measuring devices . . . . . . . 190
Table 9.2 Prescribed emission limits in different countries (Source
Edvards, 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
Table 9.3 Co-processing specific emission standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
Table 10.1 Wastes that can be co-processed and their sources . . . . . . . . . . 209
Table 10.2 Composition of various constituents in the waste
materials co-processed in cement kilns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
Table 10.3 Classification of Chemicals from a hazard point of view . . . . 221
Table 10.4 Feed points in the kiln and the suitable materials . . . . . . . . . . . 224
Table 11.1 Parameters for testing AFRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
Table 11.2 Types of packaging of waste/AFR materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
Table 13.1 Typical example—AFR replacing coal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292
Table 13.2 Typical example—AFR replacing Iron ore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293
Table 13.3 Typical example—Treatment cost for the option
of Incineration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294
Table 13.4 Typical example—Treatment cost for the option
of landfill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294
Table 13.5 Typical example—Sourcing of Biomass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294
Table 13.6 Typical example—Sourcing of SCF / RDF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295
Table 13.7 Typical cost of an elementary co-processing facility . . . . . . . . 297
Table 13.8 Salient Features of business model for co-processing
of Biomass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298
Table 13.9 Typical cost of an Elementary Pre-processing
and Co-processing facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
List of Tables xli

Table 13.10 Salient features of the business model for pre-processing

SCF/Co-processing of RDF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300
Table 13.11 Typical cost of a Mechanized Co-processing facility . . . . . . . . 301
Table 13.12 Data pertaining to constituents in AFR mix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303
Table 13.13 Calculation of weighted average Price and NCV of AFR
mix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304
Table 13.14 Salient Features of the business model for Co-processing
of AFR Mix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304
Table 13.15 Typical cost of a Mechanized Pre-processing
and Co-processing facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305
Table 13.16 Data pertaining to constituents in the waste mix . . . . . . . . . . . 305
Table 13.17 Calculation of weighted average Price and NCV of AFR
mix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307
Table 13.18 Salient features of the business model for Co-processing
of AFR Mix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307
Table 13.19 Typical cost of a Liquid Co-processing facility . . . . . . . . . . . . 308
Table 13.20 Salient features of the business model of Co-processing
of liquid AFR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309
Table 13.21 Salient features of the business model of use of industrial
waste as raw material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311
Table 15.1 Emission monitoring schedule during a trial run
of co-incineration of hazardous waste in cement kiln . . . . . . . 329
Table 15.2 Co-incineration trials (21-day duration) conducted
by different cement companies in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330
Table 15.3 Co-processing trials (5-day duration) conducted
by different cement plants in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333
Table 15.4 Range of chemical constituent variation present
in the waste materials approved for co-processing . . . . . . . . . . 335
Table 15.5 Growth of co-processing in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347
 Part I
Introducing the Subject
Chapter 1
Introduction

1.1 Backdrop

The cement manufacturing is an energy-intensive process which is producing cement,

the sought for materials for building construction around the world. It generally
consumed in the order of 3.3 GJ/ton of thermal energy of clinker produced and nearly
90–120 kWh of electrical energy/ton of cement is produced (Giddings et al., 2000;
European Commission, 2001). Indian Cement industry has the best performance
numbers and the best among the Indian industry is 2.83 GJ thermal energy per Ton
of clinker and best electrical energy consumption is 56.14 KWH/T cement (CII,
2021).
Traditionally, cement plants use coal as the primary fuel. A range of other fuels,
such as oil, gas, petroleum coke different types of liquid wastes and solid waste, via
co-processing have also been successfully used as energy sources for firing in kilns for
cement production. However, Natural Gas is only used in a few places, e. g., Middle
East, and usually as primary fuel. Cement production is responsible for nearly 2.4% of
global CO2 emissions from industrial and energy sources during 1987–88 (Marland
et al., 1989) while during 2019–20 it contributes to nearly 7.0%. Cement production
is the third largest consumer of energy @ 9−10% of the total industrial energy
consumed and CO2 emission ranges from 0.7 to 0.93 ton/ton of cement produced. As
estimated in 2018, 1445 million tons/year of CO2 was emitted by the top ten cement
producing countries including the European Union with the strategy of incorporating
low carbon cement manufacturing process, such as reducing clinker factor, improving
energy efficiency, and co-processing of wastes as AFRs leading to carbon mitigation.
As clinker production emits CO2 , the IPCC recommends to use clinker data instead
of taking the cement data to estimate CO2 emissions. Cement could potentially be
imported from the producer country and hence, in the international trading of clinker
the cement production data may create biased emission estimates. The amount of
clinker produced in blended and natural types of cement is highly variable and the
estimation depends on the clinker factor.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 3
S. K. Ghosh et al., Sustainable Management of Wastes Through Co-processing,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-6073-3_1
4 1 Introduction

Since the beginning of the 1970s wastes materials from different sources have
successfully been co-processed as AFR in cement kilns in a few countries, namely
Australia, Canada, Europe, Japan, and USA. However, everything started in the US
in 1972 and subsequently the process was implemented in other countries. Inciner-
ation process is widely used worldwide to reduce the burden of municipal wastes,
hazardous wastes and hazardous chemical, biological waste, reduction of potential
toxicity and in very rare cases ton reduce the potential infectious properties and
volume of medical waste. In 80 and 90 s, there were confusion over the means
of appropriately managing waste. Pollutants like polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins
(PCDDs), and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs) emissions were discovered
and identified to be coming out from MSW-incinerators, etc., in the decade 1980–
1990 which is major concern as the potential risk to human health and the environment
at certain higher concentrations than the prescribed levels, however had nothing to
do with co-processing of wastes in cement kilns.
In the cement production, raw material is fed into the rotary kiln. Appropriate types
of hazardous wastes are used as auxiliary or replacement fuel that are burnt under
controlled atmosphere. Since the year 1972 hazardous waste are burnt in cement kilns,
which was practiced in Ontario, Canada, United States, Belgium, and Switzerland
started using waste-fuelled kilns. The use of wastes as fuel in the kilns is the energy
recovery initiative that led to the conservation of non-renewable fossil fuels and
circulation of wastes enhancing resource efficiency associated with an economic
incentive paid to the kiln operators. Hazardous wastes were burnt in light-weight
aggregate kilns and different types of furnaces as well in cement kilns. In last three
decades, the situation in respect of use of waste materials as Alternative Fuels is
totally changed. Earlier, the cement kilns used to get paid for co-processing wastes
as Alternative Fuels in cement kilns. However, at present, due to popularity of co-
processing of wastes in cement plants, in many of the locations the business model
has got revised where wastes are to be purchased by the cement plant operators from
waste generators.
The use of waste as AFR in resource and energy-intensive industries is called co-
processing. Co-processing in cement kilns is a technology practiced worldwide as a
sustainable solution to the management of wastes from municipal sources, agricul-
tural sources, and industrial sources. AFR from waste definitely contribute reducing
the cost as well as the amount of fossil fuel use helping in conservation of natural
resources, reducing the landfills possibilities, and curbing the global CO2 and GHG
emissions.
Significant advancement has taken place in the scientific and technological aspects
of co-processing while developing and implementing this technology in the cement
plants has taken a faster pace in operational scales during 2010 to the present in a
few developing countries. This technology is in practice for more than three decades
and has been recommended by Basel Convention for the sustainable management of
Hazardous wastes and by the Stockholm Convention for the sustainable management
of POPs. Using co-processing technology is a part of the waste management rules
notified by the ministry of the government of India in 2016 and has been provided as
a sustainable waste management option over the conventional options of incineration
1.1 Backdrop 5

and landfill. Co-processing promotes curbing the climate change impacts and global
warming, conserving natural resources and to implement 3R and circular economy
concepts on large scale.
Co-processing like other waste management initiatives has potential to provide
large scale employment. Co-processing provides a sustainable solution for industrial
wastes if used in cement kiln because the waste is used as fuel as well as the raw
materials leaving no residue to be disposed to landfill. This is one of the advantages
of co-processing compared to MSWI, which produce 20–30% ash, slag, flue-gas
cleaning products, etc. The fossil fuels are substituted by combustible parts of the
waste and the raw materials, such as Silica and Iron are replaced by non-combustible
parts of the waste (Ash) which in turn acts as substitute raw material. The instant use
of energy released without any losses results in the highest value of energy efficiency
in cement kiln. The adverse impact on the environmental is negligible. The cement
industries in several countries are encouraged to realize the potential of use of wastes
as alternative fuels and raw material (AFR) in cement kilns with several benefits.
Indian cement industries have taken a target to reach a 25% thermal substitution rate
(TSR) by 2025, from the current level of less than two-digit percentage. It has been
estimated that to achieve 25% TSR at 2025, Indian Cement Industry will require
7.07 million TOE of energy from Alternate fuels. While “TOE” is expanded as ton
of oil equivalent (TOE), a unit of energy. The amount of released energy by burning
one ton (1000 kg) of crude oil is called TOE.
Even though this technology has received the required attention and inclusion
in the policy framework of government of India, its understanding and awareness
with the stakeholders belonging to the academic and other relevant sections is vastly
missing. This is because of lack of appropriately researched and collated informa-
tion on this topic particularly in the context of Indian wastes and its management.
The students of the environmental faculty continue to get focused education on the
incineration and landfill options and not yet much about the co-processing tech-
nology. The understanding of co-processing technology is still very limited to the
involved stakeholders which needs mass awareness in the countries. The number of
waste-to-energy and incineration plants are quite low in the globe in comparison to
the number of cement kilns involved in co-processing of wastes; while the aware-
ness regarding waste-to-energy and incineration plants is more than co-processing
of wastes among the policy makers, scientists, and general citizens. As there is a
huge potential of co-processing of waste that exists worldwide as a sustainable waste
management option, a concerted drive for enhancing awareness on co-processing is
required to be established. Increasingly effective co-processing techniques in cement
kiln have been developed in several developed countries, in India and China over the
last 40 years. More than 60 factories in India and 200 factories in China are involved
in co-processing of municipal solid waste (MSW) derived and other types of wastes.
6 1 Introduction

1.1.1 Sustainable Development and Waste Management

The most recent and popular initiative of the United Nations to leverage sustain-
able development in the globe until 2030 is the Sustainable Development Goals. The
SDGs are seen in the report “Transforming Our World”, predicted at “The Future We
Want”. The publication of the “World Conservation Strategy” by the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP), World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), and Inter-
national Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCNNR) was
considered to be the milestones initiative for sustainable development. The strategy
adopted in these was the precursors to the concept of sustainable development, which
aimed:
• Maintaining fundamental ecological processes and life-support systems, vital for
human survival and development.
• Preservation of genetic diversity, which depend on the breeding programmes
needed for the protection of plants and domesticated animals, as well as much
scientific innovation, and the security of the many industries that use living
resources.
• Ensuring the sustainable utilization of species and ecosystems (notably fish
and other wildlife, forests, and grazing lands), which supports millions of rural
communities as well as significant industries.
In 1987, the Brundtland Report “Our Common Future” defined “sustainable
development” as: “The development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
Two key concepts are emphasized in the Brundtland Report (WCED, 1987) as
excerpted below
• _ “needs,” in particular the essential needs of the world’s poor, to which overriding
priority should be given, and
• _ “limitations” imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the
environment’s ability to meet present and future needs.
In comparison, sustainable development was defined by the President’s Council
on Sustainable Development in the United States as (USEPA, 2013): “…an evolving
process that improves the economy, the environment, and society for the benefit of
current and future generations.”
“Agenda 21: A Programme of Action for Sustainable Development,” establishes
27 principles around the 3 pillars of sustainability: economy, society, and environ-
ment, which is known as The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development,
was adopted in 1992. Stated that the critical dimensions of sustainable development
should be “The moral imperatives of satisfying needs, ensuring equity and respecting
environmental limits. The model reflects both moral imperatives laid out in philo-
sophical texts on needs and equity, and recent scientific insights on environmental
limits.”
1.1 Backdrop 7

The intention of this book goes much further in the establishment of sustain-
able Waste management through a technology where several other technologies of
waste management are available which in turn helps in achieving the Sustainable
Development Goalsss.
According to the: “Waste means any substance or object which the holder discards
or intends or is required to discard.” The wastes are classified by source, nature,
physical and mechanical properties, chemical and elemental properties, biolog-
ical/biodegradable properties, and combustion properties. The wastes categories are
defined in the rules of respective countries, such as Solid Waste Management Rules
2016 defines the categories of wastes in India. Waste disposal is an important issue in
the world. Each of the types of Wastes has a value chain which has not been tapped in
many areas and in several countries too. Waste is considered as very important entity
considered as resource to be utilized using different technologies. The utilization
of these resources which would have been wasted can help in reducing extraction
of natural resources leading to sustainable development. This book deals with one
of such technologies, called the co-processing technology where waste is utilized
in cement kiln with 100% recovery potential. The sustainability of different waste
management technologies has been assessed in Chap. 3 of this book to understand
the sustainability status of co-processing of waste in cement kiln.
Landfill and incineration are the easiest and popular disposal practices in many
countries (Corinaldesi et al., 2015; Ribeiro et al., 2015). To be specific, in Ireland,
there is no law in banning the disposal of turbine blade waste into landfill which exists
in Germany (Correia et al., 2011). Landfilling costs in Ireland is 113 Euro per ton,
one of the most expensive rates in Europe (National Competitiveness Council, 2015).
Glass fibre reinforced polymer (GFRP) is the main component of wind turbine blades.
The cost of virgin materials to produce GFRP is very low and hence, pyrolysis and
mechanical processing of GFRP is not viable according to the European Composites
Industry Associate (EuCIA). The co-processing of GFRP in a cement kiln is being
practiced as a viable option. The cost of co-processing is still unknown, however,
is estimated to be more than landfilling. In compliance to the rules, co-processing
is a sustainable and viable option. Similar way, the co-processing is a sustainable
solution to the waste management.

1.2 Co-processing in 70 and 80s

In the late 70 and 80 s, the burning of wastes in cement kilns had lot of issues with
respect to the emission. The combustion efficiency of CO and total hydrocarbons
is a main characteristic to be analysed in a cement plant. Researchers could not
establish relationship between good combustion practice and emission of dioxin.
The possible reasons are (a) total hydrocarbons and CO are associated with the
raw-mineral feedstock, rather than the fuel and (b) because of high combustion
temperatures in the kiln, nonequilibrium conditions may evolve the CO. Injection
8 1 Introduction

of powdered activated carbon is adopted as practiced many times for the removal of
dioxins, furans, and mercury in municipal-waste and hazardous-waste incinerators.
Co-processing is an effective waste utilization option than discarding to the land-
fills of incineration. Wastes with high calorific value are used as AFR to replace fossil
fuels in the cement kilns. There must be special control of byproducts of chlorine
and hydrocarbon, such as polychlorinated dibenzo dioxins (PCDDs) and polychlori-
nated dibenzofurans (PCDFs) in incineration processes. The cooling process in “De
novo synthesis” from 450 to 200 °C help in forming dioxins and furans. A trial burn
is needed to measure the unintentional by products that may be helpful for under-
standing phenomenon that takes place in the process in the kiln. In a few countries,
the trial burn has been carried out while it took place in the Bulacan cement plant of
the Union Cement Corporation in the Philippines way back in November 2004.

1.3 Co-processing in 90s Until 2010

More interest in co-processing has been observed and demonstrated by the

researchers, cement manufacturers and manufacturer’s association and government.
Co-processing of wastes helps to achieve the targets in Agenda 21 in “Earth Summit”
in, the Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development (2002), and the
Sustainable Development Goals 2030.
The GTZ-Holcim Public Private Partnership developed the guidelines for Co-
processing in 2006 for the respective stakeholders and decision makers. A few guiding
principles presented in Table 1.1 gives a general condition where co-processing can be
applied. The excerpts of the guiding principles have been presented in the Table 1.1.
The Guidelines took reasonable consideration on international conventions, namely
the Basel and the Stockholm Conventions and the UN Framework Convention on
Climate Change (Kyoto Protocol). The guidelines proposed twenty-two principles
broadly covering legal aspects, impact on Environment, operational issues, aspects
related to communication and social responsibility and occupational health and safety
(OH&S) issues.
The guidelines proposed the general principles for co-processing demonstrated
in Table 1.1.

1.4 Co-processing in Post 2011

India is the second largest producer of cement next to China. It has improved the
energy efficiency of cement plants in recent past. In 2012, the TSR, of the plants by
using alternative fuels, e.g., biomass and municipal waste, stands at only 0.6% while
it reaches more than 4% in 2020. This was made possible by partial substation of
fossil fuels with considerable efforts by all stakeholders. Efficient waste collection
systems and pre-processing facilities are to be made robust, while the industry needs
1.4 Co-processing in Post 2011 9

Table 1.1 Proposed general principles for co-processing in cement plant. Source Guidelines on
co-processing Waste Materials in Cement Production, 2006
Principle number Statement of principles Expansion of the statement of
principles
I “Co-processing respects the waste Co-processing supports 3Rs and the
hierarchy” waste hierarchy starting from waste
reduction and least priority to
landfilling. Co-processing is
eco-friendly resource recovery
option in waste management and
comply with the Basel and
Stockholm Conventions
II “Additional emissions and negative Zero or minimum adverse impact on
impacts on human health must be the environment and risks to human
avoided” health which should be less than that
from cement production using fossil
fuel
III “The quality of the cement product Heavy metals from the product
remains unchanged” (clinker, cement, concrete) shall be
removed and adverse impact on the
environment should be zero or
minimum as, for example, leaching
test demonstration. The cement thus
produced will allow end-of-life
recovery
IV “Companies engaged in The company that is involved in
co-processing must be qualified” co-processing must have good track
records of compliance to
environmental and safety and a high
level of commitment to protect the
environment, health, and safety.
Relevant and right information to be
shared with the public and the
authorities
The company should demonstrate
due diligence, commitments of
compliance to applicable rules and
regulations. It control parameters in
the processes and sub-processes to
achieve efficient co-processing,
relationship with the public and
other appropriate actors in all
spheres of local, national, and
international arena
(continued)
10 1 Introduction

Table 1.1 (continued)

Principle number Statement of principles Expansion of the statement of
principles
V “Implementation of co-processing Regulations and procedures should
has to consider national address need and requirements and
circumstances” needs specific to the national
boundary. A long-term
implementation plan is required to
build required capacity and
institutionalizing the arrangements

to continuously invest in co-processing and alternative fuel feeding systems with

visible support of the government in the provision of incentives for the processing
of municipal wastes. Cement industries have set a goal of achieving 25% TSR by
2030, which is an ambitious target that will bring significant improvement in fossil
fuel substitution in cement industries reducing huge burden of waste management.
In the decade 2011 to 2020, significant improvement in the areas of co-processing
in cement kilns has taken place. A number of guidelines documents (Basel Conven-
tion, 2012; CPCB, 2017; CPHEEO, 2018; LafargeHolcim-GIZ, 2020) were devel-
oped and published containing the guidelines on Pre-processing and Co-processing
of Waste in Cement Production—Use of waste as alternative fuel and raw material.
A revised edition of the 2006 guidelines was published in 2020 to address to the
stakeholders and decision makers to update technical, institutional, legal and social
aspects of the original document to support continuous improvement in the appli-
cation of pre-processing of waste in the cement industry. The first edition of the
guidelines was focused on co-processing of industrial and commercial waste (GIZ-
Holcim, 2006), while the revised guidelines was published with a stronger emphasis
on pre-processing of wastes into alternative fuel and raw materials (AFR), pre- and
co-processing of municipal waste and integrating pre- and co-processing into local
waste management value chains. More information is given on how pre- and co-
processing contributes to the sustainable development goals, its climate relevance,
financing and ways to work with the informal waste sector. The CPHEEO, under
the ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA) in India, constituted an Expert
Committee in October 2017 to prepare “Norms for Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) from
Municipal Solid Waste for its utilization in cement kilns, waste-to-energy plants and
similar other installations” to achieve the objectives of a clean India under Swachh
Bharat Mission (SBM). The intended objectives of preparing the document were
to enhance the use of MSW-based RDF of significant quality of desired standard
in industries to comply with the SWM Rules, 2016. The Committee came up with
the Guidelines on Usage of RDF in Various Industries in 2018 for co-processing in
cement plants and incineration plants, etc.
In last couple of years, since the year 2014, due to three major initiatives by the
government of India, the waste segregation, collection, and pre-processing facili-
ties have been strengthened. The initiatives are (1) Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM)
1.4 Co-processing in Post 2011 11

launched in 2014, (2) Revision and notification of six rules of waste management in
the year 2016, and (3) introduction of Swachh Survekshan in 2016.

1.5 National Rules, Regulations, Standards Supporting

Co-processing

National rules, regulations, standards, and the technical infrastructure in the country
is very important prime mover for implementation of co-processing of different types
of wastes. The developing countries are less mature than in countries that have a long
experience with co-processing waste in the cement industry. The directives for co-
processing in European countries are matured and have been in implementation for
quite a long time. The Solid Waste Management Rules 2016 and Hazardous and Other
Waste Management Rules 2016 in India have specifically mentioned co-processing
of waste in cement kiln as an option of waste treatment.
Many developing countries such as India, China, and Southeast Asian countries
are initiating programmes to promote co-processing of wastes in the cement industry.
Effective regulatory and institutional frameworks are critical to ensuring that co-
processing practices in the cement industry are not harmful to health or the environ-
ment. An integrated solid waste management model and regulations and standards
related to environmental performance, product quality, operations and safety, permit-
ting procedures, monitoring and reporting are key factors in a regulatory framework
and policy instrument for a sustainable co-processing industry. From the technolog-
ical perspective, pre-processing and treatment of waste are often required to make the
waste ready for co-processing in cement kilns. As much as possible, best available
techniques (BATs) should be applied to the pre- and co-processing processes in order
to ensure that waste co-processing in the cement industry is environmentally sound.
Chapter eight of the book discussed the details of Waste Management rules focusing
on co-processing in different countries.

1.6 Criteria for the Success of an Alternative Fuel Project

The success of project involving co-processing and AFR depends on several factors.
A few of the key factors may include
• Management commitment.
• Plant capability to respond to regulatory changes.
• unfair competition against co-processing and lobbying to support regulatory
barriers against co-processing.
• levels of investment.
• Downstream of the regulatory framework, permitting the use of waste as AFR is
often a complex process and takes lot more time.
12 1 Introduction

• Establishing trustworthy relationships with stakeholders, particularly local resi-

dents is crucial for the success. The local residents are important stakeholder to
have awareness on need & implications (regarding pollution, health, and safety)
of waste treatment in a cement plant located in the vicinity.
• good knowledge of the various waste supply chain, the market and existing
competitive price in the country and locality.
• Understanding the kiln’s ability to replace fossil fuels, technical aspects, necessary
actions and process control parameters to achieve the TSR.
• Control parameters of waste pretreatment is critical to the quality. Uncontrolled
liquid mixture may result in variations in calorific value. The operator of the
facility must have in-depth knowledge of the constraints of the cement kilns.
• Pre-Processing effective transformation of inhomogeneous waste into homoge-
nous AFR for co-processing is essential.
• Effective and transparent communication between the two actors- waste supplier
and plant operator is key to the success of co-processing.
In recent past increased focus is given on formulating strategies of carbon mitiga-
tion in different energy-intensive manufacturing processes. Co-processing is found
to be the most prominent low carbon cement manufacturing process.
Different definitions and terminologies have been introduced in the next chapter
which will be helpful throughout the book .

1.7 The Structure of This Book

Chapter 1: Introduction
This chapter provides the overview on the content of the book, their relevance in the current
context of sustainable development and circular economy. The audience of the book include
students of environmental engineering, civil engineering, chemical engineering, sustainability,
etc., cement plants and executives working therein, waste management plants and their
executives working therein, professionals associated with the subject of co-processing and waste
management, authorities, consultants, project management professionals, academicians, and
researchers. The audience addressed is global with substantial focus on the developing world
because it is here that the main requirement of such a book is
Chapter 2: Terms and definitions related to co-processing
This chapter provides the definitions of various terms related to the subjects of co-processing.
These terms belong to the subject of cement, cement chemistry, waste materials, waste
management, sustainability, thermal characteristics, safety, operation and management, quality
monitoring and control, economics, etc.
(continued)
1.7 The Structure of This Book 13

(continued)
Chapter 3: Status review of research on co-processing
This chapter provides the review of various research and applications initiatives related to the
technology of pre-processing and co-processing of waste materials. The various aspects
considered in the review are use of the waste materials in cement and allied industries as a
resource; challenges faced in the applications and solutions implemented; policies and their
impacts; impact the technology has made on the sustainable management of wastes, etc.
Chapter 4: Cement manufacturing—Technology, Practice, and Development
This chapter provides in detail the types of cement, various technologies associated with its
manufacture, the operational aspects of these technologies, etc. The cement manufacture
consists of various operations such as quarrying, preparation of raw materials, fuel preparation,
clinker manufacturing process, cement grinding, and cement dispatch. There are different
technologies utilized in the manufacture of cement such as dry process with and without
pre-heater/pre-calciner arrangement, semi dry process, semi-wet process, wet process, and
vertical shaft kiln. Depending upon the technology adopted the various operations starting from
quarying to cement dispatch would vary and these are described in detail. The type of
technology also has bearing on the way the co-processing of AFRs would be implemented and
same is also addressed in this chapter
Chapter 5: Fundamentals of Cement Chemistry, Operations and Quality Control
Cement manufacture involves considerable science dealing with the chemistry with which the
different raw materials react at high temperature to form the clinker as an intermediate product
and then its mixing with gypsum and pozzolanic materials to manufacture the cement product.
The different raw materials are consisting majorly of CaO, Fe2O3, Al2O3, and SiO2 and the
high temperature of reaction is attained using coal or other fossil fuels and AFRs in the rotary
kiln. This being a chemistry driven process, there are several quality control steps involved
through which the chemistry of the raw mix is ascertained in the kiln and desired quality product
is manufactured. The process of cement manufacture also requires precise control over the
process parameters to ensure optimum utilization of the resources and the cost. This chapter
provides details in respect of this aspect of cement manufacture and co-processing implemented
during the same
Chapter 6: Guidelines on co-processing of AFRs—International best practices
This chapter covers all the important aspects related to implementing co-processing in practice.
These include required legal framework and policies, general requirements, requirements
pertaining to the health and safety, operational considerations, quality monitoring and control,
emission-related aspects, storage and handling, community concerns, external communications,
labelling and traceability of the wastes, pre-processing of wastes into AFRs, etc.
Chapter 7: Sustainability considerations in cement manufacture and co-processing -
Cement production causes considerable impacts on the environment due release of GHG and
other emissions, biodiversity due to quarrying, water utilization in process causing reduction in
the water table, plastic utilization causing plastic waste management issue, reduction in the
natural (fossil) resources, etc. Cement industry has therefore taken up several sustainability
initiatives globally and the same is being monitored across the globe through appropriate
agencies. Several challenges encountered while implementing the sustainability initiatives in the
cement industry are also discussed. This chapter provides an overview on these different
sustainability initiatives taken up by the cement industry globally—including co-processing of
AFRs—and provides the summary of the success achieved with the same KPI
(continued)
14 1 Introduction

(continued)
Chapter 8: Waste Management rules focusing on co-processing in different countries
Policy framework is an important aspect for ensuring safe and environment friendly
management of wastes. Co-processing provides waste management in an environmentally sound
manner. Different countries that have set up their own policy frameworks in the form of Acts,
Rules, guidelines, etc., have promoted co-processing in the same for the management of wastes
rather than sending them for incineration or landfilling. Basal convention has also brought out
their own guidelines for management of hazardous wastes and POPs using co-processing. This
chapter reviews the policy framework of some of the developed countries and under developed
countries and provides the overview of the policy framework of India which is suitable for
adaptation by the developing countries
Chapter 9: Emission considerations in cement kiln co-processing
For successful co-processing, monitoring and control of emission within prescribed limits is an
important requirement. Co-processing is not supposed to influence the emissions from the
cement kilns and the policy frameworks of all the countries have mandated values for
compliance for the different streams. This chapter discusses the specified standards for emission
control while undertaking co-processing and on-line monitoring of the same using continuous
emission monitoring system
Chapter 10: Co-processing of wastes as AFRs in cement kilns
This chapter discusses the salient features of co-processing and their importance in waste
management. It also reviews the co-processing feasibility of different kinds of wastes from
municipal, Industrial, and agricultural sectors that can be co-processed. The banned wastes for
pre-processing and co-processing are appropriately touched. The chapter also discusses the
importance of pre-processing before co-processing and the infrastructure required to undertake
co-processing. Various parameters that need to be monitored for efficient and successful
co-processing including control of emissions are also discussed in this chapter. Co-processing is
required to be undertaken only after obtaining required permissions and this is also discussed in
the chapter. Apart from discussing the principles of co-processing, the chapter also discusses
various technological aspects of the same starting from receipt of wastes to co-processing them
by feeding them into the kiln. Different manual and mechanized schemes are discussed in detail
Chapter 11: Pre-processing of wastes into AFRs
This chapter explains the concept of pre-processing and provides detailed explanation on the
various unit operations and equipment associated with pre-processing of wastes into AFRs. It
also discusses the category-wise pre-processing schemes and infrastructure required for the
same. Important aspects of quality control, health, and safety are also discussed in detailed in the
book. Flow schemes for pre-processing of solid, liquid, and pasty wastes are explained in detail
in this chapter
Chapter 12: Operational considerations in co-processing
Co-processing of AFR is a pretty complex process on account of different level of moisture, ash,
and burnability characteristics compared to conventional materials. Therefore, several
operational challenges are faced while undertaking co-processing. Higher level of Chlorine,
Alkalies, and Sulphur present in AFRs bring additional complexity in the operation of the
cement kiln. The operational considerations also pertain to man power requirement, legal
aspects, process and project design, stakeholder engagement and external communications,
material handling, quality parameters, etc. These various aspects are elaborated in the Chap. 12
(continued)
1.7 The Structure of This Book 15

(continued)
Chapter 13: Case Studies and business models related to Cement Kiln co-processing
AFR co-processing needs to be implemented in a business mode by devising different business
model. The commercial considerations towards AFRs vary depending upon their liability
considerations. These need to be factored appropriately in the business model for desired
success rate in the same. The business models could be manual or mechanized depending upon
the nature of material. These business models are elaborated in detail in this chapter by taking
typical case study data and example
Chapter 14: Global Status on co-processing
Co-processing is in practice for more than three decades now and is being implemented in
several countries. This is one of the strong pillars for reducing the carbon foot print of the
cement industry. Cement Sustainability Initiative is a common programme of a group of cement
companies that represent about 30% of the cement capacity worldwide. CSI is dedicated to the
cause of sustainability, and it is documenting the efforts being made by them in a database
names as “Getting the Numbers Right (GNR).” This chapters utilizes the information presented
in this database to understand the status of co-processing in developed country, in developing
country and in the world. It also discusses the status of co-processing in some of the countries
providing information in this database
Chapter 15: Journey of the Growth of Co-processing in India
Recognition of co-processing as a preferred option for the management of wastes in India has
gone through a very detailed evolution phase. The learning from this evolution phase is very
useful to other developing countries who have to implement co-processing in the cement kilns of
their country. Before receiving desired recognition, several initiatives have been implemented in
the country which involved demonstration of the technology through >90 successful
co-processing trials, implementation of multi-stakeholder consultation processes, large scale
awareness and capacity building initiatives, and considerable policy advocacy efforts. This
chapter also illustrates the case studies of some of the cement companies from India—that
represent more than 25% of the cement capacity of the country—in successfully traversing their
AFR co-processing journey

References

BASEL CONVENTION. (2012). Technical guidelines on the environmentally sound co-processing

of hazardous wastes in cement kilns, Basel Convention, UNEP, © 2012 Secretariat of the Basel
Convention, Secretariat of the Basel Convention International Environment House 11–13 chemin
des Anémones 1219 Châtelaine, Switzerl.
Correia, J. R., Almeida, N. M., & Figueira, J. R. (2011). Recycling of FRP composites: Reusing fine
GFRP waste in concrete mixtures. The Journal of Cleaner Production, 19, 1745e1753. https://
doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2011.05.018.
Corinaldesi, V., Donnini, J., & Nardinocchi, A. (2015). Lightweight plasters containing plastic
waste for sustainable and energy-efficient building. Construction and Building Materials. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.07.069.
CPCB. (2017). Guidelines for Co-processing of Plastic Waste in Cement Kilns (As per Rule ‘5(b)’
of Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016) by CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India in May, 2017.
CPHEEO. (2018). Guidelines on Usage of Refuse Derived Fuel in Various Industries, prepared by
Expert Committee Constituted by Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA), Central
16 1 Introduction

Public Health And Environmental Engineering Organisation (CPHEEO), Ministry of Housing

and Urban Affairs, Govt of India.
CII, Energy Bench-marking of the Indian Cement Industry, Ver. 5.0 (2021, May).
European Commission (EC). (2001). Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control. Reference
Document on Best Available Techniques in the Cement and Lime Manufacturing Industries.
Giddings, D., Eastwick, C. N., Pickering, S. J., & Simmons, K. (2000). Computational fluid
dynamics applied to a cement precalciner. Proc. Instn. Mech. Engrs. Vol. 214 Part A.
GIZ-Holcim. (2006). Guidelines on co-processing Waste Materials in Cement Production, The GTZ-
Holcim Public Private Partnership, Copyright © 2006 Holcim Group Support Ltd and Deutsche
Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH, Federal Ministry of Economic
Cooperation and Development, Germany.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (1997). Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for
National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Reference Manual (Revised). Vol 3. J.T. Houghton et al.,
IPCC/OECD/IEA, Paris, France.
LafargeHolcim-GIZ. (2020). Guidelines on Pre- and Co-processing of Waste in Cement Production-
Use of waste as alternative fuel and raw material, Copyright c 2020 Holcim Technology Ltd and
Published by Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH.
Marland, G., Boden, T. A., Griffin, R. C., Huang, S. F., Kanciruk, P., & Nelson, T. R. (1989).
Estimates of CO2 Emissions from Fossil Fuel Burning and Cement Manufacturing, Based on
the United Nationals Energy Statistics and the U.S. Bureau of Mines Cement Manufacturing
Data. Report No. #ORNL/CDIAC-25, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre, Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA.
Ribeiro, M. C. S., Meira-Castro, A. C., Silva, F. G., Santos, J., Meixedo, J. P., Fiúza, A., Dinis,
M. L., & Alvim, M. R. (2015). Re-use assessment of thermoset composite wastes as aggregate
and filler replacement for concrete-polymer composite materials: A case study regarding GFRP
pultrusion wastes. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.
2013.10.001.
Chapter 2
Terms and Definition Related
to Co-processing of Waste in Cement Kiln

2.1 Introduction

The definition of a term is a word or group of words that has a special meaning,
a specific time period or a condition of a contract. In other words, a definition is
a statement of the meaning of a term. The term must be explained in specific way
to understand the meaning of the term. There may be conceptual and operational
definitions. The conceptual definition is abstract and most general in nature. The
usual source of conceptual definition is the dictionary which is the reference book
for everyday language. Operational definition of terms or the concept refers to a
detailed explanation and meaning used in a particular study. Unlike the conceptual
definition, it states in concrete term in that it allows measurements for data collec-
tion, where necessary. The usual practice when using both types of definition is to
state first the conceptual followed by the operational definition. Several guidelines,
reports, national standards, and research documents evolved different terms and defi-
nitions related to co-processing. This chapter is a compilation of all such terms and
definitions. However, there may be some terms and definitions which are available
in the respective national legislation and regulations in respective countries that may
differ a little from the definitions in this chapter.
There are many terms related to co-processing and associated fields which have
been used in this book. It is necessary that these terms must be defined beforehand
to make an easy understanding while reading different chapters in the book. The
terms and definitions have been classified in four categories in this book for ease in
understanding: (a) Materials-related terms and definitions, (b) Process and system-
related terms and definitions, (c) Legal and permit-related terms and definitions,
(d) Infrastructure-related terms and definitions, and (e) Stakeholder-related Terms
and Definitions. Following sections will define different terms which is depicted in
Fig. 2.1.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 17
S. K. Ghosh et al., Sustainable Management of Wastes Through Co-processing,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-6073-3_2
18 2 Terms and Definition Related to Co-processing …

Terms & Definition related to

Co-processing of Waste in Cement Kiln

Process & Legal and

Materials Infrastructure Stakeholder
System permit
related related Related
related related
Terms & Terms & Terms &
Terms & Terms &
Definitions Definitions Definitions
Definitions Definitions

Fig. 2.1 Classification of terms and definition related to co-processing

2.2 Materials-Related Terms and Definitions

Different types of materials are related to co-processing and associated activities.

The materials-related terms which are associated directly with the co-processing are
Alternative fuels and raw materials (AFR), refuse derived fuel (RDF), etc., while
Cement, clinkers, Concrete, etc., are associated with the demand side of a cement
plant, on the other hand, Biodegradable waste, carry bag, NRPW, plastics, etc., are
associated with the supply side of cement plants. Table 2.1 gives a clear picture of
the Materials related Terms and Definitions taken from different source documents.

2.3 Process and System-Related Terms and Definitions

Several processes and systems are related to co-processing and associated activi-
ties. The process-related terms are associated with the co-processing such as Pre-
processing, Alternate use, Calcination, Clinkering, environmentally sound technolo-
gies while environmentally sound management, solid waste management (SWM),
Transboundary movement, Sustainable Development are system-related terms. Table
2.2 demonstrates the Process and System-related Terms and Definitions.

2.3.1 Legal and Permission-Related Terms and Definitions

The terms, such as Authorization, Consent, extended producer responsibility (EPR),

Registration, Prescribed authority, and Tipping (or Gate) Fee are day-to-day rela-
tion to the co-processing and associated activities. The permission for the process,
compliance to the respective limits and parameters as well as the awareness of each
Table 2.1 Definitions of Materials-related Terms associated with co-processing
S. No Terms Definition
1 Alternative Fuels Wastes with recoverable energy value, used as fuels in a cement kiln, replacing a portion of conventional
fossil fuels such as coal. Other terms include secondary, substitute, or waste derived fuels (UNEP, 2011)
2 Alternative fuels and raw materials (AFR) Inputs to clinker production derived from waste streams that contribute to energy and raw material
requirements in the clinker manufacture
3 Alternative raw materials Waste materials containing useable minerals such as calcium, silica, alumina, and iron, which can be
used in the kiln to replace raw materials such as clay, shale, and limestone. Also known as secondary or
substitute raw materials (UNEP, 2011)
4 Biodegradable waste Means any organic material that can be degraded by micro-organisms into simpler stable compounds;
(SWM Rules, GOI, 2016)
5 Carry bags Mean bags made from plastic material or compostable plastic material, used for the purpose of carrying
or dispensing commodities which have a self-carrying feature but do not include bags that constitute or
form an integral part of the packaging in which goods are sealed prior to use; (PWM Rules, GOI, 2016)
6 Cement Finely ground inorganic material that, when mixed with water, forms a paste that sets and hardens by
means of hydration reactions and processes and that, after hardening, retains its strength and stability
2.3 Process and System-Related Terms and Definitions

under water (UNEP, 2011)

7 Clinker Intermediate product in cement manufacturing and the main substance in cement. Clinker is the result of
calcination of limestone in the kiln and subsequent reactions caused through burning (IFC, 2016)
8 Combustible waste Means non-biodegradable, non-recyclable, non-reusable, non hazardous solid waste having minimum
calorific value exceeding 1500 kcal/kg and excluding chlorinated materials like plastic, wood pulp, etc.;
(SWM Rules, GOI, 2016)
(continued)
19
Table 2.1 (continued)
20

S. No Terms Definition
9 Commodity Means tangible item that may be bought or sold and includes all marketable goods or wares; (PWM
Rules, GOI, 2016)
10 Concrete A material produced by mixing cement, water, and aggregates. The cement acts as a binder, and the
average cement content in concrete is about 15% (GIZ, 2020)
11 Dry waste Means waste other than biodegradable waste and inert street sweepings and includes recyclable and
non-recyclable waste, combustible waste and sanitary napkin and diapers, etc.; (SWM Rules, GOI,
2016)
12 Dust Total clean gas dust after dedusting equipment. (In the case of cement kiln main stacks, more than 95%
of the clean gas dust has PM10 quality, i.e., is particulate matter (PM) smaller than 10 microns) (GIZ &
Lafarge Holcim, 2020)
13 Food-stuffs Mean ready to eat food products, fast food, processed or cooked food in liquid, powder, solid or
semi-solid form; (PWM Rules, GOI, 2016)
14 Inert Means wastes which are not biodegradable, recyclable, or combustible street sweeping or dust and silt
removed from the surface drains; (SWM Rules, GOI, 2016)
15 Multi-layered packaging Means any material used or to be used for packaging and having at least one layer of plastic as the main
ingredients in combination with one or more layers of materials such as paper, paper board, polymeric
materials, metalized layers or Aluminium foil, either in the form of a laminate or co-extruded structure;
(PWM Rules, GOI, 2016)
16 Non-biodegradable waste Means any waste that cannot be degraded by micro-organisms into simpler stable compounds; (SWM
Rules, GOI, 2016)
(continued)
2 Terms and Definition Related to Co-processing …
Table 2.1 (continued)
S. No Terms Definition
17 Non-Recyclable Plastics Waste (NRPW) Recyclability of plastics depends on the Polymer groups; 5 out of 7 of the Plastic groups defined by the
Resin Identification Codes are never or seldom recycled due to physical degradation under the recycling
process, content of various additives like chlorine, etc.
The following four criteria need to be in place for a product to be recyclable:
1. The product must be made with a plastic that is collected for recycling, has market value and/or is
supported by a legislatively mandated programme
2. The product must be sorted and aggregated into defined streams for recycling processes
3. The product can be processed and reclaimed/recycled with commercial recycling processes
4. The recycled plastic becomes a raw material that is used in the production of new products
Innovative materials must demonstrate that they can be collected and sorted in sufficient quantities and
must be compatible with existing industrial recycling processes or will have to be available in sufficient
quantities to justify operating new recycling processes
The definition can be found here:
https://waste-management-world.com/a/global-definition-of-plasticsrecyclability-from-international-
recycling-associations
18 Other wastes Means wastes specified in Part B and Part D of Schedule III for import or export and includes all such
2.3 Process and System-Related Terms and Definitions

waste generated indigenously within the country; (HOWM Rules, GOI, 2016)
19 Plastic Means material which contains as an essential ingredient a high polymer such as polyethylene
terephthalate, high density polyethylene, Vinyl, low density polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene
resins, multi-materials like acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, polyphenylene oxide, polycarbonate, and
Polybutylene terephthalate; (PWM Rules, GOI, 2016)
(continued)
21
Table 2.1 (continued)
22

S. No Terms Definition
20 Plastic sheet Means Plastic sheet is the sheet made of plastic; (PWM Rules, GOI, 2016)
21 Plastic waste Means any plastic discarded after use or after their intended use is over; (PWM Rules, GOI, 2016)
22 Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) Solid fuel prepared from the energy rich fraction of municipal solid waste after the removal of
recyclables (IFC, 2016)
23 Solid waste Means and includes solid or semi-solid domestic waste, sanitary waste, commercial waste, institutional
waste, catering and market waste and other non-residential wastes, street sweepings, silt removed or
collected from the surface drains, horticulture waste, agriculture and dairy waste, treated bio-medical
waste excluding industrial waste, bio-medical waste and e-waste, battery waste, radio-active waste
generated in the area under the local authorities and other entities mentioned in rule 2; (SWM Rules,
GOI, 2016)
24 User fee Means a fee imposed by the local body and any entity mentioned in rule 2 on the waste generator to
cover full or part cost of providing solid waste collection, transportation, processing, and disposal
services. (SWM Rules, GOI, 2016)
25 Virgin plastic Means plastic material which has not been subjected to use earlier and has also not been blended with
scrap or waste; (PWM Rules, GOI, 2016)
26 Waste Any substance or object which the holder discards or is required to discard (WBCSD, 2014)
Waste The EC Framework Waste Directive 75/442/EEC, Article 1 defines waste as “any substance or object,
which (a) the holder discards or intends or is required to discard or (b) has to be treated in order to
protect the public health or the environment.” Waste material can be solid, liquid, or pasty (GTZ &
Holcim, 2006)
2 Terms and Definition Related to Co-processing …
2.3 Process and System-Related Terms and Definitions 23

Table 2.2 Definitions of process and system-related terms associated with co-processing
Sl. No Terms Definitions
1 Alternate use means use of material for a purpose other
than for which it was conceived, which is
beneficial because it promotes resource
efficiency; (PWM Rules, GOI, 2016)
2 Auto-Ignition Temperature Auto-ignition temperature is the
temperature at which a chemical can burn
without an ignition source
3 Bio-methanation means a process which entails enzymatic
decomposition of the organic matter by
microbial action to produce methane rich
biogas; (SWM Rules, GOI, 2016)
4 Calcination Heat-induced removal, or loss of
chemically-bound volatiles other than
water. In cement manufacture, this is the
thermal decomposition of calcite (calcium
carbonate) and other carbonate minerals
that gives a metallic oxide (mainly CaO)
plus carbon dioxide (UNEP, 2011)
5 Clinkering The thermo-chemical formation of clinker
minerals, especially to those reactions
occurring above about 1,300° C; also the
zone in the kiln where this occurs. Also
known as sintering or burning (UNEP,
2011)
6 Composting means a controlled process involving
microbial decomposition of organic
matter; (SWM Rules, GOI, 2016)
7 Co-processing The use of suitable waste materials in
manufacturing processes for the purpose of
energy and/or resource recovery and
resultant reduction in the use of
conventional fuels and/or raw materials
through substitution (UNEP, 2011)
8 De-centralized processing means establishment of dispersed facilities
for maximizing the processing of
biodegradable waste and recovery of
recyclables closest to the source of
generation so as to minimize transportation
of waste for processing or disposal; (SWM
Rules, GOI, 2016)
(continued)
24 2 Terms and Definition Related to Co-processing …

Table 2.2 (continued)

Sl. No Terms Definitions
9 Disintegration means the physical breakdown of a
material into very small fragments; ga.
“energy recovery” means energy recovery
from waste that is conversion of waste
material into usable heat, electricity, or fuel
through a variety of processes including
combustion, gasification, Pyrolysis,
anaerobic digestion & landfill gas
recovery”; (PWM Rules, GOI, 2016)
10 Environmentally sound management means taking all steps required to ensure
that the hazardous and other wastes are
managed in a manner which shall protect
health and the environment against the
adverse effects which may result from such
waste; (HOWM Rules, GOI, 2016)
11 Environmentally sound technologies means any technology approved by the
Central Government from time to time;
(HOWM Rules, GOI, 2016)
12 Flash Point Flash point is the lowest temperature at
which a chemical can vapourize to form an
ignitable mixture in air. A lower flash point
indicates higher flammability. Measuring a
flash point (open-cup or close-cup)
requires an ignition source. At the flash
point, the vapour may cease to burn when
the ignition source is removed
13 Handling includes all activities relating to sorting,
segregation, material recovery, collection,
secondary storage, shredding, baling,
crushing, loading, unloading,
transportation, processing, and disposal of
solid wastes; (SWM Rules, GOI, 2016)
14 Heating (calorific) value The heat per unit mass produced by
complete combustion of a given substance.
Calorific values are used to express the
energy values of fuels, usually expressed in
mega joules per kilogram (MJ/kg) (UNEP,
2011)
15 Higher heating (calorific) value (HHV) Maximum amount of energy that can be
obtained from the combustion of a fuel,
including the energy released when the
steam produced during combustion is
condensed, also called the gross heat value
(UNEP, 2011)
(continued)
2.3 Process and System-Related Terms and Definitions 25

Table 2.2 (continued)

Sl. No Terms Definitions
16 Incineration means an engineered process involving
burning or combustion of solid waste to
thermally degrade waste materials at high
temperatures; (SWM Rules, GOI, 2016)
17 Leachate means the liquid that seeps through solid
waste or other medium and has extracts of
dissolved or suspended material from it;
(SWM Rules, GOI, 2016)
18 Lower heating (calorific) value (LHV) The higher heating value less the latent
heat of vapourization of the water vapour
formed by the combustion of the hydrogen
in the fuel. Also called the net heat value
(UNEP, 2011)
19 Pre-processing Alternative fuels and/or raw materials not
having uniform characteristics must be
prepared from different waste streams
before being used as such in a cement
plant. The preparation process, or
pre-processing, is needed to produce a
waste stream that complies with the
technical and administrative specifications
of cement production and to guarantee that
environmental standards are met (UNEP,
2011)
20 Recovery means any operation or activity wherein
specific materials are recovered; (HOWM
Rules, GOI, 2016)
21 Recycling means the process of transforming
segregated non-biodegradable solid waste
into new material or product or as raw
material for producing new products which
may or may not be similar to the original
products; (SWM Rules, GOI, 2016)
22 Reuse means use of hazardous or other waste for
the purpose of its original use or other use;
(HOWM Rules, 2016)
(continued)

personnel involved in coprocessing are prime important aspects in coprocessing

business. The Legal and permission-related terms and definitions associated with the
co-processing are described in Table 2.3.
26 2 Terms and Definition Related to Co-processing …

Table 2.2 (continued)

Sl. No Terms Definitions
23 Sanitary land filling means the final and safe disposal of
residual solid waste and inert wastes on
land in a facility designed with protective
measures against pollution of ground
water, surface water and fugitive air dust,
wind-blown litter, bad odour, fire hazard,
animal menace, bird menace, pests or
rodents, greenhouse gas emissions,
persistent organic pollutants slope
instability and erosion; (SWM Rules, GOI,
2016)
24 Segregation means sorting and separate storage of
various components of solid waste, namely
biodegradable wastes including agriculture
and dairy waste, non-biodegradable wastes
including recyclable waste, non-recyclable
combustible waste, sanitary waste and
non-recyclable inert waste, domestic
hazardous wastes, and construction and
demolition wastes; (SWM Rules, GOI,
2016)
25 Solid Waste Management (SWM) refers to the supervised handling of waste
material from generation at the source
through the recovery processes to disposal
(IFC, 2016)
26 Sorting means separating various components and
categories of recyclables such as paper,
plastic, cardboards, metal, and glass from
mixed waste as may be appropriate to
facilitate recycling; (SWM Rules, GOI,
2016)
27 Storage mean storing any hazardous or other waste
for a temporary period, at the end of which
such waste is processed or disposed of;
(HOWM Rules, GOI, 2016)
28 Sustainable development “Development that satisfies present needs
without compromising the ability of future
generations to satisfy their own needs,” as
first defined in the report Our Common
Future published by the United Nations
Brundtland Commission in 1987
(WBCSD, 2014)
(continued)
2.4 Infrastructure-Related Terms and Definitions 27

Table 2.2 (continued)

Sl. No Terms Definitions
29 Transboundary movement means any movement of hazardous or other
wastes from an area under the jurisdiction
of one country to or through an area under
the jurisdiction of another country or to or
through an area not under the jurisdiction
of any country, provided that at least two
countries are involved in the movement;
33. “transport” means off-site movement
of hazardous or other wastes by air, rail,
road or water; (HOWM Rules, GOI, 2016)
30 Transportation means conveyance of solid waste, either
treated, partly treated or untreated from a
location to another location in an
environmentally sound manner through
specially designed and covered transport
system so as to prevent the foul odour,
littering and unsightly conditions; (SWM
Rules, GOI, 2016)
31 Treatment means a method, technique or process,
designed to modify the physical, chemical
or biological characteristics or composition
of any hazardous or other waste so as to
reduce its potential to cause harm;
(HOWM Rules, GOI, 2016)
32 Utilization means use of hazardous or other waste as a
resource;5 (HOWM Rules, GOI, 2016)
33 Waste management means the collection, storage,
transportation reduction, re-use, recovery,
recycling, composting or disposal of
plastic waste in an environmentally safe
manner; (PWM Rules, GOI, 2016)

2.4 Infrastructure-Related Terms and Definitions

Kiln, Co-incineration plant, Facility, Pre-calciner, Rotary kiln, etc., are the infrastruc-
ture which are necessary for effective coprocessing of wastes in cement plant. Table
2.4 described the terms and definitions related to infrastructure for co-processing.
28 2 Terms and Definition Related to Co-processing …

Table 2.3 Definitions of legal and permission-related terms associated with co-processing
Sl. No Terms Definitions
1 Authorization means the permission given by the State
Pollution Control Board or Pollution
Control Committee, as the case may be, to
the operator of a facility or urban local
authority, or any other agency responsible
for processing and disposal of solid waste;
(SWM Rules, GOI, 2016)
2 Basel Convention means the United Nations Environment
Programme Convention on the Control of
Transboundary Movement of Hazardous
Wastes and their Disposal; (HOWM Rules,
GOI, 2016)
3 Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) means the Central Pollution Control Board
constituted under sub-Sect. (1) of Sect. 3 of
the Water (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1974 (6 of 1974); (HOWM
Rules, GOI, 2016)
4 Consent means the consent to establish and operate
from the concerned State Pollution Control
Board or Pollution Control Committee
granted under the Water (Prevention and
Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (6 of 1974),
and the Air (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1981 (14 of 1981); (PWM
Rules, GOI, 2016)
5 Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) means responsibility of any producer of
packaging products such as plastic, tin,
glass, and corrugated boxes for
environmentally sound management, till
end-of-life of the packaging products;
(SWM Rules, GOI, 2016)
6 Local body for the purpose of these rules means and
includes the municipal corporation, nagar
nigam, municipal council, nagarpalika,
nagar Palikaparishad, municipal board,
nagar panchayat and town panchayat,
census towns, notified areas and notified
industrial townships with whatever name
they are called in different States and union
territories in India; (SWM Rules, GOI,
2016)
7 Prescribed authority means the authorities specified in rule 12;
(PWM Rules, GOI, 2016)
(continued)
2.5 Stakeholder-Related Terms and Definitions 29

Table 2.3 (continued)

Sl. No Terms Definitions
8 Registration means registration with the State Pollution
Control Board or Pollution Control
Committee concerned, as the case may be;
(PWM Rules, GOI, 2016)
9 State Pollution Control Board means the State Pollution Control Board
constituted under Sect. 4 of the Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,
1974 (6 of 1974) and includes, in relation to
a Union territory, the Pollution Control
Committee; (HOWM Rules, GOI, 2016)
10 Tipping (or Gate) Fee means a fee or support price determined by
the local authorities or any state agency
authorized by the State government to be
paid to the concessionaire or operator of
waste processing facility or for disposal of
residual solid waste at the landfill; (SWM
Rules, 2016)

2.5 Stakeholder-Related Terms and Definitions

The contractor, transporters, waste generators, etc., are very important stakeholders
whose work has a great impact on the quality of co-processing and associated
activities. The terms and definitions related to stakeholder in the co-processing and
associated activities are described in Table 2.5.
30 2 Terms and Definition Related to Co-processing …

Table 2.4 Definitions of infrastructure-related terms associated with co-processing

Sl. No Terms Definitions
1 Captive treatment, storage and disposal means a facility developed within the
facility premises of an occupier for treatment,
storage and disposal of wastes generated
during manufacture, processing, treatment,
package, storage, transportation, use,
collection, destruction, conversion,
offering for sale, transfer or the like of
hazardous and other wastes; (HOWM
Rules, GOI, 2016)
2 Co-incineration plant Under Directive 2000/76/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council,
any stationary or mobile plant whose main
purpose is the generation of energy or the
production of material products and which
uses wastes as a regular or additional fuel;
or in which waste is thermally treated for
the purpose of disposal. (GIZ, 2020)
3 Common treatment, storage and disposal means a common facility identified and
facility established individually or jointly or
severally by the State Government,
occupier, operator of a facility or any
association of occupiers that shall be used
as common facility by multiple occupiers
or actual users for treatment, storage and
disposal of the hazardous and other wastes;
(HOWM Rules, GOI, 2016)
4 Disposal means the final and safe disposal of post
processed residual solid waste and inert
street sweepings and silt from surface
drains on land as specified in Schedule I to
prevent contamination of ground water,
surface water, ambient air and attraction of
animals or birds; (SWM Rules, GOI, 2016)
5 Dump sites means a land utilized by local body for
disposal of solid waste without following
the principles of sanitary land filling;
(SWM Rules, GOI, 2016)
6 Facility means any establishment wherein the solid
waste management processes, namely
segregation, recovery and storage,
collection, recycling, processing,
treatment, or safe disposal are carried out;
(SWM Rules, GOI, 2016)
(continued)
2.5 Stakeholder-Related Terms and Definitions 31

Table 2.4 (continued)

Sl. No Terms Definitions
7 Kiln The part of the cement plant that
manufactures clinker; comprises the kiln
itself, any preheaters and Pre-calciner and
the clinker cooler apparatus (UNEP, 2011)
10 Pre-calciner A kiln line apparatus usually combined
with a preheater, in which partial to almost
complete calcination of carbonate minerals
is achieved ahead of the kiln itself, and
which makes use of a separate heat source.
A Pre-calciner reduces fuel consumption in
the kiln, and allows the kiln to be shorter,
as it no longer has to perform the full
calcination function (UNEP, 2011)
11 Preheater An apparatus for heating the raw mix
before it reaches the dry kiln itself. In
modern dry kilns, the preheater is
commonly combined with a Pre-calciner.
Preheaters use hot exit gases from the kiln
as their heat source (UNEP, 2011)
13 Rotary kiln A kiln consisting of a gently inclined,
rotating steel tube lined with refractory
brick. The kiln is fed with raw materials at
its upper end and heated by flame from,
mainly, the lower end, which is also the exit
end for the product (clinker) (UNEP, 2011)
32 2 Terms and Definition Related to Co-processing …

Table 2.5 Definitions of stakeholder-related terms associated with co-processing

Sl. No Terms Definitions
1 Brand owner means a person or company who sells any commodity
under a registered brand label. (SWM Rules, GOI, 2016)
2 Contractor means a person or firm that undertakes a contract to
provide materials or labour to perform a service or do a
job for service providing authority; (SWM Rules, GOI,
2016)
3 Importer means a person who imports or intends to import and
holds an Importer–Exporter Code number, unless
otherwise specifically exempted. (PWM Rules, GOI,
2016)
4 Institutional waste generator means and includes occupier of the institutional buildings
such as building occupied by Central Government
Departments, State Government Departments, public or
private sector companies, hospitals, schools, colleges,
universities or other places of education, organization,
academy, hotels, restaurants, malls, and shopping
complexes; (PWM Rules, 2016)
5 Manufacturer means and includes a person or unit or agency engaged in
production of plastic raw material to be used as raw
material by the producer. (PWM Rules, GOI, 2016)
6 Operator of a facility means a person or entity, who owns or operates a facility
for handling solid waste which includes the local body
and any other entity or agency appointed by the local
body; (SWM Rules, GOI, 2016)
7 Producer means persons engaged in manufacture or import of carry
bags or multi-layered packaging or plastic sheets or like,
and includes industries or individuals using plastic sheets
or like or covers made of plastic sheets or multi-layered
packaging for packaging or wrapping the commodity;
(PWM Rules, GOI, 2016)
8 Street vendor shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in clause (l)
of subsection (1) of Sect. 2 of the Street Vendors
(Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street
Vending) Act, 2014 (7 of 2014); (PWM Rules, GOI,
2016)
9 Transporter means a person engaged in the off-site transportation of
hazardous or other waste by air, rail, road, or water;
(HOWM Rules, GOI, 2016)
10 Waste generator means and includes every person or group of persons,
every residential premises and non-residential
establishments including Indian Railways, defense
establishments, which generate solid waste; (SWM
Rules, GOI, 2016)
11 Waste pickers mean individuals or agencies, groups of individuals
voluntarily engaged or authorized for picking of
recyclable plastic waste. (PWM Rules, GOI, 2016)
References 33

References

GIZ & Lafarge Holcim. (2020). Guidelines on Pre- and Co-processing of Waste in Cement
Production. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH, Holcim
Technology Ltd.
GTZ-Holcim. (2006). Guidelines on co-processing Waste Materials in Cement Production. The
GTZ-Holcim Public Private Partnership. Holcim Group Support Ltd and Deutsche Gesellschaft
für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH.
HOWM Rules, GOI. (2016). “Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary
Movement) Rules, 2016” notified by MoEFCC, Government of India, on 4th April 2016.
IFC. (2016). Unlocking Value: alternative Fuels For Egypt’s cement industry. International Finance
Corporation (IFC). www.ifc.org.
PWM Rules, GOI. (2016). Plastic Waste Management Rules 2016 notified by MoEFCC,
Government of India on 18th March 2016 and subsequently amended on 27th March 2018.
SWM Rules, GOI. (2016). “Solid Waste Management Rules 2016” notified by MoEFCC,
Government of India on 8th April 2016.
UNEP. (2011). Technical guidelines on the environmentally sound co-processing of hazardous
wastes in cement kilns. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 11 November 2011.
UNEP/CHW.10/6/Add/3/Rev. 1.
WBCSD. (2014). Guidelines for Co-Processing Fuels and Raw Materials in Cement Manufacturing.
World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), Cement Sustainability Initiative
(CSI). www.wbcsd.org.
 Part II
Literature Review
Chapter 3
Status Review of Research
on Co-processing

3.1 Introduction

Portland cement clinker is a very important compound of modern cements. CO2 emis-
sion during the calcination of calcium carbonate as raw material takes place in cement
plants. Reduction of CO2 emission, the anthropologically caused climate change, is
the focus of international initiatives, and hence, finding and development of strong
alternatives are the key areas of researchers, policy makers, and plant operators.
Operators have been working to use more secondary raw materials and alternative
fuels available in close proximity to the plants, whereas the research and develop-
ments in cement clinker chemistry show a significant potential for alternatives. For
the last two decades, different types of wastes have been seen to work effectively
as AFRs with higher thermal substitution rates (TSR) and cost-effective initiatives
in cement plants. To achieve these, a significant understanding and improvement in
cement clinker chemistry are needed. Baidya and Ghosh analysed the substitution
benefit and monetary benefits based on the four constructs in co-processing in cement
kiln, namely amount of AFRs co-processed, TSR%, TF, and TR replaced (Baidya &
Ghosh, 2019).
Coal is the main and primary fuel used in cement kilns. Presently, the use of alter-
native fuels in cement kilns is in practice and increasing at a faster rate while a wider
range of alternative fuels is being used successfully in gas, liquid, and solid forms
(Table 3.1). In 2005, nearly 9 exajoules (EJ) of fuels and electricity were consumed
by the global cement industry for cement production (IEA, 2007; Murray & Price,
2008). Energy consumption varies depending on the technology and scale of oper-
ations. Nearly 3.2–6.3 GJ energy and about 1.7 tons of raw materials (mainly lime-
stone) per ton are required in the production of Clinker (Rahman et al., 2015). Cement
production is an energy-intensive industry that utilizes thermal energy of cost equiv-
alent to 20–25% of the total cement production cost (Madlool et al., 2013) while
the estimated lifetime of a kiln used in the cement industry is nearly 30–50 years
(Peter & Martin, 2019).

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 37
S. K. Ghosh et al., Sustainable Management of Wastes Through Co-processing,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-6073-3_3
38 3 Status Review of Research on Co-processing

Table 3.1 Different categories of liquid, solid, and gaseous alternative fuels that can be used in the
cement industry
Category Fuels
Liquid Fuels Used oils, petrochemical waste, paint waste, Tar, chemical wastes, distillation
residues, waste solvents, wax suspensions, oil sludge, asphalt slurry, etc.
Solid Fuels Used tyres, battery cases, paper waste, rubber residues, pulp sludge, dried
sewage sludge, plastics wastes and residues, wood waste, domestic refuse, rice
husks, refuse-derived fuel (RDF), coconut shell, nut shells, oil-bearing soils,
non-cattle feed harvest rejects, etc.
Gaseous Fuels Refinery waste gas, landfill gas, pyrolysis gas, natural gas, etc.

Long residence time, high temperatures in cement kilns, and several other char-
acteristics in the production of cement make co-processing of wastes as a viable
strategic option to the industries and policy makers. The favourable conditions that
are created in the clinker production in cement kiln includes high temperature, long
residence time, oxidizing atmosphere, ash retention in clinker, alkaline environment,
and high thermal inertia. The organic part of the fuel is destroyed under these condi-
tions while the inorganic part as well as the heavy metals are trapped and combined
in the product on its own. Since the last three decades, co-processing of wastes has
been practised in cement kilns in a few developed countries, namely a number of
countries in the European Union, the United States, and Japan. Many developing
countries such as India, China, Malaysia, South Korea, and a few other countries
in Asia have been practising co-processing to promote the co-processing of wastes
in the cement industry. Landfill and incineration are currently the main and most
preferred disposal methods of municipal solid waste with a number of many limita-
tions (Yao et al., 2019). The landfill is easy and the cheapest disposal method while
the generation of GHG causes harm to the environment and the leaching causes
long-term secondary environmental pollution affecting soil fertility, contamination
of aquifer and waterbodies, and the flora–fauna with no recovery of resources.
The use of alternative fossil fuels in several cement plants in European countries
saves fossil fuels to a greater extent. As reported in Cembureau, 1999, from 1990 to
1998, the savings in fossil fuels in European cement plants may be equivalent to 2.5
million tons of coal per year. During 1990 and 1998, the AFR use in cement plants in
different countries were France @ 52.4%, Switzerland @ 25%, Great Britain @ 20%,
Italy @ 4.1%, Belgium @ 18%, Germany 15%, Czech Republic @ 9.7%, Sweden
@ 2%, Poland @ 1.4%, Portugal @1.3%, and Spain @1% (Mokrzycki et al., 2003).

3.2 Feedstock and Raw Materials for Co-processing

Co-processing involves wastes as alternative fuels in cement kilns which are demon-
strated in Table 3.1 and Fig. 3.1. It can be observed from Table 3.1 and Fig. 3.1 that
there exists a wider scope of using various waste materials in liquid, solid, and gaseous
3.2 Feedstock and Raw Materials for Co-processing 39

Fig. 3.1 Classified wastes used as an alternative fuel

states in the cement kiln as alternative materials. Hence, if co-processing is effec-

tively established in the country, a huge amount of waste can be recycled protecting
natural resource depletion and reducing GHG emissions with cost-effective cement
production.
The municipal wastes consist of several fractions which are combustible but non-
recyclable, for example, soiled paper, soiled cloth, soiled and contaminated plastics,
pieces of leather, rubber, tyre, multi-layer plastics and other materials, different types
of packaging materials, polystyrene (thermocol), and wood, and many others are
disposed of to the landfill.
Most of these materials are destined to landfill sites which created lots of pollution
as well as a huge amount of resources are depleted. Refuse-derived fuel (RDF) can
be produced using these portions of wastes. RDF is used as an alternative fuel in
various industries and as AFR in the cement plants helping to promote the circular
economy concept. The raw materials and feedstock for the co-processing can be made
available from different sources. Some of the possible sources have been shown in
Fig. 3.2 which includes different types of industries, waste treatment plants including
incineration units, farming and breeding units, construction and demolition activities,
wastewater purifiers, food processing units, and many more including the sources of
municipal waste streams.
The effectiveness of utilization of any specific feedstock depends on different
characteristics of the materials. The key factors are Ash contents, moisture contents,
gross calorific value, chlorine, and Sulphur contents. Table 3.2 demonstrates the
value of key parameters of different feedstock materials used in different cement
plants using co-processing of wastes as AFR. It is observed from Table 3.2 that
most of the feedstock used for alternative fuels have higher value of gross calorific
value (GCV) than RDF at a level of 2000 to 3000 kcal/kg while Carbon black/powder,
Footwear, Low-moisture Plastic waste, Tyre chips, and Resin waste have two to three
times higher GCV. The availability of these materials depends on seasonal variation
whereas the availability of refuse-derived fuel (RDF) is more or less consistent.
40 3 Status Review of Research on Co-processing

Fig. 3.2 Sources of different raw materials for co-processing in cement kiln

Hence, the cement plants have to depend on the RDF most of which is not very
cost-effective than using another feedstock.
This may be noted that a few of the materials mentioned here are available at free of
cost or at a rock bottom price which brings the cost of fuel and raw materials to lower
levels in cement plants. In Fig. 3.3, a typical modern cement plant, Carthage Cement,
in Tunisia and feedstock transportation and preparation in RDF facility are shown.
Hazardous waste has diverse characteristics while strict environmental regulations
and scarcely available resources such as land, energy, and finance have made its
management more complex. Varied handling protocols, alternatives for treatment,
and disposal are available for specific types of wastes (Nema & Gupta, 1999). There
are several treatment methods for hazardous waste, e.g., acid–base neutralization,
incineration, chemical fixation/ solidification, co-processing in cement plants, etc.,
used prior to final disposal (Misra & Pandey, 2005; Millano, 1996; Baidya et al.,
2017a).
The estimated MSW generation in India is to be 140 million tons by 2025 from 62
million tons in 2016. Effective management of MSW can prevent and control human
health issues, environmental pollution, and resource depletion. A major portion of
MSW, 55–80%, is disposed of to landfill and dump yards in most of the developing
countries. Nearly 32% of total primary energy is derived from biomass in rural areas
3.2 Feedstock and Raw Materials for Co-processing 41

Table 3.2 Value of key parameters of alternate fuels used in cement plants
Sl Alternative fuel Ash content (%) Moisture (%) Gross Calorific Cl (%) S (%)
Value (GCV)
(Kcal/Kg)
1 Carbon 1 15 6000–6300 0.4 2
black/powder
2 Footwear 5–10 2–5 5400–5700
3 Low-moisture 5–10 5 5000–6000 – 0.2–0.4
Plastic waste
4 Tyre chips 5–10 5–10 4500–5500 0.7 1.5
5 Resin waste 10 15 4000–5000 0.5 –
6 Cashew nut 8–15 5–10 3500–4000
shell
7 Plastic waste 5–10 35–40 3200–3500
8 Paint sludge 15–20 20–30 3000–3500
9 High-moisture 50 5 3000 – –
plastic waste
10 Rice husk 10–15 2–5 3000–3500
11 Refuse-derived 15–30 10–30 2000–3000 0.4–0.7 0.2–0.3
fuel (RDF)

Table 3.3 Spent pot liner waste: estimated projections in India. (Source CII, 2016)
S.No Parameter Existing 2015 Anticipated 2025 Unit
1 Calorific value 4000 4000 Kcal/kg
2 Quantitty of SPL generated14 0.04 0.07 Million TPA
3 Quantity already in secured landfills 0.09 0.09 Million TPA
4 Total quantity – 0.16 Million TPA
5 Quantity of SPL available for – 0.14 @70%
Co-processing
6 Energy Generated from SPL – 0.057 Million TOE
7 % Energy from Spent pot liner on AF – 0.81 %
8 % Energy from spent pot liner on Total – 0.20 %
thermal energy for cement plant

in India and in major developing countries. As per the Ministry of New and Renew-
able Energy (MNRE) in India, 120 million tons/annum of biomass is available as
surplus which is a potential feedstock for co-processing in cement plants. Used tyres
having higher GCV are a potential alternate fuel generated at the rate of 0.83 million
tons per year in India which can be better managed in cement kiln for co-processing.
About 0.6 million tons of incinerable hazardous waste are generated annually from
41,523 hazardous waste generating units in India as of 2019 as per the Central Pollu-
tion Control Board, India. New Hazardous Waste Management Rules 2016 consider
42 3 Status Review of Research on Co-processing

Fig. 3.3 A modern cement plant: Carthage Cement, Tunisia. (Source Amine Abdelkhalek, entrant
to the Global Cement Photography Competition and feedstock transportation and preparation for
RDF facility)

co-processing as a preferred option for the treatment and disposal of hazardous

waste. Figure 3.4 shows photographs of MSW landfill, biomass, tyre waste, and
hazardous wastes which are potential feedstock for co-processing in cement plants.
The energy in percentage of Total Substitution Rate (TSR) available from different
fuels is demonstrated in Fig. 3.5 and the percent energy using different fuels for TSR
is shown in Fig. 3.6.

Fig. 3.4 a Photographs of a Waste dump site; b Agricultural Wastes; c Tyre Wastes, d Hazardous
Wastes. Potential feedstock for RDF/co-processing facility
3.2 Feedstock and Raw Materials for Co-processing 43

Energy from different Fuels (TSR%)

30
25.66
25

20
14.27
15
8.49
10

5 1.83
0.2 0.87

0
Spent Pot Hazardous Tyre Waste Bio Mass MSW Total AF
Lining Waste

Fig. 3.5 Energy in percentage of TSR available from different fuels. (Source CII, 2016)

ENERGY FROM DIFFERENT FUELS (TSR%)

Waste Tyres 7%
Hazardous Waste 3%

Bio Mass 33%

MSW 56%

Spent Pot Liner

0.8%

Fig. 3.6 Percent energy using different fuels for TSR. (Source CII, 2016)

3.2.1 Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)

Contents of municipal solid waste (MSW) are defined in the national rules of the
respective country while in India the definition is governed by SWM Rules 2016.
Currently, the estimated 62 million tons of MSW are generated annually. “Swachhata
Sandesh Newsletter” by the MoHUA reported, in January 2020, that 147,613 tons/day
of solid waste are generated, from 84,475 wards in India. The report by the then
Planning Commission in (2014) estimates the waste generation as 276,342 tons per
day (TPD) of waste by 2021, 450,132 TPD by 2031, and 1,195,000 TPD by 2050. The
quantity of plastic waste generation is also increasing which is another significant
44 3 Status Review of Research on Co-processing

challenge. India generates 9.4 million tons per annum of plastic waste. The MoEFCC
estimates that only 75–80 percent of the total MSW gets collected and 22–28 percent
is treated (Press Information Bureau, 2016).

3.2.2 Spent Pot Liner Waste

In primary aluminium production, carbon anodes and electrolyte bath and carbon
cathodes are used. Alumina (Al2O3) dissolved in cryolite (Na3AlF6) is contained
in the electrolyte at 960 °C temperatures (Ismael Vemdrame Flores et al., 2019;
Gunasegaram & Molennar, 2015). At an interval of 3–8 years of operation, the
generated carbon cathode “potlining” is removed from the shell and the shell is re-
lined. The resulting “potlining” material as removed is called SPL (spent pot lining).
SPL is a hazardous waste to be disposed of in secured storage landfilling (SLF) sites.
SPL waste contains 4000–5000 kcal/kg of gross calorific value (GCV). SPL is a
preferred alternative fuel in cement kilns that can be easily used in cement plants
through co-processing. SPL is available in India and in many other countries.

3.2.3 Hazardous Waste

Usually, hazardous waste is burnt in incinerators in the common hazardous waste

treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) or at captive treatment facilities
at waste generating unit, and a portion is disposed of in sanitary landfills as per the
rules (Ghosh, 2017). The energy contents in the hazardous waste can be used as
AFR in a cement kiln. All the countries generate a huge amount of hazardous waste
though the disposal of hazardous waste is carried out strictly as per national hazardous
waste rules [In India, Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary
Movement) Amendment, Rules, 2016 latest amended in 23/4/2019] because of its
adverse impact on environment and health. In India, as per the Central Pollution
Control Board (CPCB) report 2019, nearly 41,523 units generate 7.90 Million Tons
of hazardous waste per annum out of which the incinerable and recyclable portion
is nearly 4.58 Million Tons per annum. Table 3.4 gives the estimated projection of
hazardous wastes in India.

3.2.4 Biomass Waste

Biomass contains sawdust, rice and paddy husk, wastes from food industry waste,
and many others. In the rural areas in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, biomass is
used as the primary energy source derived from biomass. Biomass produces energy
via combustion and after converting it to various forms of biofuel. Biomass is utilized
3.2 Feedstock and Raw Materials for Co-processing 45

Table 3.4 Hazardous waste: estimated projections. (Source CII, 2016)

S.No Parameter Existing 2011 Anticipated 2025 Unit
1 Incinerable Hazardous waste 0.6 1.02* Million TPA
2 Average calorific value16 3000 3000 Kcal/kg
3 Percentage of quantity available for 80 %
co-processing
4 Quantity available for co-processing 0.81 Million TPA
5 Energy from Hazardous waste 0.24 Million TOE
6 % Energy from HW on AF 3.46 %
7 % Energy from HW on Total thermal 0.87 %
energy for cement plant

Table 3.5 Biomass waste: estimated projections. (Source CII, 2016)

S.No Parameter Existing 2015 Anticipated 2025 Unit
1 Biomass generation in 500 – Million TPA
India19
2 Surplus biomass availability 120 120 Million TPA
3 Average Calorific value 3000 Kcal/kg of material
4 Available for co-processing 6.5 %
5 Quantity from Biomass for 8 Million TPA
co-processing
6 Energy from Biomass 2.40 Million TOE
7 % Energy from Biomass on – 33.97 %
AF
8 % Energy from Biomass on – 8.49 %
total thermal energy for
cement plant

in the production of bioenergy and thus helps in the bioeconomy. In India, the agri-
cultural and forestry residues contribute to about 120–150 million tons per annum of
surplus biomass availability as estimated by the Ministry of Non-Renewable Energy
(MoNRE) and more than 6.5% is used for co-processing for the production of cement.
There is a huge scope of utilization of biomass in co-processing in cement plants in
India and many other countries. Table 3.5 shows the projection of biomass in India.

3.2.5 Tyre Waste

Globally, as estimated, nearly 13.5 million tons of tyres are scrapped each year;
40% of which come from emerging markets such as China, India, South America,
Southeast Asia, South Africa, and Eastern Europe. In the US alone, exports of waste
46 3 Status Review of Research on Co-processing

Table 3.6 Tyre waste: estimated projections. (Source CII, 2016)

S.No Parameter Anticipated Unit
1 Used tyres availability 0.83 1.3223 Million TPA
2 Average Calorific value 6500 Kcal/kg
3 Percentage of quantity available for co-processing 60 %
4 Quantity available for co-processing 0.79 Million TPA
5 Energy from Tyre waste 0.51 Million TOE
6 % Energy from Tyre waste on AF – 7.33
7 % Energy from Tyre waste on total energy for cement – 1.83
plant

tyres amounted to almost 140,000 tons/year from 2002–2011. Globally, over 1.6
billion new tyres are produced and nearly 1 billion waste tyres are generated and
only 100 million tyres are processed and recycled every year. India discards about
275,000 tyres a day whereas these are pyrolyzed in 637 tyre pyrolysis units in 19
states of the country as of July 2019. In the European Union, the End-of-Life Vehicle
Directive (2000/53/EC) governs and stipulates the separate collection of tyres from
vehicles dismantlers and encourages the recycling of tyres and other materials. India
Tyre Manufacturing Association (ATMA) reported that 0.83 million tons of used tyres
were generated annually in 2011–2012. Tyre waste is a superior alternate fuel having
a calorific value of > 6500 kcal/kg to use in cement co-processing. Tyre-derived fuel
(TDF) was first used in cement kilns, in Germany, in the 1970s; subsequently, 50%
of the used tyre in the USA are converted into TDF for the cement industry. Table
3.6 shows the estimates of tyre wastes in India for 2025.

3.2.6 Summary of Energy Available From Different Waste

Streams

After assessing the existing quantity and future forecasting of different waste genera-
tion and waste-derived fuels, it may be concluded that 25% alternate fuel substitution
is possible in the Indian cement industry by 2025. TSR @ 25% will benefit individual
unit and support the national initiative of achieving intended nationally determined
contribution (INDC). Table 3.7 shows the percentage share of alternate fuel and total
thermal energy in India.
3.3 Guiding Principles for Co-processing of Waste in Cement Plant 47

Table 3.7 Percent share of

S.No Waste streams % share on AF % share on total
alternate fuel and total
thermal energy
thermal energy in India.
(Source CII, 2016) 1 MSW 57.07 14.27
2 Spent Pot Lining 0.81 0.20
3 Biomass 33.97 8.49
4 Hazardous waste 3.46 0.87
5 Tyre waste 7.33 1.83
Total 25.66

3.3 Guiding Principles for Co-processing of Waste

in Cement Plant

The guidelines prepared by GTZ-Holcim Public Private Partnership (GIZ-Holcim,

2006) proposes twenty-two principles focussing on different aspects. It contains legal
aspects with seven principles, operational aspects with five principles, occupational
health and safety (OH&S) aspects with five principles, and communication and social
responsibility aspects with five principles presented in Table 3.8.

3.4 Previous Research on Co-processing and Allied Fields

Researchers have been studying different aspects of recycling and utilization of MSW
incineration ash and concluded that both fly ash and bottom ash from MSWI can be
used as raw materials for Portland cement. Research results have also been found
production and testing of Eco-cement and Eco Concrete using different types of
wastes, namely MSW, fly ash, bottom ash, etc. (J.R. et al., 2008; Saikia et al., 2007;
Hanehara, 2001; Kikuchi, 2001; Lam et al., 2010, 2011; Kyle A. Clavier, 2019). The
popularity of replacing traditional raw materials with wastes and residues hasbeen
increasing, and thus, research on this subject is also gaining popularity. In the US
context, researchers have conducted several studies (Guo et al., 2016; Pan et al.,
2008; Saikia et al., 2007; Hanehara, 2001), but the information on the use of MSW
incineration ash into cement production is still inadequate. Fly ash has a perceived
risk of heavy metal and chloride leaching while bottom ash does not have those
possibilities. Most studies on MSW incineration ash-amended cement focuses on the
use of MSWI fly ash, while the bottom ash (BA) is the preferred one for recycling
into US cement production.
There are hundreds of literature which are available. Table 3.9 gives glimpses of
the study presented by selected researchers in the literature in the span of the last
twenty-five years.
48 3 Status Review of Research on Co-processing

Table 3.8 The excerpts of the guiding principles for co-processing waste materials in cement
production
Principle number Statement of principles Expansion of statement of principles
Legal Aspects:
1 “An appropriate legislative and Co-processing including AFR
regulatory framework shall be set implementation and marketing should
up” be a part in the national legislative
instrument concerning environmental
protection and waste management
2 “Baselines for traditional fuels and Baseline data of initial review of
raw materials shall be defined” environmental impacts of AFR
derived from environmental impact
assessments (EIA) is to be used to
compare the same with virgin fuel
and primary raw materials. Adequate
and robust monitoring and control of
inputs, outputs, and emissions during
the co-processing should be
established
3 “All relevant authorities should be Establish a system of effective open,
involved during the permitting consistent, and continuous internal
process” and external communication to
interested parties/stakeholders to
build credibility with the authorities
to evaluate the option of
co-processing. Setting up of a
community advisory panels including
the authority/ies is proposed to
facilitate multipurpose
communication channel, know-how
exchange, and advocacy of
application of best available
technology (BAT)
Environmental Aspects of Cement Production and AFR pre-processing
4 “Rules must be observed” The adverse impact of emissions
from the stack of cement kiln should
be minimized while using AFR by (1)
feeding AF into the high-temperature
zones (i.e., via the main burner, mid
kiln, transition chamber, secondary
(riser duct) firing, and pre-calciner
firing); (2) feeding alternative raw
materials with elevated amounts of
volatile matter (organics, sulphur);
and (3) developing cement production
lines having feeding operation
effective. It must filter the dust
directed to the cement mills
(continued)
3.4 Previous Research on Co-processing and Allied Fields 49

Table 3.8 (continued)

Principle number Statement of principles Expansion of statement of principles
5 “Emission monitoring is obligatory” Emissions monitoring needs to be
complied with the national
regulations and agreements and
company corporate rules, if any.
Quality control of input materials
mainly the feedstock including AFR
for co-processing must be carried out
with a higher confidence level
6 “Pre-processing of waste is required Uniform flows of raw material and
for certain waste streams” fuel with respect to quality and
quantity in the kiln are required for
optimum operation. Pre-processing is
carried out for certain types of waste
for co-processing
7 “Environmental impact assessments Environmental and business risk
(EIA) confirm compliance with assessments as well as material flux
environmental standards” and energy flow analyses need to be
carried out for identifying system
weaknesses and optimization of
resources use, respectively
Operational Issues
8 “The sourcing of waste and AFR is Traceability from the receiving to
essential” final treatment of AFR at
pre-processing and/or co-processing
facility has to be maintained to
minimize undesired emissions and
operational risks and maximize final
product quality
Uniform waste stream with quality
and delivery criteria should be
ensured through effective contractual
business agreements with appropriate
stakeholders. SOP (Standard
Operating Procedure) must be
developed for the introduction of the
new waste for source qualification
test procedure and acceptance criteria
to be followed. Non-conforming
waste categories for co-processing
must be quarantined and not be used
in the process
(continued)
50 3 Status Review of Research on Co-processing

Table 3.8 (continued)

Principle number Statement of principles Expansion of statement of principles
9 “Materials transport, handling, and Effective SOP and appropriate
storage must be monitored” machineries/equipment at different
stages, namely movement, handling,
solid and liquid wastes storage, and
AFR should be established and
maintained in the plant and should
comply with applicable regulatory
requirements. Effective design to
minimize fugitive dust emissions is
required for conveying, dosing, and
feeding systems. Effective emergency
response plan including response to
spill and emission of toxic/ harmful
vapours considering start-up and
shutdown also should be developed in
place with regular mock drill
involving all employees
10 “Operational aspects must be Introduction points of the AFR
considered” should be determined considering the
characteristics of the AFR and
accordingly fed to the kiln system.
Plant health monitoring should be
effective. The AFR feeding strategies
adopted have to be recorded and must
be accessible to operators for all
conditions of operations, e.g.,
start-up, shutdown, or
emergency/upset conditions of the
kiln
11 “Quality control system is a must” Quality Assurance of process and
products must be governed by QAP
(Quality Assurance Plans) in
pre-processing or co-processing of
wastes and AFR supported by
resource provision like application
documents including SOP,
machineries/equipment, and trained
manpower. Appropriate protocols for
non-conforming AFR/Wastes at
incoming, in-process, and outgoing
stages must be followed and
communicated to operators
(continued)
3.4 Previous Research on Co-processing and Allied Fields 51

Table 3.8 (continued)

Principle number Statement of principles Expansion of statement of principles
12 “Monitoring and auditing allow Internal Auditing procedure should
transparent tracing” be developed. Periodic regular
internal/external auditing by trained
personnel/consultants have to be
conducted at a specified interval in
pre- and co-processing facilities.
Audit reports to be communicated
and non-compliances are to be closed
with timeline
Occupational health and safety (OH&S) issues
13 “Site suitability avoids risks” Different types of risks should be
avoidable at the site. The following
may be considered while assessing
and mitigating OHS Risks: (a)
Proximity to human settlement,
forest, and impact of
logistics/transport; (b) good
infrastructure to prevent or protect
from impacts from emission, dust,
water pollution, fire, etc., and (c)
trained manpower to handle and
process AFR with minimized risks
14 “Safety and security” Effective organization structure with
a responsibility of risk manager for
handling safety and security
arrangement and execution must be
developed, established, and available
at site
15 “Documentation and information Documented OHS management
are must” system including the compliance with
the system must be established,
communicated, and available to
employees and authorities before
starting co-processing activity
16 “Training should be provided at all A system should exist to train and
levels” retrain and enhance competence of
the existing and new employees,
contractors, and Management
personnel on co-processing. Field
visits to existing facilities should be a
part of orientation training for all
employees to be engaged in the
co-processing and allied activities
(continued)
52 3 Status Review of Research on Co-processing

Table 3.8 (continued)

Principle number Statement of principles Expansion of statement of principles
Outsiders have to undergo an
induction session. Trainings on risks
and mitigation plans are mandatory
17 “Emergency and spill response Refer to Principle 9 for Effective
plans” emergency and spill response as well
as DMP (Disaster Management Plan)
taking industries and the authorities
in neighbourhood should be
established and effective
Issues related to Communication and Social Responsibility
18 “Openness and transparency” External communication channel with
transparency in sharing all necessary
information with stakeholders should
exist to understand the purpose of
co-processing, the context, the
function of stakeholders, and
decision-making procedures. Sharing
of experiences/practices is
encouraged
19 “Credibility and consistency” Build credibility by being open,
honest, and consistent
20 “Cultivating a spirit of open Refer to Principle 3 on internal and
dialogue, based on mutual respect external communication system. A
and trust” system of seeking feedback and
consultative dialogue with internal
and external stakeholders should be
established
21 “Cultural sensitivity” Local cultural environments and
concerns of sensitivity have to be
considered while planning activities
and operations with target-orientation
and truthful
22 “Continuity” Start early, and once you start, never
stop
Modified from the Guidelines on co-processing Waste Materials in Cement Production, 2006
3.4 Previous Research on Co-processing and Allied Fields 53

Table 3.9 Selected literature review on co-processing of waste and allied areas of research
Year Paper title and Remarks
Rigo and Rigo Associates (1995) Combustion efficiency (CO and total
hydrocarbons) is usually measured to analyse
the characteristics in cement kilns and this study
did not find any strong relationship between the
combustion method and dioxin emission
M.A. Trezza and A.N. Scian (2000) In the study, ashes in small amount from
pyrolysis of used oil from cars were added in
the clinkering process of Portland cement. The
study simulates the burning process in an
industrial furnace using up to 30% of this waste
fuel to check the feasibility of using the
industrial wastes as alternative fuel in the
cement manufacturing
Richard Bolwerk (2004) The study involved burning of 50–75%
alternative combustibles wastes (18–25 MJ/kg)
and found that the pollutants are burnt safely
when liquids are screened and the solid
waste-derived fuels are spread in the gas flow.
The study also dealt with the emissions of
chlorinated compounds like PCB and dioxin, in
cement kilns
D. Ziegler et al. (2006) A set of guiding principles applicable for
co-processing is presented with certain
recommendations and a few country-specific
experiences as guidelines for stakeholders and
policy makers for waste management and
cement production
Michae leliasboesch et al. (2009) The study presented a technology-specific
modular LCA model for cradle-to-gate
assessments of clinker production which has
been validated in two case studies. It shows the
environmental impact from waste co-processing
and respective production technology
Da-Hai Yan et al. (2010) The study brings forward some variability
found in the Chinese cement sector, considering
the small inefficient and polluting plants to
modern dry pre-calciner kilns with updated
performance. The study reported a general lack
of co-processing knowledge, poor capabilities,
and infrastructure in the Chinese cement
industry irrespective of scales of operations
(continued)
54 3 Status Review of Research on Co-processing

Table 3.9 (continued)

Year Paper title and Remarks
Yufei Yang et al. (2011) The study was carried out on concrete using the
cement produced from co-processing of
hazardous wastes as AFR in China and
assessed the release of heavy metals from
concrete in leaching tests. The results show that
the heavy metals contents are much greater
than leachability, while the ratio of total amount
to leachability was dependent on the type of
heavy metal
Moses P.M. Chinyama Maximino Manzanera It reviews the associated environmental and
(Ed.) (2011) socio-economic benefits of using alternative
fuels (AF) in cement production. It reviews the
challenges of conversion to AF including
combustion characteristics, their effect on
cement production and quality, and
methodologies of avoiding negative effects on
cement as the final product
Wendell de Queiroz Lamas et al. (2012) The article deals with co-processing
introducing fuel waste from different industrial
activities. It also focuses on the reduction of
environmental liabilities if discarded in
inappropriate places
Lei Wang et al. (2012) The study deals with the incorporation of
cadmium into clinker and the stabilization rate
of cadmium during the clinkerization process
LI Chun-ping (2012) The study presented some results of
experiments on co-processing. After the
addition of alternative fuels in cement kiln, the
rates of emission and the concentrations of
TSPs, HCl, HF, SO2, and CO in the flue gas
were enhanced and volatized while there was
no significant change observed for NOx.
Similarly, Potassium and Chlorine contents
were increased to some extent but Sulphur in
hot raw materials remained unchanged. There
are advantages observed using alternative fuels.
For instance, Compressive strength, flexural
strength, water demand for normal consistency,
and the surface area of clinker were reduced.
Based on the clinker saturation, initial and final
setting times were increased
(continued)
3.4 Previous Research on Co-processing and Allied Fields 55

Table 3.9 (continued)

Year Paper title and Remarks
Bahareh Reza et al. (2013) This study investigates impacts on
environmental and economic benefits of RDF
production. The research concluded that the
Cement manufacturing is a potential destination
for RDF where conventional fossil fuels may be
replaced with less energy-intensive fuel, like
RD
Dipl.-Ing. Sebastian Spaun et al. (2015) In 2013, more than 600,000 t/a of alternative
raw materials were used in the Austrian cement
industry. The use of alternative raw materials
conserves natural resources while the residues
from other industrial processes can be utilized
in an environmentally friendly manner. The
Association of the Austrian Cement Industry
(VÖZ) commissioned the renowned German
Research Institute of the Cement Industry (FIZ)
to develop recommendations for action for the
use of alternative raw materials in the cement
production
Rahul Baidya et al. (2016a) The study concluded that co-processing is a
sustainable energy and material recovery
process. It addressed the issues and challenges
associated with sustainable management of
industrial wastes based on experience from case
studies on Indian cement industries using
co-processing
Parlikar U et al. (2016) The study based on the results of 22
co-processing trials evaluated the effects on
different parameters such as emissions, process,
and product quality
Baidya R et al. (2016b) The study analyses the sustainability of
co-processing of industrial waste in cement kiln
using three case studies. The research presented
the economic and environmental gain
achievable using industrial waste as AFR in
Indian cement kilns and also identified the
challenges and issues for effective
implementation
(continued)
56 3 Status Review of Research on Co-processing

Table 3.9 (continued)

Year Paper title and Remarks
John R. Fyffe et al. (2016) The recycling rates for MSW are currently over
30% in the U.S. The residue, 5 to 15% of total
recycled material, contains non-recycled
plastics and fibre of high-energy content and is
disposed of to landfills. This study explored and
reported different benefits with respect to
saving in energy, environmental protection, and
trade-offs of conversion of NRPW and fibres
into 118 Mg of SRF successfully combusted in
cement kiln and significantly reduced
CO2 emissions
Baidya R. et al. (2017b) The study identifies issues and challenges in the
supply chain framework of co-processing route
in India and its influencing factors
Mohamed M. Elfaham, and Usama The study carried out the analysis of waste
Eldemerdash (2018) material co-processing using modern chemical
analytical methods in an Egyptian cement plant
to validate for co-processing while it shows
favourable results and tracesof some heavy
metals and other hazardous elements with a
concentration within acceptable limits
Jolanta Sobik-Szołtysek et al. (2019) The study observed a substantial reduction in
the carbon dioxide emissions by substituting
conventional fuels with alternative fuels. The
experiment was conducted with sewage sludge
as an alternate fuel. The adequacy of the
chemical composition of sewage sludge was
tested to assess its potential as raw material for
clinker production, focussing to reduce the
demand for natural fossil fuels
Kyle A. Claviera et al. (2019) The study investigates the associated risk and
performance of cement using MSW incinerator
bottom ash in the cement kiln as AFR. It
observed an industrial-scale beneficial of the
project. When 2.8% kiln feed replacement
made the incinerator bottom ash as AFR, the
physical and environmental performance
remains nearly unchanged
Muhammad Shoaib Ashraf et al. (2019) The study explored to produce ecological
cement (eco-cement) at a synthesis temperature
of 1100° using incineration energy and
residues. The eco-cement achieved structural
binding strength on reaction with CO2 . The
eco-cement produced using residues (100%)
exhibits low early strength by carbonation
activation and was more latent hydraulic
(continued)
3.4 Previous Research on Co-processing and Allied Fields 57

Table 3.9 (continued)

Year Paper title and Remarks
Baidya, R., and Ghosh, S. K. (2019) The amount of AFRs co-processed, TSR%, TF,
and TR replaced and substitution benefit in
terms of monetary value were identified while
analysing the potential reduction of carbon
footprint in co-processing
Baidya, R. et al. (2019) The research carried out a cost–benefit analysis
in a pilot study with co-processing of Blast
furnace flue dust in cement kiln
Angela J. Nagleb et al. (2020) The study explored the possibility of using Irish
wind turbine blades as AFR in Co-processing
in cement plant though co-processing is not
being carried out now in Ireland presently.
Co-processing in Ireland may be the least
impactful, because of material substitution and
reduction in transboundary material
transportation between Ireland and Germany
Yeqing Li et al. (2020) The researchers tested for dioxins and detected
the trace in solid and gas samples from main
points of preheater. The study concluded that
the dioxins absorption is at a rate of 91.6% and
capture from gas depends on raw mill and bag
filter
Michael Hinkel et al. (2019) The document gives updated guidelines on pre-
and co-processing of waste in the cement
industry. It presented know-how and practical
experiences gained in implementing pre- and
co-processing since the first edition (2006) of
guidelines that served as a reference document
in international agreements (e.g., Basel
Convention for Hazardous Waste Treatment)
and adaptation of various national guidelines
Baidya, R. et al. (2020) The article studied co-processing of industry
trade rejects in cement plant using experimental
trial and environmental and operational
sustainability of the process and looked into
economic potential of AFR utilization
substituting traditional fuel and raw materials
Gisele De Lorena Diniz Chavez et al. (2021) The study observed that waste streams for RDF
production are under varied uncertainties on
implementation of related policies in Espírito
Santo, Brazil. It also studied the
cost–benefit–risk and trade-off assessment and
concluded that substitution of fossil fuels by
RDF is beneficial to both cement industry and
environment
58 3 Status Review of Research on Co-processing

3.5 Co-processing Supply Chain Issues and Challenges

Using AFR in co-processing in the cement kiln has lots of benefits as well as
challenges. Table 3.10 demonstrated Issues and Challenges in the supply chain.

Table 3.10 Issues and Challenges through the supply chain of AFR
Supply Side In process Outbound demand side
Consistent supply of AFR Problem in burning and Market demand
operational stability, reduction in
thermal efficiency (If feed size is
>50 mm)
Sustainable Supply Chain of Handling as well as additional Outbound Logistics
AFR heat is required for drying,
reducing thermal efficiency (If
Moisture content is >15%)
Inbound Logistics Not suitable for direct feeding, Regulated cement price
required additional cost for
conditioning, and causes increase
in specific power (Low Calorific
value <2500 kcal/Kg)
Quality consistency of AFR Effect of minor component on Quality of clinker/cement
clinker quality (Proper selection
of AFR/RDF)
Adherence to contractual Adherence to pre-processing Cost of production and
agreement by the supplier parameters customer price
AFR quality and material Improper combustion and high
variation material size
Right equipment for Compliance to emission
environmental monitoring standards
Seasonal variation in supply of Preheater Oxidized atmosphere.
AFR with high GCV Improper combustion results in
clinker output restriction
Specialized Infrastructure in Analysis of large variety of
AFR lab materials
Supply of quality Refractory High Chloride/alkali damages
the refractory
3.6 Sustainable Development and Sustainability Index of Recovery … 59

3.6 Sustainable Development and Sustainability Index

of Recovery (SIR) of Different Waste Treatment
Technologies

The waste by separate streams is a need of effective recycling hence also the require-
ments of the recycling industries which helps in the internal value market which
exists for those wastes. If waste streams with potential market value are segregated,
the residual fraction (or stream) is separated to manage the processing of valuable
wastes more efficiently with maximum resource efficiency. Most of the waste treat-
ment processes need segregation of wastes and deal with specific types of wastes.
It has been observed by researchers that co-processing of wastes in cement plants
may be considered as the most sustainable process than any other if considered the
four pillars of sustainability. The study revealed (Baidya et al., 2017a) a number
of aspects that provide ample indication of the sustainability of co-processing in
India. The pilot study carried out in the study indicates a number of issues, which
if addressed can effectively make co-processing the most viable waste disposal and
management technique in India. The utilization factor of waste in co-processing is
maximum because the waste feedstock is spent in the recovery of energy and the rest
for the conversion to clinker make the utilization 100%. In case of any other energy
recovery processes, such as incineration and waste-to-energy process, the residue as
bottom ash and fly ash produced range from 15 to 25%. The recovery is more as the
residence time of wastes burning in the furnace is nearly 14 s seconds in co-processing
whereas for other processes it varies from 60 s and more. The co-processing can take
up a wide variety of different types of waste. Considering the impact on environ-
ment, the emission levels are controlled very efficiently as it is a sub-process in
the cement manufacturing. Cement plants have their own effective emission moni-
toring system. There is not much additional cost in the cement plant for utilization
of wastes while the WtE plant of incineration plants needs fresh investment which
is much more than the case of co-processing in cement plant. The whole supply
chain of waste in the co-processing including the pre-processing units needs skilled
personnel which generated the scopes of employment. Hence, co-processing has lots
of advantages over other processes in consideration of operational, environmental,
economic, and social aspects. The assessment of sustainability index of recovery
(SIR) of different waste management treatment technologies was carried out and
found that co-processing is the most sustainable one. Table 3.11 shows the overall
assessment of the sustainability of the technologies, considering all the possible
factors in the four pillars of sustainability (Baidya, 2019). The study revealed that
co-processing is the most sustainable technology for energy and resource recovery
with a sustainability index of recovery (SIR) of 26. The study considered pyrolysis,
incineration, gasification, and co-processing of wastes. While assessing the sustain-
ability of these processes, several factors have been considered under four pillars
of sustainability, namely operational, economic, environmental, and social require-
ments, from literature, and convert them into sustainability ranks, 1, 2, 3, and 4 and
thus assessing the overall sustainability.
Table 3.11 Sustainability index of recovery (SIR) of waste treatment technologies
60

Factor Serial Factors for Sustainability Waste Recycling by Waste Recycling by Waste Recycling by Waste Recycling by
Index of Recovery Pyrolysis Incineration Gasification Co-processing
Operational Requirements for sustainability
O1 Pre-Treatment/ Required (H) (Bosmans Required (M to H) Required (H) (Arena, Required (H) (Chatziaras
Preparation of feed stock et al., 2013) (Bosmans et al., 2013) 2012) et al., 2014)
before final processing
Sustainability Rank 4 1 4 3
O2 Specific Emissions Required (M); Less Required (H); (Murphy Required (M); Required (L) [No separate
control treatment to meet and McKeogh, 2004) Less-intensive pollutant pollutant control required,
emission limits (Samolada system is required as it is integrated to
and Zabaniotou, 2014) (Murphy and McKeogh, Pollution control system
2004) of cement plant (Garcia
et al., 2014)
Sustainability Rank 3 4 2 1
O3 Retention/residence time 300–3600 s 60 s (Nixon, Dey, et al., 1800s 14 s (Baidya et al., 2017a)
/Process Time (Singh et al., 2011) 2013a) (Singh et al., 2011)
(Solid residence time)
Sustainability Rank 3 2 3 1
O4 Overall system efficiency 28–42% (Hammond et al., 18–26% (Lombardi et al., 22–30% (Nixon, Dey, > 80% as the entire energy
2011) 2015) et al., 2013b; Yap and gets utilized except the
Nixon, 2015) system losses
Sustainability Rank 2 4 3 1
O5 Volume reduction 50–90% (Singh et al., 80–90% (Singh et al., 80–95% (Arena, 2012) 100% (as no by-product is
2011) 2011) formed) (Baidya et al.,
2017b)
Sustainability Rank 4 3 3 1
(continued)
3 Status Review of Research on Co-processing
Table 3.11 (continued)
Factor Serial Factors for Sustainability Waste Recycling by Waste Recycling by Waste Recycling by Waste Recycling by
Index of Recovery Pyrolysis Incineration Gasification Co-processing
O6 Ash produced as residue High (H); Organic portion High (H); 25 wt% of [90% High (H); Organic portion 0% (WBCSD, 2014)
produces ash as in bottom ash and ~10% fly produces ash as in
incineration/WtE. But ash]. (Amal et al., 2019) incineration/WtE. But
numerical value is numerical value is
available available
Sustainability Rank 3 4 4 1
O7 Land requirements 0.8 hectare (300 0.8 hectare (300 tpd–plant) 0.8 hectare (300 0.6 hectare (300–400
tpd–plant) (Saini et al., (Lombardi et al., 2015) tpd–plant) (Yap and tpd–pre-processing plant)
2012) Nixon, 2015)
Sustainability Rank 3 4 3 1
SIR (Operational) 22 22 22 09
Economical Requirements for sustainability
E1 Capital Cost for 100–200 927 $/tpa (Yassin et al., 136–295 $/tpa (Nixon 170 to 300 $/tpa (Yap and 80–100 $/tpa
ktpa 2009) et al., 2013b; Yap and Nixon, 2015)
Nixon, 2015)
Sustainability Rank 4 2 3 1
E2 Operational and 185 $/tonne (Nixon et al., 85 $/tonne (Chakraborty 65–112 $/tonne (Murphy 15–20 $/tonne
3.6 Sustainable Development and Sustainability Index of Recovery …

Maintenance Cost for 2014) et al., 2013) and McKeogh, 2004)

100–200 ktpa
Sustainability Rank 4 3 2 1
E3 Pre-treatment cost Medium–High None (Nixon, Dey, et al., Medium–High Medium (Mainly
(segregation and 2013a) (segregation and Segregation)
shredding) shredding) (Arena, 2012)
Sustainability Rank 4 1 4 2
(continued)
61
Table 3.11 (continued)
62

Factor Serial Factors for Sustainability Waste Recycling by Waste Recycling by Waste Recycling by Waste Recycling by
Index of Recovery Pyrolysis Incineration Gasification Co-processing
SIR (Economic) 12 6 09 04
Environmental Requirements for sustainability
En1 CO2 emission 138 g CO2 /KWhe (Gaunt 220 g CO2 /kWhe (Murphy 114 g CO2 /kWhe (Nixon, Negative Emission has
and Lehmann, 2008) and McKeogh, 2004) Dey, et al., 2013a) been reported (Chatziaras
et al., 2014)
Sustainability Rank 3 4 2 1
En2 By-product generation by 30–35% (Hammond et al., 26–35% (Bosmans et al., 5–25% (Al-Salem et al., 0% (as the waste forms a
volume of input waste 2011) 2013) 2009) part of the clinker)
(Damtoft et al., 2008)
Sustainability Rank 4 3 2 1
En3 Different waste streams MSW (Pre-Treated) MSW (Pre-Treated) MSW (Pre-Treated) MSW (Pre-Treated)
which can be disposed of/ Industrial Waste (Selected Industrial Waste (All Industrial Waste (Selected Industrial Waste (All
utilized in a single setup streams) fragments of streams) fragments hazardous and
non-hazardous) non-hazardous)
Sustainability Rank 4 2 3 1
En4 By-product characteristics Char, (Hornung et al., Ash (Yap and Nixon, 2015) Char, (Arena, 2012) No by-product (Damtoft
nature 2011) et al., 2008)
Sustainability Rank 3 4 3 1
SIR (Environmental) 14 13 10 04
Social Requirements for sustainability
(continued)
3 Status Review of Research on Co-processing
Table 3.11 (continued)
Factor Serial Factors for Sustainability Waste Recycling by Waste Recycling by Waste Recycling by Waste Recycling by
Index of Recovery Pyrolysis Incineration Gasification Co-processing
S1 Public Acceptance/ Accepted Acceptance Issue exists Accepted Highly Accepted [no new
Related issues Varies from country to land required; done in
country existing cement plant;
Emission issue is less]
Sustainability Rank 3 4 3 1
S2 Odour Medium High Medium Low
Sustainability Rank 3 4 2 1
S3 Perceived pollution issue Medium High Medium Low
Sustainability Rank 3 4 2 1
S4 Noise Problem Medium High Medium Medium–High
Sustainability Rank 2 4 1 3
S5 Expertise requirement High (Higher skill) Medium (Ordinary skill) High (High skill) High (Skill)
Sustainability Rank 4 1 4 2
S6 Employment generation Medium (Depends on Medium (Depends on size) Medium (Depends on Low (Done in existing
size) size) Cement plant)
Sustainability Rank 2 2 2 1
3.6 Sustainable Development and Sustainability Index of Recovery …

SIR (Sub Total) 17 19 14 9

SIR (Total) 65 60 55 26
63
64 3 Status Review of Research on Co-processing

The sustainability index of recovery (SIR) may be defined as the sum of all
the sustainability ranks of identified reasonable factors of sustainability of waste
treatment processes under all the four pillars of sustainable development, such as
operational, economic, environmental, and social requirements, while the lowest
number of SIR represents the most sustainable process.
Considering seven factors (O1 to O7) in Operational Requirements for sustain-
ability, three factors (E1 to E3) in Economical Requirements for sustainability,
four factors (En1 to En4) in Environmental Requirements for sustainability, and
six factors (S1 to S6) in Social Requirements for sustainability, the sustainability
index of recovery (SIR) was calculated and the co-processing of wastes in cement
kiln has been found to have the minimum sustainability index of recovery (SIR)
number meaning the most sustainable waste management treatment process.

3.7 Scopes of Co-processing in the Indian Cement Industry

It has been observed from different research and ongoing operations in cement plants
that there is a huge scope of utilization of different types of wastes in co-processing as
AFR in cement plants. The types and possible sources have already been mentioned
in Tables 3.1 and 3.2 and Fig. 3.1.
The Indian cement industry demands that these sectors of the industry operate
in the most energy-efficient way in the world. In 2010, about 137 million MtCO2
was emitted by the Indian cement industry which is equivalent to a 7% share of
India’s total man-made CO2 emissions (Low carbon technology for Indian Cement
Industry). Utilization of alternate fuels can reduce carbon emissions in the Indian
cement industry. By the year 2025, the market demand for cement is estimated to
reach 550–600 million tons per annum (MTPA) (Department of Commerce, Ministry
of Commerce and Industry, Government of India). The projected growth and fuel
requirements in Indian Cement industry by 2025 are presented in Table 3.12.

3.8 Conclusion

Co-processing is a preferred option for utilizing wastes. There are other energy
recovery options where the amount of residue that is possible to generate varies from
15 to 25% while the co-processing is a zero-residue process of waste treatment. Using
AFR in co-processing has several benefits. A few of those are mentioned below.
• Reduced the use of mined natural resources such as limestone, bauxite, and Iron
ore and non-renewable fossil fuels such as coal.
• Conventional fuel reduction by Volume (20–25%) and TSR (10–15%).
• PAT target to reduce 5% MTOE will be helpful by using AFR.
3.8 Conclusion 65

Table 3.12 Projected growth and fuel requirements in Cement industry by 2025 in India. Source
CII, (2016)
S.No Parameters Existing3 Anticipated4 Units
2010 2025
1 Cement production 217 600 Million TPA
2 Cement to clinker ratio 1.35 1.49
3 Clinker production 161 402 Million TPA
4 Specific energy consumption 725 703 Kcal/kg of clinker
5 Total Thermal Energy Required 11.64 28.26 Million TOE
6 Average Energy from imported 5500 5500 Kcal/kg of coal
Coal
7 Quantity of coal required 21.17 51.38 Million TPA
8 AF usage in TSR % <1 25
9 Energy from alternate fuel 7.07 Million TOE
estimated @ 25% of total energy

• Contributes to lowering emissions of GHG by replacing the use of fossil fuels.

Reduction of global emission.
• High temperature around 1400 °C and long Calciner residence time around 5–6 s.
• Double valorization: organic and minerals totally destroyed.
• High efficiency and total recovery.
• Reduced land requirements for landfill option.
• No adverse effect in cement product quality.
• Reduces the burden on landfilling.
• Enhances business potential and reduces the cost of operating TSDF for hazardous
wastes.
• Maximizes the recovery of resources from the waste.
• Employment generation and wider scopes of business.
The subsequent chapters will describe the aspects of cement manufacturing, pre-
processing and co-processing, AFR, and other related issues.

References

Al-Salem, S. M., Lettieri, P., & Baeyens, J. (2009). Recycling and recovery routes of plastic solid
waste (PSW): A review. Waste Management, 29(10), 2625–2643.
Arena, U. (2012). Process and technological aspects of municipal solid waste gasification. A review.
Waste Management, 32(4), 625–639.
Amal, S., Al-Rahbi, & Paul T. Williams. (2019). Waste ashes as catalysts for the pyrolysis–catalytic
steam reforming of biomass for hydrogen-rich gas production. Journal of Material Cycles and
Waste Management, 21, 1224–1231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-019-00876-8.
66 3 Status Review of Research on Co-processing

Ashraf, M. S., Ghouleh, Z., & Shao, Y. (2019). Production of eco-cement exclusively from municipal
solid waste incineration residues. Conservation & Recycling, 149(2019), 332–342. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.06.018.
Angela J. Nagleb, Emma L. Delaney, Lawrence C. Bank, Paul G. Leahy. (2020). A comparative
life cycle assessment between landfilling and co-processing of waste from decommissioned Irish
wind turbine blades. Journal of Cleaner Production, 277, 123321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcl
epro.2020.123321.
Bosmans, A., Vanderreydt, I., Geysen, D., et al. (2013). The crucial role of Waste-to-Energy tech-
nologies in enhanced landfill mining: a technology review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 55,
10–23.J.
Baidya, R., Ghosh, S. K., & Parlikar, U. V. (2016a). Co-processing of industrial waste in cement
kiln–a robust system for material and energy recovery. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 31,
309–317.
Baidya, R., Ghosh, S. K., & Parlikar, U. V. (2016b). Co-processing of industrial waste in cement
kiln—A robust system for material and energy recovery. Procedia Environmental Sciences,
31(2016), 309–317.
Baidya, R., Ghosh, S. K., & Parlikar, U. V. (2017a). Sustainability of cement kiln co-processing of
wastes in India: A pilot study. Environmental Technology, 38(13–14), 1650–1659.
Baidya, R., Ghosh, S. K., & Parlikar, U. V. (2017b). Environmental Technology, 38(13–14), 1650–
1659.
Baidya, R., Kumar Ghosh, S., & Parlikar, U. V. (2019). Blast furnace flue dust co-processing in
cement kiln–A pilot study. Waste Management & Research, 37(3), 261–267.
Baidya, Rahul. (2019). Study of sustainable technology for energy recovery from waste, Ph.d. thesis
2019 at Jadavpur University, India.
Baidya, R., & Ghosh, S. K. (2019). Low carbon cement manufacturing in India by co-processing
of alternative fuel and raw materials. Energy Sources, Part a: Recovery, Utilization, and
Environmental Effects, 41(21), 2561–2572.
Baidya, R., & Ghosh, S. K. (2020). Co-processing of industrial trade rejects in cement plant. Waste
Management & Research, 38(12), 1314–1320.
Chakraborty, M., Sharma, C., Pandey, J., et al. (2013). Assessment of energy generation potentials
of MSW in Delhi under different technological options. Energy Conversion and Management,
75, 249–255.
Chatziaras, N., Psomopoulos, C. S., & Themelis, N. J. (2014). Use of alternative fuels in cement
industry. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Protection and Restoration of
the Environment, ISBN, 2014, pp. 978–960.
CII. (2016). Promoting alternate fuel & raw material usage in Indian cement industry (p. 2016).
Supported by SHAKTI Sustainable Energy Foundation.
Damtoft, J. S., Lukasik, J., Herfort, D., et al. (2008). Sustainable development and climate change
initiatives. Cement and Concrete Research, 38(2), 115–127.
Da-Hai Yan, Kare H. Karstensen, Qi-Fei Huang, Qi Wang, & Min-Lin Cai. (2010). Coprocessing
of industrial and hazardous wastes in cement Kilns: A review of current status and future needs
in China. Environmental Engineering Science, 27(1), 2010 DOI:10.1089=ees.2009.0144.
Dipl.-Ing. Sebastian Spaun et al. (2015). EinsatzalternativerRohstoffeimZementherstellungsprozess
- Hintergrundwissen, technischeMöglichkeiten und Handlungsempfehlungen , Austrian Standard
Önorm S 2100 http://www.zement.at/downloads/positivliste3.pdf.
Gaunt, J. L., & Lehmann, J. (2008). Energy balance and emissions associated with biochar
sequestration and pyrolysis bioenergy production. Environmental Science & Technology, 42(11),
4152–4158.
Garcia, R. I., Moura, F. J., Bertolino, L. C., & de Albuquerque, B. E. (2014). Industrial experi-
ence with waste coprocessing and its effects on cement properties. Environmental Progress &
Sustainable Energy, 33(3), 956–961.
References 67

Gunasegaram, D. R., & Molennar, D. (2015). Towards improved energy efficiency in the electrical
connections of Hall-Héroult cellsthrough finite element analysis (FEA) modeling. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 93, 174–192.
Guo, X., Shi, H., Wu, K., Ju, Z., & Dick, W. A. (2016). Performance and risk assessment of alinite
cement-based materials from municipal solid waste incineration fly ash (MSWIFA). Materials
and Structures, 49(6), 2383–2391. https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-015-0655-x.
Ghosh, Sadhan K. (2017). State of the 3Rs in Asia and the Pacific, The Republic of India, Institute
for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), United Nations Centre for Regional Development
(UNCRD), Japan.
Global Cement and Concrete Association (2018). GCCA Sustainability Guidelines for co-
processing fuels and raw materials in cement manufacturing.
Gisele de Lorena Diniz Chaves, Renato Ribeiro Siman, & Ni-Bin Chang. (2021). Policy anal-
ysis for sustainable refuse-derived fuel production in Espírito Santo, Brazil. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 294, 126344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126344.
Hanehara, S. (2001). Eco-cement and eco concrete environmentally compatible cement and concrete
technology. JCI/KCI International Joint Seminar, Kyonju, South Korea. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10853-009-3342-x.
Hammond, J., Shackley, S., Sohi, S., et al. (2011). Prospective life cycle carbon abatement for
pyrolysis biochar systems in the UK. Energy Policy, 39(5), 2646–2655.
Hornung, A., Apfelbacher, A., & Sagi, S. (2011). Intermediate pyrolysis: A sustainable biomass-
to-energy concept-biothermal valorisation of biomass (BtVB) process.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-3449(00)00077-X. S. Kerdsuwan, K. Laohalidanond, K., & Gupta
Ashwani. (2020, February). Upgrading refuse-derived fuel properties from reclaimed landfill
using torrefaction. Journal of Energy Resources; Technology, 143. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1115/
1.4047979.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2020.1856191; https://www.cement.org/docs/default-source/
market-economics-pdfs/cementindustry-by-state/usa-statefacsheet-17-d2.pdf?sfvrsn=e77fe6
bf_2. in portland cement clinker. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 21, 757–762. https://doi.org/10.
Ismael Vemdrame Flores, Felipe Fraiz, Rafael Adriano Lopes Junior, Maurício Covcevich Bagatini.
(2019). Evaluation of spent pot lining (SPL) as an alternative carbonaceous material in iron making
processes, j m a t e r r e s t e c h n o l . 2 0 1 9;8(1), 33–40.
John R. Fyffe, Alex C. Breckel, Aaron K. Townsend, & Michael E. Webber. (2016). Use of MRF
residue as alternative fuel in cement production, Waste Management.
Jolanta Sobik-Szołtysek, Katarzyna Wystalska. (2019). Coprocessing of sewage sludge in cement
kiln, Editor(s): Majeti Narasimha Vara Prasad, Paulo Jorge de Campos Favas, Meththika
Vithanage, S. Venkata Mohan, Industrial and Municipal Sludge, Butterworth-Heinemann,
pp. 361–381, ISBN 9780128159071, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815907-1.00016-7.
Kyle A. Claviera, Benjamin Wattsb, C, Yalan Liua, Christopher C. Ferraroc, & Timothy G.
Townsenda. (2019). Risk and performance assessment of cement made using municipal solid
waste incinerator bottom ash as a cement kiln feed. Resources, Conservation & Recycling,
146(2019), 270–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.03.047.
Lam, C. H. K., Barford, J. P., & Mckay, G. (2010). Utilization of incineration waste ash residues.
Lam, C. H. K., Barford, J. P., & McKay, G. (2011). Utilization of municipal solid waste incineration
ash in Portland cement clinker. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy 13(4)
LI Chun-ping. (2012). Pilot experiments on co-processing oversized products screened from aged
refuse in cement kiln. Advanced Materials Research, 518–523, 3421–3426. doi:https://doi.org/
10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.518-523.3421.
Lombardi, L., Carnevale, E., & Corti, A. (2015). A review of technologies and performances of
thermal treatment systems for energy recovery from waste. Waste Management, 37, 26–44.
Low carbon technology for Indian Cement Industry.
Millano, E. F. (1996). Hazardous waste: Storage, disposal, remediation, and closure. Water
Environment Research, 68(4), 586–608.
68 3 Status Review of Research on Co-processing

Murphy, J. D., & McKeogh, E. (2004). Technical, economic and environmental analysis of energy
production from municipal solid waste. Renewable Energy, 29(7), 1043–1057.
Michaeleliasboesch, Annettekoehler, & Stefaniehellweg. (2009). Model for cradle-to-gate life cycle
assessment of clinker production. Environmental Science & Technology, 43, 7578–7583.
Moses P. M. Chinyama. (2011). Alternative fuels in cement manufacturing, alternative fuel. In Dr.
Maximino Manzanera (Ed.), ISBN: 978-953-307-372-9. InTech, Available from: http://www.int
echopen.com/books/alternative-fuel/alternative-fuels-in-cement-manufacturing.
Madlool, N. A., Saidur, R., Rahim, N. A., & Kamalisarvestani, M. (2013). An overview of energy
savings measures for cement industries. Renew Sust Energ Rev, 19, 18–29.
Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (2018). Guidelines on Usage of Refuse Derived Fuel in
Various Industries.
Mohamed M. Elfaham, & Usama Eldemerdash. (2018). Advanced analyses of solid waste raw
materials from cement plant using dual spectroscopy techniques towards co-processing. Optics
and Laser Technology, 111, 338–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.optlastec.2018.10.009.
Michael Hinkel, Daniel Hinchliffe, Dieter Mutz, Steffen Blume, & Dirk Hengevoss. (2019). Guide-
lines on pre- and co-processing of waste in cement production. Deutsche Gesellschaft für,
InternationaleZusammenarbeit, GmbH (GIZ).
Nema, A. K., & Gupta, S. K. (1999). Optimization of regional hazardous waste management
systems: An improved formulation. Waste Management, 19(7–8), 441–451.
Nixon, J. D., Dey, P. K., Ghosh, S. K., et al. (2013a). Evaluation of options for energy recovery
from municipal solid waste in India using the hierarchical analytical network process. Energy,
59, 215–223.
Nixon, J. D., Wright, D. G., Dey, P. K., et al. (2013b). A comparative assessment of waste incinerators
in the UK. Waste Management, 33(11), 2234–2244.
Nixon, J. D., Dey, P. K., Davies, P. A., et al. (2014). Supply chain optimisation of pyrolysis plant
deployment using goal programming. Energy, 68, 262–271.
Pan, J. R., Huang, C., Kuo, J. J., & Lin, S. H. (2008). Recycling MSWI bottom and fly ash as raw
materials for Portland cement. Waste Management, 28(7), 1113–1118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2007.04.009.
Planning Commission. (2014). Report by the Planning Commission “Task Force on Waste to
Energy,” India.
Parlikar, U., Bundela, P. S., Baidya, R., Ghosh, S. K., & Ghosh, S. K. (2016). Effect of variation
in the chemical constituents of wastes on the co-processing performance of the cement kilns.
Procedia Environmental Sciences, 35, 506–512.
Press Information Bureau. (2016). Solid Waste Management Rules Revised 25. after 16 years;
Rules now extend to Urban and Industrial Areas: Javadekar”. Ministry of Environment, Forest
and Climate Change, April 5, 2016.
Peter, C. H, Martin, L. (2019). Lea’s chemistry of cement and concrete. 5th ed: Butterworth-
Heinemann: Academic Press, pp. 31–56.
Rigo & Rigo Associates. (1995). An analysis of technical issues pertaining to the determination of
MACT standards for the waste recycling segment of the cement industry. Environmental Risk
SciencesInc., Environomics, and CKRC (Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition).
Ryunosuke Kikuchi. (2001). Recycling of municipal solid waste for cement production: Pilot-scale
test for transforming incineration ash of solid waste into cement clinker.Resources, Conservation
and Recycling, 31(2), 137–147, ISSN 0921–3449.
Richard Bolwerk. (2004). Co-processing of waste and Energy efficiency by cement plants, not
mentioned.
Reza, B., Soltani, A., Ruparathna, R., Sadiq, R., & Hewage, K. (2013). Environmental and economic
aspects of production and utilization of RDF as alternative fuel in cement plants: A case study
of Metro Vancouver Waste Management. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 81(2013),
105–114.
Rahman, A., Rasul, M. G., Khan, M. M. K., & Sharma, S. (2015). Recent development on the uses
of alternative fuels in cement manufacturing process. Fuel, 145, 84–99.
References 69

Saikia, N., Kato, S., & Kojima, T. (2007). Production of cement clinkers from municipal solid waste
incineration (MSWI) fly ash. Waste Management, 27(9), 1178–1189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2006.06.004.
Singh, R. P., Tyagi, V. V., Allen, T., et al. (2011). An overview for exploring the possibilities of energy
generation from municipal solid waste (MSW) in Indian scenario. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, 15(9), 4797–4808.
Saini, S., Rao, P., & Patil, Y. (2012). City based analysis of MSW to energy generation in India,
calculation of state-wise potential and tariff comparison with EU. Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 37, 407–416.
Samolada, M. C., & Zabaniotou, A. A. (2014). Comparative assessment of municipal sewage sludge
incineration, gasification and pyrolysis for a sustainable sludge-to-energy management in Greece.
Waste Management, 34(2), 411–420.
Trezza, M. A., & Scian, A. N. (2000). Burning wastes as an industrial resource: Their effect on
Portland cement clinker. Cement and Concrete Research, 30(1), ISSN 0008–8846.
Volume 47, Part B, 2016, Pages 276–284, ISSN 0956–053X, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.
2015.05.038.
Wang, L., Li, R., Li, Y., & Wei, L. (2012). Incorporation of cadmium into clinker during the co-
processing of waste with cement kiln. Advanced Materials Research, 347–353(2012), 2160–2164.
Wendell de Queiroz Lamas, Jose Carlos Fortes Palau, Jose Rubens de Camargo. (2012). Waste
materials co-processing in cement industry: Ecological efficiency of waste reuse. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 19(2013), 200–207. http://dx.doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.
2012.11.015.
WBCSD. (2014). Guidelines for Co-Processing Fuels and Raw Materials in Cement Manufacturing.
Yassin, L., Lettieri, P., Simons, S. J., et al. (2009). Techno-economic performance of energy-
from-waste fluidized bed combustion and gasification processes in the UK context. Chemical
Engineering Journal, 146(3), 315–327.
Yufei Yang, Yu Yang, Qunhui Wang, & Qifei Huang. (2011). Release of heavy metals from concrete
made with cement from cement Kiln co-processing of hazardous wastes in pavement scenarios.
Environmental Engineering Science, 28(1), 2011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/ees.2010.0066.
Yap, H. Y., & Nixon, J. D. (2015). A multi-criteria analysis of options for energy recovery from
municipal solid waste in India and the UK. Waste Management, 46, 265–277.
Yao, J., Kong, Q., Qiu, Z., Chen, L., & Shen, D. (2019). Patterns of heavy metal 655 immobilization
by MSW during the landfill process. Chemical Engineering Journal, 375(122060), 656. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2019.12206.
Yeqing, Li. et al. (2020). Research on dioxins suppression mechanisms during MSW co-processing
in cement kilns. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 16(2012), 633–640. doi: https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.proenv.2012.10.087.
Ziegler, D., Schimpf, W., Dubach, B., Degré, J.-P., & Mutz, D. (2006). Guidelines on co-processing
waste materials in cement production. The GTZ-Holcim Public Private Partnership.
 Part III
Cement: Theory, Production Technology
and Operations
Chapter 4
Cement Manufacturing—Technology,
Practice, and Development

4.1 Introduction

The history of cement goes back to Roman Empire. The credit of the invention of
the Portland cement was first produced by a British stone mason, Joseph Aspdin of
Leeds, Yorkshire, England. A patent was approved to him for a material produced
from a synthetic mixture of limestone and clay in 1824 (P. E. Halstead, 1961). A
mixture of limestone and clay powder was taken in his kitchen. The mixture is then
ground into a powder that creates cement in ball mill-like equipment. The powder
is hardened when mixed with water. The name Portland was given by the inventor
as it resembles a stone quarried on the Isle of Portland. The first use of modern-day
Portland cement was in the tunnel construction in the Thames River in 1828. During
the twentieth century, cement manufacture spread worldwide. By 2019, India and
China have become the world leaders in cement production, followed by Vietnam,
the United States, and Egypt.
The primary cement manufacturing process involves the mining of raw materials,
mainly limestone and clay, which are used in cement manufacturing. In most of the
cases, the limestone and clay are excavated from open cast mines by drilling and
blasting and other appropriate processes in mines. Subsequently, the limestone and
clay are loaded onto dumpers which transport the materials. Limestone is unloaded
into hoppers of limestone crushers and the clay is unloaded into open yard storage.
Then it is transported by trucks and unloaded into the hopper of a clay crusher. There
are three types of clay used in cement manufacturing, namely silty clay, Zafarana clay,
and Kaolin (Christopher Hall, 1976). The cement manufacturing process description
illustrated here is derived from various literature sources. A comprehensive overview
of cement manufacturing and technologies can be found in (CEMBUREAU, 1999;
Duda, 1985; Environment Agency, 2001; IPPC, 2013; Karstensen, 2006).

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 73
S. K. Ghosh et al., Sustainable Management of Wastes Through Co-processing,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-6073-3_4
74 4 Cement Manufacturing—Technology, Practice, and Development

4.2 Main Process Description

There are four main types of processes used in cement manufacture: Dry Process,
Semi-dry Process, Semi-wet Process, and the Wet process. In all these processes, the
following steps are involved:
• Quarrying.
• Raw materials preparation.
• Fuel Preparation.
• Clinker Manufacturing Process.
• Cement grinding.
• Cement dispatch.
All these steps are described in detail in the next sections.

4.2.1 Quarrying

The major raw material used in cement manufacture is lime. It is derived from
materials such as limestone, chalk, marl, shale, and clay, which are obtained from
mines by quarrying them. These mines are generally located near the cement plant.
These materials are then crushed and transported to the cement plant where they
are stored, homogenized, blended with corrective materials, and processed further
for cement manufacture. Figure 4.1 demonstrates the limestone quarry in Michigan,
China, and India.
“Corrective” materials utilized are bauxite, iron ore, or sand that supplement the
Aluminium, iron, and silica requirement. The corrective materials may also be other
materials such as laterite, red occur, and clay. The quantities of these corrective mate-
rials are usually very small in few percentages and depend upon the raw mix design.
All the raw materials and corrective materials are mined materials using quarrying
techniques. To some extent, the corrective materials can be replaced with secondary
or alternative raw materials as well. These alternative materials get produced from
industrial processes; for example, red mud from the Aluminium industry, mill scale
from rolling mills, rice husk ash from rice husk-fired boilers, etc.

4.2.2 Raw Materials Preparation

In Dry process and Semi-dry process plants, all the raw materials are mixed in desired
proportions to produce a raw meal and are ground to the required size. In the wet
and semi-wet process, the raw materials are mixed and made into a slurry. This
slurry is then ground to the defined size. The raw meal or the raw material slurry is
finely ground and homogenized in raw meal silos or basins. This helps to achieve the
4.2 Main Process Description 75

Fig. 4.1 a. Largest Limestone Quarry in Michigan. b Limestone quarry in China. c Limestone
Quarry in Gujarat, India (Formed by calcite, calcium carbonate, CaCO3)

uniform chemical composition required for manufacturing desired quality of cement.

To produce one ton of clinker, approximately 1.5 tons of raw materials are required.
A typical flow sheet of the modern dry process cement plant is presented in
Fig. 4.2.

4.2.3 Fuel Preparation

The most common type of fossil fuel used in the cement industry is coal. “Alternative”
fuels that are derived from wastes generated in industrial, municipal, and agricultural
sectors are also widely used today as fuels in cement manufacture. Fossil fuels
preparation consists of crushing, drying, grinding, and homogenizing which takes
place at the plant site. Specific installations are required for fuel preparation such as
grinding mills and silos for solid fuels and tanks for liquid fuels. The basic process
design applied in the clinker manufacturing process largely governs the thermal fuel
consumption.
76 4 Cement Manufacturing—Technology, Practice, and Development

Fig. 4.2 Modern dry process cement production process

4.2.4 Manufacturing of Cement Clinker

The prepared raw material is called the “kiln feed” and is fed to the kiln. In the
kiln, this kiln feed is subjected to a thermal treatment process which consists of
drying, preheating, calcination, and clinkerization. The max temperature reached by
the material in the kiln during clinkerization is around 1450 °C. The product, i.e.,
clinker is then cooled down with air to below 200 °C and is then stored prior to final
grinding.
Figure 4.3 depicts the flow sheet of a Rotary kiln process with cyclone preheater
and gas dust collection system.
The kiln system in which the clinkerization takes place is a rotary kiln with or
without additional infrastructure called as “suspension preheaters” and pre-calciner.
The rotary kiln is a rotating steel tube with a length to diameter ratio between 10
and 40. A slight inclination of 2.5 to 4.5 degrees is provided for a smooth flow of
material. The kiln normally rotates at a speed of 0.5–4.5 rounds-per-minute (RPM).
Exhaust heat from the kiln is used to dry raw meal, fuels, or other additives utilized
in the cement manufacture. Exhaust gases are then let out after dedusting the same
in ESPs or Bag filters.
4.2 Main Process Description 77

Clean gas
Electrostatic
precipitator
Raw gas

Raw meal

Dust recycling

Clean gas
Mill dryer
Cyclone
preheater

Evaporation cooler

Burner
Dust collection

Rotary kiln
Cooling air

Grate cooler Clinker

Fig. 4.3 Rotary kiln with cyclone preheater and gas dust collection

4.2.5 Cement Grinding

There are two main types of cement, ordinary Portland cement (OPC) and various
blended cements. OPC is produced by grinding clinker with a few percent of gypsum
in a cement mill; The blended one is produced by the addition of pozzolanic materials
to OPC. These pozzolanic materials include granulated blast-furnace slag, volcanic
ash, fly ash, or inert fillers such as limestone. These blended cements could be of
different kinds such as Portland pozzolanic cement (PPC) or Portland Slag cement
(PSC) or Composite Cement. The extent of the addition of these pozzolanic or inert
materials to the clinker depends upon their physico-chemical characteristics and also
the permitted norms by the authorities. The clinker content in the blended cement
is called as the clinker factor. The different cement types need to be put in separate
storage silos before they are sent out in the market for selling.
The grinding operation of the cement is carried out in cement mills located in the
grinding plants. The grinding plants can be installed at a far away location from the
clinkering plant.
78 4 Cement Manufacturing—Technology, Practice, and Development

4.2.6 Cement Dispatch

Cement is shipped in bulkers or in packed bags. Transport can be by road, railway,

and waterways and depends on local conditions.

4.3 Characteristics of Material Used in Cement Production

Clinker production requires a mixture of calcium, silicon, aluminium, and iron as the
main elements. Appropriate clinker phases get formed when they are mixed in the
correct proportions and subjecting them to the clinkerization temperature of 1450 °C.
This temperature is achieved by firing the fuel in the kiln in the main burner and in
the pre-calciner.
Figure 4.4 exhibits the main burner mounted at the kiln outlet.
There are four steps in clinker formation:
i. Drying and preheating of the raw meal take place while heating from room
temperature to 900 °C. During this phase, free and chemically bound water
gets released.
ii. Calcination reaction takes place from 600–900 °C during which CO2 from
limestone gets released.
iii. Clinkerization reactions take place from 1250–1450 °C during which initiation
of the formation of crystalline phases takes place.

Fig. 4.4 Main burner at the kiln outlet

4.3 Characteristics of Material Used in Cement Production 79

iv. While cooling the liquid phase from 1350–1200 °C, the formation of the
crystalline phases takes phase.
Mineral composition and its structure in the clinker determine the properties of
the clinker. Alkalis, sulphur, and chlorides present in the kiln get volatilized at high
temperatures and remain as circulating elements by condensation. These elements
leave the kiln with the clinker. If these circulating elements are high in quantum,
then it becomes necessary to instal a “bypass” system where a part of the dust laden
exhaust gases of the rotary kiln are extracted out from the system.

4.3.1 Raw Mix Constituents

Raw mix in clinker manufacturing consists of naturally occurring mined materials as

main materials. These consist of materials that are rich in Calcium, Aluminium, Iron,
and Silica. Small quantities of correctives are also used in the cement manufacture,
needed to adjust the chemical composition to the required quality standards.
A raw mix is prepared based on the raw materials chemistry, process design, and
process considerations, but will also be dependent upon product specifications and on
environmental considerations. To achieve good quality clinker, a well-designed raw
mix, adequately ground raw meal, and uniform composition are essential require-
ments together with a smooth kiln operation. Hence, quality monitoring and control
of the inputs, process, product, and emissions through appropriate sampling and
evaluations are important considerations in cement manufacture.

4.3.2 Usage of Fuels

Petcoke, coal, heavy oil, and natural gas are the main fossil fuels used in the manu-
facturing of cement. Petcoke and coal are the major ones. Tyres or Tyre-Derived
Fuels, waste oil, plastics or refuse-derived fuels (RDF), solvents, and many other
industrial waste streams are used as “alternative” fuels. As in the case of fossil fuels,
the composition of the ash from AFRs also needs to be considered in the raw mix
design because it combines with the raw materials and will be incorporated in the
clinker product.
A certain amount of non-volatile heavy metals will be present in the fossil or
the alternative fuels and will be incorporated into the clinker structure as a non-
leachable constituent. Excessive amounts will be loosely bound and may be released
as leachable metals. Hence, it is desired to monitor and control these heavy metals in
the input streams. Other heavy metals such as mercury, thallium, or cadmium may
be volatilized and be released out of the stack or captured in the dust. Therefore,
these also need to be monitored and controlled.
80 4 Cement Manufacturing—Technology, Practice, and Development

4.4 Different Cement Manufacturing Processes

The manufacturing of cement clinker was initially based on the “wet” process, but the
“dry” process is today the state of the art. The “semi-wet” and “semi-dry” processes
were intermediate.

4.4.1 The Dry Process

The raw meal is prepared by drying and grinding in ball mills or vertical roller
mills. Drying is achieved by using the hot gases or air from the kiln or the cooler.
Homogenizing is done in silo or dome systems. The dried raw material is fed to
the top cyclone of the preheater system in preheater kilns and the raw meal moves
down the preheater system in a step-wise manner while having counter-current heat
exchange with the hot exhaust gases from the rotary kiln that are moving counter-
currently up the preheater system. The preheater cyclones provide excellent contact
and heat exchange between raw meal and hot gas. The cyclones help in separating
solids and gases at each stage. The exhaust gases leave the preheater at a temperature
of 300–360 °C and this gas is generally utilized for raw material drying.
Figure 4.5 exhibits the present-day modern dry process kiln system with preheater
and pre-calciner.

Fig. 4.5 Modern dry preheater process with pre-calciner

4.4 Different Cement Manufacturing Processes 81

The preheated raw meal enters the calciner and then gets calcined in the pre-
calciner. The calcined meal then enters the rotary kiln where it undergoes the required
reactions at high temperature and forms a clinker.
In case excess alkalis or chlorine is present in the kiln system, then a bypass
system needs to be installed. A bypass system will divert up to 15% of the kiln gas
out of the kiln system and extract particulates enriched with alkalis or chlorine. The
bypass duct is located at the kiln inlet and the lower part of the preheater. The gas is
cooled with air and then released to the stack after filtration in another bag filter or
ESP.
State-of-the-art suspension preheater kilns have 5–6 cyclone stages with a
maximum capacity limited to approximately 10,000–12,000 ton clinker/day.
Figure 4.6 depicts the dry process plant system with suspension preheater cyclone
tower.

Fig. 4.6 Suspension preheater cyclone tower

82 4 Cement Manufacturing—Technology, Practice, and Development

Fig. 4.7 Semi-dry process

4.4.2 The Semi-Dry Process

In this process, the raw meal is granulated and sent on an inclined rotating table,
dropped onto a travelling grate preheater, and into the rotary kiln. The granulated
material then gets dried, preheated, and calcined on the travelling grate. Figure 4.7
depicts the semi-dry process.
Due to the low temperatures of the kiln gases, they cannot be used for the raw
material drying purpose.

4.4.3 The Semi-Wet Process

In the semi-wet process, the dewatered slurry from a filter press is used as the feed
material. Typically, these filter cakes will have a residual moisture content of 16–
21%. This process makes full use of the hot kiln gases and cooler air. Figure 4.8
depicts the semi-wet process.

4.4.4 The Wet Process

Wet process kilns are the old generation kilns used to produce clinker. The feed to
this kiln is slurry which typically contains more than 40% of water. Homogenization
4.4 Different Cement Manufacturing Processes 83

Fig. 4.8 Semi-wet process

is achieved in slurry basins where the slurry is continuously stirred using compressed
air. The homogenized slurry is then pumped into the rotary kiln.
The water is evaporated in the drying zone of the rotary kiln and the heat exchange
between the kiln feed and the combustion gases happens in the drying zone of the
kiln, usually equipped with chains to facilitate drying. Conventional wet kilns have
high heat consumption and produce large volumes of combustion gases containing
water vapour. Figure 4.9 depicts the typical wet process.

4.4.5 Vertical Shaft Kiln

Vertical shaft kiln (VSK) is a low-volume and “obsolete” technology for cement
manufacturing. VSK consist of a refractory-lined, vertical cylinder that is < 3 m in
diameter and about 10 m tall. Raw meal pellets and fine-grained coal, called black
meal, are mixed and fed from the top of VSK to produce clinker at the bottom. Shaft
kilns produce less than 300 tonnes/day of clinker. Figure 4.10 provides a view of the
VSK plant.
84 4 Cement Manufacturing—Technology, Practice, and Development

Fig. 4.9 Wet process of the cement production process

Fig. 4.10 Vertical shaft kiln cement production process

4.5 Kiln Exhaust Gases 85

4.5 Kiln Exhaust Gases

The kiln exhaust gases from the manufacturing processes described above are treated
for dust removal in an appropriate pollution control device. ESP and Bag filters are
the two types of pollution control devices that are commonly used in the cement
industry.
Bag filters use a synthetic high-temperature-resistant fabric to filter the dust. Exit
gases pass through the bags while dust particles are captured on the surface; “reverse
gas” and “pulse jet” filters are two types of bag filters used in these devices. The filter
performance is not susceptible to process disturbances or “CO peaks”. Electrostatic
precipitators are using electric fields to separate dust from the gas, both coarse and
finer particles. ESPs are susceptible to process changes such as CO peaks. The
dedusting efficiency can be increased by making use of more than one electric “field”
operating in series.
Figure 4.11 provides a view of a typical exhaust gas dedusting system implemented
at the cement plant.
The dust collected by the pollution control devices is normally returned to the
process by sending it to the raw materials preparation system. It can be also added to
the cement mill if authorities or the standards permit the same. Dust control systems
are necessary in the clinker cooler, the raw mill, and the cement mills.
The clinker leaving the kiln has a temperature around 1200 °C and needs to be
cooled rapidly in appropriate clinker coolers. In this cooling process, heat from the
clinker is picked by the cooling air and sent to the main kiln burner as secondary air,

Fig. 4.11 Exit gas dedusting system with the electrostatic precipitator (ESP)
86 4 Cement Manufacturing—Technology, Practice, and Development

Fig. 4.12 Kiln with planetary cooler

eventually to the pre-calciner as tertiary air. The following are the three main types
of clinker coolers.
• Rotary cooler,
• Planetary cooler, and
• Grate cooler.
Figure 4.12 provides a view of the kiln system on which a planetary cooler is
installed.
In a planetary cooler, several tubes are installed peripherally at the discharge end
of the kiln. Hot clinker exchanges its heat with the incoming air coming from the
tubes. Comparatively high wear and thermal shock effects are the drawbacks of the
planetary coolers.
Grate coolers are the most preferred coolers in the current cement plant installa-
tions. The clinker layer travels slowly on a moving grate of perforated plates. The
whole cooling zone includes two zones; this preheated air from the recuperation zone
is sent as combustion air to the main burner and the pre-calciner. The hot air from the
aftercooling zone is used for drying raw materials or coal. These coolers are widely
used due to their high energy efficiency and flexible heat recovery.
4.6 Fuel Processing 87

4.6 Fuel Processing

The fuels require proper processing for their efficient use. The process depends upon
the characteristics of the fuel. These fuels can be solid, liquid, or gaseous. The fuels
can be conventional fossil fuels or alternative fuels from industrial, municipal, or
agricultural sectors. The design of their storage, handling, preparation, and firing
systems needs to be aligned to their properties. The most important aspect is that
the fuel input has to be uniform, and its metering has to be reliable. Processing of
coal and petcoke is done by grinding them to a specific fineness in ball mills, vertical
roller mills, or impact mills. The entire fuel preparation system must be designed
with appropriate fire protection measures. The ground coal or petcoke powder is
stored in suitable storage systems and fed to the burner with appropriate metering
and feeding systems. Fuel oil is stored in large tanks on site. These are provided
with heating systems to raise their temperature of about 80 °C. For facilitating the
smooth flow of the oil in the burner, its viscosity is reduced by heating the oil up to
a temperature of above 120 °C. Figure 4.13 depicts the view of a gas-fired cement
kiln.
Alternative fuels require specific treatment which is called pre-processing and
they are fed to the kiln using an appropriate feeding system designed for the same.
Alternative fuels are pre-processed in a facility that can be inside or outside the
cement plant. Alternative fuel plants are often designed to handle different wastes
originating from industrial, municipal, and agricultural sectors.

Fig. 4.13 Gas-fired cement kiln

88 4 Cement Manufacturing—Technology, Practice, and Development

4.7 Preparation of Pozzolanic and Mineral Materials

The addition of Pozzolanic and Mineral materials used in the manufacture of blended
cements requires installations for processing them. The processing steps consist of
storage, crushing, blending, and drying. Subsequently, it is used for feeding to the
cement mill. Commonly used materials include volcanic rocks, limestone or calcined
clay, granulated blast-furnace slag, pulverized fly ash from power stations, micro
silica, etc.
Materials containing high moisture require drying. For this, various equipment
such as flash driers and rotary tube driers are made use of. The heat for drying is
derived from kiln gases or cooler air or with a hot gas source. Mineral materials may
be inter-ground with cement clinker and gypsum in a cement mill or may be ground
separately and blended with Portland cement subsequently.

4.8 Specific Features of Cement Production Process

For the cement-related reactions to occur, material temperatures of up to 1450 °C

are required. For this, it is necessary to maintain peak combustion temperatures of
about 2000 °C in the kiln with the main burner flame. The combustion gases from
the main burner remain at a temperature above 1100 °C for 5–10 s. Excess oxygen
at a level of 2–3% over stoichiometry is maintained in the combustion gases of the
rotary kiln for the clinker to get burned appropriately under oxidizing conditions.
These conditions help in the formation of the desired clinker phases and the quality
of the finished cement.
The minimum retention time of the material in the rotary kiln would be 20 min and
the maximum would be 60 min depending on the length of the kiln. The temperature
profiles for the material and combustion gases in a preheater / pre-calciner kiln are
illustrated in Fig. 4.6. The burning conditions in kilns with pre-calciner firing depend
on the pre-calciner design. Usually, pre-calciner gas temperatures are around 950 °C
and the retention time of the gas in the pre-calciner is >3 s. Material temperatures
of up to 1450 °C, flame temperatures of up to 2000 °C, and gas retention times of
up to 10 s at temperatures between 1100 and 2000 °C in the kiln are the thermal
conditions prevailing in the kiln system. Organic materials fed to the main burner
will be completely oxidized due to the high temperatures.
The cement manufacturing process operates continuously. Kiln operation is
desired to be smooth to meet production and quality standards. To achieve these objec-
tives, all process parameters are continuously monitored, recorded, and controlled.
Further, analytical monitoring and control of all raw materials, fuels, intermediate,
and finished products as well as environmental monitoring are carried out. Figure 4.14
illustrates the gas and material profiles inside the kiln.
A cement manufacturing process is well suited for co-processing of wastes from
different sources. Wastes need to be converted into alternative fuels and raw materials
4.8 Specific Features of Cement Production Process 89

Fig. 4.14 Gas and material temperature profiles inside the kiln

(AFRs) through the pre-processing operation and then utilized to substitute fossil
fuels and raw materials used in the cement process. For environmentally sound co-
processing of AFRs, it is necessary to select the most appropriate feed point in the
kiln system.
Materials that do not contain organic materials can be added to the raw meal
or the raw slurry preparation system. Wastes containing significant quantities of
organic materials should be introduced through the main burner or the pre-calciner.
Pozzolanic and other minerals are fed to the cement mill.
Being a process in which a large quantum of materials get processed and produced
in a continuous mode at high-temperature gas retention times, cement kilns can have
a large capability of utilizing a variety of materials. Cement plants exercise several
voluntary controls that are beyond the statutory provisions such as waste management
happens in an appropriate manner in the cement kiln, sustain the required product
quality, ensure the protection of the cement process from operational concerns, avoid
negative impacts to the environment, and ensure the occupational health and safety
of the operating personnel.

4.9 Cement Production in Developing Countries

The global cement industry is mostly expanding in emerging markets which are
located in developing countries. When the companies build new plants in any country,
usually they adopt the best available techniques (BAT) so as to be competitive and
viable. Usually, in developing countries, the bigger cement companies tend to impose
their internal standards on business ethics, labour rights, corporate responsibility,
health, safety, and environment that are beyond the local statutory obligations.
90 4 Cement Manufacturing—Technology, Practice, and Development

References

CEMBUREAU. (1999). Best available techniques for the cement industry. The European Cement
Association. Rue d’Arlon 55 - B-1040 Brussels. http://www.cembureau.be.
Christopher Hall. (1976). On the history of Portland cement after 150 years.Journal of Chemical
Education, 53(4), 222. Publication Date: April 1, 1976, https://doi.org/10.1021/ed053p222.
Duda, W. H. (1985). Cement data book. Bauverlag Gmbh.
Environment Agency. (2001). Integrated pollution prevention and control—Guidance for the
Cement and Lime sector. Environment Agency, SEPA and Environment and Heritage Service,
Bristol, UK, April 2001. Retrieved from http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/.
HALSTEAD, P. E. (2014). The early history of Portland cement, transactions of the Newcomen
Society, Vol 34, 1961; Issue 1, Pages 37–54 | Published online: 31 Jan 2014; https://doi.org/10.
1179/tns.1961.003.
IPPC. (2013). Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for the Production of Cement,
Lime and Magnesium Oxide: Industrial Emissions Directive 2010/75/EU. 978-92-79-32944-9.
Karstensen, K. H. (2006). Formation and Release of POPs in the Global Cement Industry—
Second Edition. Report to the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. 30
January. Retrieved from http://www.wbcsdcement.org/pdf/formation_release_pops_second_edi
tion.pdf http://www.wbcsdcement.org/pdf/formation_release_pops_second_edition.pdf.
Chapter 5
Fundamentals of Cement Chemistry,
Operations, and Quality Control

5.1 Introduction

Co-processing involves utilizing waste materials as Alternative Fuels and Raw mate-
rials (AFRs). Their role in cement kilns, therefore, represents the same importance
as the one that is applicable to natural fuels, namely coal, other fossil fuels, and
raw materials. Whatever technical and scientific considerations are extended to the
natural raw materials and fuels used in cement manufacturing, the same importance
needs to be extended to AFRs as well. The relevance of these principles becomes
more important with the increased quantum of usage of AFRs in the cement kilns.
This chapter provides relevant understanding and inputs on different aspects related
to subjects such as cement chemistry, laboratory evaluations, thermal energy, and
kiln operational aspects. (CII-GBC, 2010).
Raw Materials necessary for cement manufacture include materials containing
Calcium, Silica, Alumina, and Iron. These raw materials are mixed in certain propor-
tions and burnt at 1400 to 1450 °C in a rotary kiln to form a clinker which is subse-
quently ground to powder and mixed with 2 to 8% gypsum. This is called as ordinary
Portland cement (OPC). OPC is manufactured in three grades; 33 Grade, 43 Grade,
and 53 Grade.
A 33-grade cement concrete mortar made with cement, water, and sand in the
ratio of 1:1:3 cured for 28 days under controlled conditions achieves a minimum
compressive strength of 33 N/mm2 . A 33-grade cement is used in plain cement
concrete (PCC) where it is not subjected to stress. It complies with the specifications
set out in BIS 269 standards. (BIS 269, 2013).
The 43-grade cement concrete mortar made with cement, water, and sand in the
ratio of 1:1:3,cured for 28 days under controlled conditions achieves a minimum
compressive strength of 43 N/mm2 . A 43-grade cement is used in general civil engi-
neering construction work, RCC structures (M25 concrete), Non-RCC structures,
plastering works, etc. It complies with the specifications set out in BIS IS 8112
standards. (BIS 12269, 2013).

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 91
S. K. Ghosh et al., Sustainable Management of Wastes Through Co-processing,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-6073-3_5
92 5 Fundamentals of Cement Chemistry …

The 53-grade cement concrete mortar made with cement, water, and sand in the
ratio of 1:1:3 cured for 28 days under controlled conditions achieves a minimum
compressive strength of 53 N/mm2 . The 53-grade cement is used where early strength
required is high such as reinforced concrete structures, concrete grade is M25 and
above, cement grouts, bridges, runways, and roads. It complies with the specifications
set out in BIS 12269 standard (BIS 8112, 2013).
There are a variety of types of cement available. Portland pozzolana cement
(PPC) is made by inter-grinding and mixing of OPC with fly ash, Portland slag
cement (PSC) is made by mixing OPC with Ground Blast Furnace Slag, and Portland
composite cement (PCC) is made by mixing OPC with Fly Ash, GBFS, etc. Portland
limestone cement (PLC), Sulphate-resistant Portland Cement, Masonry Cement, Oil
Well Cement, High-Alumina Cement, Super Sulphated Cement, Rapid Hardening
Portland Cement, White Portland cement, etc., are additional types of cement.
The detailed process of manufacture of cement is explained in Chap. 4. The
quality of cement is controlled as per the applicable standards. These standards are
prescribed by the authorized agencies and/or standard institutions in the countries.
In India, the same is done by the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS).
Various standards of countries published for different grades of cement are listed
in Table 5.1
The quality and composition of raw materials utilized in the cement manufac-
turing define its cement quality. Input control based on the quality of raw materials,
therefore, is an important aspect of cement manufacture. Also, for effective quality
control, a representative sample ensures reliable results and hence sample preparation
is an important aspect of quality control.

Table 5.1 Standards for

Country Cement Product Standard
cement products from
different countries India 33-Grade OPC IS 269 (2013)
43-Grade OPC IS 8112 (2013)
53-Grade OPC IS 12269 (2013)
Portland slag cement (PSC) IS 455 (1989)
Portland pozzolana cement IS 1489 (1991)
(PPC) IS 16415 (2015)
Portland composite cement
(PCC)
UK & Europe Different types of Cement EN 197–1
USA OPC ASTM C150
Blended cements ASTM C595
Australia Portland and Blended AS 3972
Cements
5.2 Replacement of Conventional Materials with AFRs 93

Table 5.2 Natural and Alternative materials supplying required elements in cement manufacture
Calcium Iron Silica Alumina Sulphate Fuel
Natural Raw materials and Fuels
• Limestone • Iron Ore • Clay • Bauxite • Natural / • Coal
• Chalk • Clay • Fly ash • Cement Mineral • Petroleum
• Clay • Shale • Sand rock Gypsum Oil
• Marble • Sandstone • Clay • Petroleum
• Marl • Shale • Fly ash Gas
• Sea shell • Fuller’s • Petcoke
earth • Lignite
• Shale
Alternative Raw materials and Fuels
• Alkali • Mill Scale • Slag • Copper • FGD • Agro-waste
Waste • Blast • Ore slag Gypsum • RDF
• Slag Furnace washing • Ore • Chemical • Plastic
• Lime sludge Flue dust • Rice-husk washings Gypsum Waste
• Ore ash Slag • Hazardous
washing • Red mud Waste
• Red mud • Non-
• Iron hazardous
Sludge waste
• Used Tyres
and Rubber
waste
• Dried
Sewage
Sludge
• Animal
meal

5.2 Replacement of Conventional Materials with AFRs

The quality control of cement is achieved by performing tests on the raw materials,
fuels, intermediate products, and final cement products. Depending upon the material,
different kinds of tests are required to be performed.
There are five different elements that constitute the raw material in the cement
manufacturing process, namely Calcium, Iron, Silica, Alumina, and Sulphate.
Different natural and alternative raw materials that constitute these elements utilized
in the cement manufacture are provided in Table 5.2.

5.3 Chemical Analysis Associated in Cement Manufacture

Table 5.3 provides details about the phases present in clinker and their major
responsibility in cement chemistry.
94 5 Fundamentals of Cement Chemistry …

Table 5.3 Clinker Phases in the cement

Chemical Name Cement Notation Mineral Name Oxide Formula Major
Responsibility
Tri-calcium C3S Alite 3CaO.SiO2 Early strength
Silicate development
Di-calcium C2S Belite 2CaO.SiO2 Later strength
Silicate development
Tri-calcium C3A Aluminate 3CaO.Al2 O3 Setting time, initial
Aluminate strength increase,
and heat release
during setting
Tetra-calcium C4AF Ferrite 4CaO.Al2 O3 . Clinker burning
Alumino-ferrite Fe2 O3 temperature
reduction

In cement manufacturing, the analysis of raw materials and fuels is very important
to determine the acceptability and process efficiency. The major focus of analysis of
raw materials and fuels and their determinants is described in Table 5.4.
Three types of methods are used to undertake quality control of the raw materials,
fuels, clinker, and Cement product.
1. Chemical analysis,
2. Physical analysis, and
3. Fuel analysis.

Table 5.4 Major focus of analysis of raw materials and fuels and determinants
Major focus of Determinants Major focus of Determinants
analysis of Raw analysis of Fuels
materials
Main elements CaO, Fe2 O3 , Al2 O3 , Proximate analysis Fixed Carbon,
SiO2 , and MgO Moisture, Volatile
Matter and Ash
content, and GCV
Impurities Water, Ultimate analysis Carbon, Hydrogen,
hydrocarbons Nitrogen, Sulphur, and
Oxygen
Circulation elements Cl, SO3 , Na2 O, K2 O Halogen content Chlorine and Fluorine
Heavy metals Hg, Cd, Tl, Pb, As, Cr Heavy metals Hg, Cd, Tl, Pb, As,
and Cr
Fuel value Gross Calorific Value
and Net Calorific
Value
Ash analysis CaO, Fe2 O3 , Al2 O3 ,
SiO2 , and MgO
5.3 Chemical Analysis Associated in Cement Manufacture 95

The chemical composition of raw materials and fuels is determined by two

methods—Instrumental Techniques and Laboratory tests. Chemical analysis of the
bulk material is also carried out using an online XRF analyser mounted on the
crusher discharge belt or raw mill inlet belt. Instrumental Techniques involves X-
Ray Fluorescence Spectrometer, X-Ray Diffraction, Optical Microscope, and Flame
Photometer while the Laboratory test involves Gravimetric Method and Volumetric
and Complexometric Methods. Short descriptions of each of these methods are given
below.
a. X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometer.
XRF spectrometer provides a non-destructive analytical technique to determine the
elemental composition of materials.
b. X-Ray Diffraction.
X-ray Diffraction (XRD) is a rapid analytical technique used for phase identification
of a crystalline material and can provide information on unit cell dimensions.
c. Optical Microscope.
The optical microscopy technique shows a great many microstructural features of
the clinker that are not visible using other microscopic techniques. These features
include porosity changes, colour changes, constituent amounts (qualitative), indi-
vidual crystals sizes and form, clustering size and form (alite, belite, and free lime),
interstitial amounts and components, degree of crystallinity, minor constituents, and
many other features.
d. Flame Photometer.
A flame photometer is used to determine the concentration of certain metal ions like
sodium, potassium, lithium, calcium, cesium, etc. In flame photometer spectra, the
metal ions are used in the form of atoms.
e. Gravimetric Method.
Gravimetric analysis is a method of quantitative chemical analysis in which
the constituent sought is converted into a substance (of known composition) that
can be separated from the sample and weighed.
f. Volumetric and Complexometric Methods.
A complexometric titration is a form of volumetric analysis in which the formation
of a coloured complex is used to indicate the endpoint of a titration. Complexometric
titrations are particularly useful for the determination of a mixture of different metal
ions in solution.
96 5 Fundamentals of Cement Chemistry …

5.4 Cement Chemistry and Manufacturing Principles

Cement manufacture requires precise monitoring of the input materials based on

their chemical constituents and also operational control. This control is well practised
by the cement plants while utilizing conventional materials. The same precision is
also required while utilizing AFRs. To achieve the desired quality of clinker and
smooth process operation, it is important that the raw mix design with AFRs remains
reasonably the same as the one designed with conventional materials. The chemistry
of the ash from conventional fuel as well as AFR needs to be accounted for in the
raw mix design. This aspect becomes critically more important while reaching higher
TSRs.

5.4.1 Raw Mix Parameters

To achieve desired quality cement, desired quality clinker is required to be

produced. This requires that the raw material mix having desired physico-chemical
characteristics is utilized.
The design of this raw mix not only requires a complete analysis of raw materials
but also requires the analysis of the ash content of the fuel as well. While undertaking
co-processing, the analysis of both natural and alternative materials is important.
In raw mix design for the kilns undertaking co-processing, the composition
of these different natural and alternative materials is arrived at based on several
principles and fundamentals which are elaborated in detail below.
To illustrate the relevance of these fundamentals and principles, the case study
data provided in Table 5.5 is utilized.

5.4.2 Raw Meal to Clinker Factor

100
F= .
(100 − L O I )

LOI is the loss on the ignition of the raw mix.

Example: By utilizing the data provided in Table 5.1:
Raw meal to clinker factor = 100 / (100–35.2) = 1.54321.

5.4.3 Clinker Composition

Clinker composition is calculated from the raw mix, by calculating the constituent’s
composition on loss-free basis.
5.4 Cement Chemistry and Manufacturing Principles 97

Table 5.5 Case study data on

Parameter Raw mix constituent
the composition of Raw mix
LOI 35.20
SiO2 14.00
Al2O3 3.70
Fe2O3 2.10
CaO 41.60
MgO 1.80
SO3 0.23
K2O 0.61
Na2O 0.22
TiO2 0.17
Mn2O3 0.30
P2O5 0.06
Cl 0.01
Total 100.0

This calculation is done by calculating the raw mix constituent with the raw meal
to clinker ratio. The calculated values are provided in Table 5.6.

Table 5.6 Case study raw

Parameter Clinker constituent
mix data converted into
clinker data LOI 0.0
SiO2 21.6
Al2O3 5.7
Fe2O3 3.2
CaO 64.2
MgO 2.8
SO3 0.4
K2O 0.9
Na2O 0.3
TiO2 0.3
Mn2O3 0.5
P2O5 0.1
Cl 0.0
Total 100.0
98 5 Fundamentals of Cement Chemistry …

5.4.4 Alumina Modulus AM

(Al2 O3 )
Alumina Modulus = .
(Fe2 O3 )

This determines the potential relative proportions of aluminate and ferrite phases
in the clinker. An increase in clinker AM means there will be proportionally more
aluminate and less ferrite in the clinker.
The typical range of AM is 1.0 – 3.0.
Example: By utilizing case study data:
Alumina Modulus = 5.7/3.2 = 1.72.
Higher Alumina Modulus indicates harder burning and entails higher fuel
consumption. It also increases C3A, C3S, and C2S content and reduces C4AF
content. Also, it reduces the liquid phase and kiln output.
If AM, < 1.23, Al2 O3 acts as a flux, and if AM is > 1.23, Fe2 O3 acts as a flux.
Very low Alumina Modulus causes sticky clinker and increases balling.

5.4.5 Silica Modulus SM

The Silica Modulus is defined as follows:

SiO2
SM = .
(Al2 O3 + Fe2 O3 )

A high silica ratio means that more calcium silicates are present in the clinker and
less aluminate and ferrite.
Higher Silica Modulus causes hard burning clinker and increases fuel consump-
tion. This causes difficulty in coating formation and deteriorates the kiln lining. It
results in slow setting and high strength cement.
Lower silica modulus increases the liquid phase. It improves the burnability of
the clinker and the formation of coating in the kiln. SM typically ranges between 1.8
and 3.6.
Example: Utilizing case study data,

Silica Modulus = 21.6/ (5.7 + 3.2) = 2.41.

5.4.6 Lime Saturation Factor (LSF)

The Lime Saturation Factor is a ratio of CaO to the other three main oxides. It is
calculated based on the Alumina modulus number.
5.4 Cement Chemistry and Manufacturing Principles 99

(CaO)
LSF = .
(2.8 x SiO2 + 1.18 x Al2 O3 + 0.65 x Fe2 O3 )

The LSF controls the ratio of alite to belite in the clinker. A clinker with a higher
LSF will have a higher proportion of alite to belite.
Typical LSF values in modern clinkers are 85–100%.
Example: Utilizing case study data,

L S F = 64.2 / (2.8 ∗ 221.6 + 1.1 ∗ 5.7 + 0.7 ∗ 3.2) = 93%.

Values above 100 indicate that free lime is likely to be present in the clinker. This
is because, in principle, at LSF = 100, all the free lime should have been combined
with belite to form alite.

5.4.7 Hydraulic Modulus (HM)

The hydraulic modulus of good quality clinker is generally in the range of 2. Cement
with HM less than 1.7 showed mostly insufficient strength and cement with HM more
than 2.3 has poor stability of volume. With increasing HM, more heat is required to
burn the clinker.
CaO
HM = .
Al2 O3 + Fe2 O3 + SiO2

Example: Utilizing the case study data,

H M = 64.2 / (5.7 + 3.2 + 21.6) = 2.1.

5.4.8 Bogue’s Formula for Cement Constituents

The Bogue formulations are used to determine the compound compositions

of the Portland Cement. These compounds have been researched by Rober
Herman Bogue. Honouring his work, the primary compounds or constituents of
the Portland cement responsible for the setting of cement paste are called Bogue’s
compounds. The ollowing are the four Bogue compounds. These are also the four
main ingredients of cement. These compound compositions may be calculated
from the oxide analysis as follows (C, S, A, F, and S denote the % of CaO, SiO2 ,
Al2 O3 , Fe2 O3 , and SO3 , respectively):
100 5 Fundamentals of Cement Chemistry …

C3S =4.071 × CaO − (7.602 × SiO2 + 6.718 × Al2 O3

+ 1.43 × Fe2 O3 + 2.852 × SO3 ).

C2S = 2.867 × SiO2 − 0.7544 × C3S.

C3A = 2.65 × Al2O3 −1.692 × Fe2 O3 .

C4AF = 3.043 × Fe2 O3 .

Typical value of

C3S = 45 − 55%.

C2S = 20 − 30%.

Example: Utilizing the case study data, we arrive at the following values.

C3S − 53.1%.

C2S − 21.88%.

C3A − 9.65%.

C4AF − 9.86%.

5.5 Operational Parameters

The salient features of some of the important operational parameters in the cement
manufacture are discussed next which have relevance in the implementation of AFR
co-processing successfully.
5.5 Operational Parameters 101

5.5.1 Degree of Calcination

(fi − di )
C (%) =
(100 / fi)

(Or)

    
C (%) = 1− LOIsample × (100 − LOIfeed ) / 100 − LOIsample × (LOIfeed ) .

C: Apparent Percent calcination of the sample.

fi : Ignition loss of the original feed.
di : Ignition loss of the sample.

5.5.2 Loss on Ignition

Loss on ignition (LOI) refers to the reduction in weight that takes place when the
material is heated to a high temperature. This loss in weight is due to the release of
CO2, Moisture, and burning of the combustible matter.

LOI = 0.44 CaCO3 + 0.524 MgCO3 + . . . .+

combined H2 O + Organic matter.

5.5.3 % Liquid
% Liquid = 1.13 C3A + 1.35 C4AF + MgO + Alkalis.

C3A : % of TriCalcium Aluminate.

C4AF : % of Tetra − Calcium Alumino Ferrite.

Example: By utilizing the case study data and the values calculated,

% Liquid − 1.13 ∗ 9.65 + 1.35 ∗ 9.86 + 2.77 + 0.55 + 0.31 = 28.27%.

102 5 Fundamentals of Cement Chemistry …

5.5.4 Sulphur to Alkali Ratio

(SO3 /80)
SO3 / Alkali(in absence of Chlorine) = .
((K2 O/94) + (0.5Na2 O/62))
(SO3 /80)
SO3 / Alkali(In presence of Chlorine) = .
((K2 O/94) + (Na2 O/62) − (Cl/71))

The typical sulphur to Alkali ratio in absence of Chlorine is around 1.1 and the
same in presence of Chlorine is 0.8. Preheater build-ups are the major cause of
concern while operating at higher sulphur to alkali ratio.
Example: Assume SO3 content in the hot meal is 1.0% and K2O as 0.7%. Na2O
is 1% and chlorine is 0.8%,

Sulphur to Alkali ratio = (1.0/80) / ((0.7/94) + (01/62) − (0.8/71)) = 1.02.

5.5.5 Free Lime

% Free Lime1400 = 0.31 (LSF – 100) + 2.18 (SM – 1.8) + 0.73 Q + 0.33 C + 0.34
A.
LSF: Lime saturation factor.
SM: Silica modulus.
Q: +45 µ residue after acid wash (20% HCl) identified by microscopy as quartz.
C: +125 µ residue which is soluble in acid (i.e., coarse LS).
A: +45 µ residue after acid wash identified by microscopy as non-quartz acid
insoluble.
Note: Q, C, and A expressed as % of total raw mix sample.

5.5.6 Excess Sulphur (Gm SO3 / 100 Gm Clinker)

Excess sulphur = (1000 × SO3 ) − (850 × K2 O) − (650 × Na2 O).

Sulphur is required to be maintained between 250 gms / T clinker to 600 gms / T

clinker. Coating problems are encountered in the preheater tower above these limits.

5.5.7 Blending Ratio

The blending ratio is the ratio of estimated standard deviations of feed and product.
5.5 Operational Parameters 103

Blending ratio = standard deviation of CaO in feed / standard deviation of CaO

in the product.
= Sqrt (N/2)
N : Number of layers.
For calculating standard deviation,
Consider the feed values: x, x1 , x2 , x3 …….xn .
Mean for the feed values: (x + x1 + x2 +x3 ….xn )/n = xa .
Standard deviation for the feed:
= sqrt{[(x-xa )2 +(x1 -xa )2 +(x2 -xa )2 +….+(xn -xa )2 ]/n}.

5.5.8 Ash Absorption

Ash Absorption = specific fuel consumption x % of ash in fuel.

Kg coal
Specific fuel consumption =
Kg clinker
Specific heat consumption
= .
NCV of coal
Note: Clinker is assumed to have zero LOI.

5.5.9 Kiln Feed to Clinker Factor

Kiln feed (kg)
Kiln feed to clinker factor = .
Clinker output (kg)

Note: Error in kiln feeding system is considered as negligible.

(or)

Raw Meal to Clinker Factor × (100)

Kiln feed to clinker factor = .
Top Stage Cyclone Efficiency

5.5.10 Clinker to Cement Factor

Clinker to cement factor
(Clinker + Gypsum + additives + (Fly ash / slag))(Kg)
= .
Clinker consumed (kg)
104 5 Fundamentals of Cement Chemistry …

5.5.11 Insoluble Residue

The material remaining after the cement is treated for designed time with hydrochloric
acid of a specific concentration.
(Or)
It can be used to measure the amount of adulteration of cement with sand. Sand is
insoluble and cement is soluble in dilute HCl. In PPC cement, this parameter provides
the estimate of the percentage of the fly ash present in it.

5.5.12 Volumetric Loading of Kiln

  CP
Volumetric Loading TPD/m3 =  2  .
 x D /4 x L

CP = Clinker Production in TPD.

D = Effective Diameter of the kiln (n).
L = Length of kiln (m).
Typical values of Specific volumetric loading for preheater kilns range from 1.6 –
2.2 tpd/m3 .
And for the pre-calciner kilns, it ranged from 4.5 to 7.0 tpd/m3 .

5.5.13 Thermal Loading of Kiln

  CP x HC x % Firing in kiln x 103
Thermal Loading MKcal/Hr./m2 =   .
 x D2 /4 x 24 x 106

CP = Clinker Production (tpd).

HC = Heat Consumption (Kcal / Kg).
D = Effective Diameter of the Kiln (m).
The specific thermal loading for pre-calciner kilns ranges from 4.0 to
5.0 M kcal/hr./m2 .

5.5.14 Feed Moisture Evaporation Rate

Feed moisture evaporation rate

Moisture (kg/hr) = Fq × 1000 x (Mf – Mp ) / (100 – Mf ).
Fq : Fresh feed quantity (tph).
Mf : Total fresh feed surface moisture (%).
Mp : Total product surface moistures (%).
5.5 Operational Parameters 105

5.5.15 False Air Estimation O2 Method

(O2 (outlet) − O2 (inlet)) x 100 (%)
In terms of outlet : X = .
(21− O2 (inlet)
(O2 (outlet) − O2 (inlet)) x 100 (%)
In terms of inlet : X = .
(21− O2 (outlet))

5.5.16 % Excess Air

% Excess air calculation is carried out based on two criteria. With zero CO, i.e.,
complete combustion and with a certain level of CO which is incomplete combustion.
Case 1: For Complete combustion

% Excess air = O2 / (21− O2 ).

Case 2: For Incomplete combustion (with CO)

% Excess air = 189 x (2O2 − CO) / (N2 −1.89 x (2O2 − CO)).

5.6 Thermal Parameters

The following thermal parameters utilized in cement, manufacture are also important
while implementing AFR co-processing.
A. Conversion of GCV to NCV

NCV = GCV − 5150 ∗ H (kcal/kg) where H is the %

. .
Hydrogen present in fuel and moisture).

B. Ultimate Analysis

Ultimate analysis of fuel is a measure of C, H, N, S, O, and Ash and the sum of all
these is 100% (by weight) where C is % carbon, H is % Hydrogen, N is % nitrogen,
S is % sulphur, and O is % oxygen.
This parameter is useful to calculate the volume of combustion gases and
theoretical combustion air required.
106 5 Fundamentals of Cement Chemistry …

C. Proximate Analysis
The proximate analysis of fuel is the quantitative determination of moisture, carbon,
volatile matter, and ash. It is the sum of % volatile, % fixed carbon, % ash, and %
moisture and is equal to 100%.
D. % Coal ash absorbed in clinker

X 1 = (Ca OClinker − Ca Oraw mix )/(Ca Oash − Ca Oraw mi x ).

X 2 = (Fe2 O3 Clinker − Fe2 O3 raw mix )/(Fe2 O3ash − Fe2 O3 raw mi x ).
. X 3 = (Si O2 Clinker − Si O2 raw mix )/(Si O2ash − Si O2 raw mi x ). .
X 4 = (A12 O3 Clinker − A12 O3 raw mix )/(A12 O3ash − A12 O3 raw mi x ).
% Coal ash absor bedinClin ker = (X 1 + X 2 + X 3 + X 4 ) / 4.

5.7 Burner Parameters

Burner is important equipment in the successful implementation of AFR co-

processing. The relevance of these thermal parameters in AFR co-processing
operation needs to be understood and tackled appropriately.
A. Theoretical air required to burn fuel

Air (kg air/kg of fuel) = (8/3) x C + 8 x (H2 − (O2 /8)) + S) x (100/23).

C: Mass of carbon per kg of fuel.

O2 : Mass of Oxygen per kg of fuel.
S: Mass of Sulphur per kg of fuel.
H2 : Mass of hydrogen per kg of fuel.
Example: The Carbon content in the fuel is 53.28%, Oxygen is 15.8%, Sulphur is
0.13%, and Hydrogen is 5.54%.

T heor etical Air r equir ed = (8/3) ∗ (53.28/100)

+ (8 ∗ ((5.54/100) − ((15.8/100)/8)) + (0.13/100)) ∗ 100/23
= 2.71 K g air / K g f uel.

B. Primary air momentum

Primary air momentum is calculated (% m/sec) as follows:

% m/s = Lp % x C,
where
Lp : The primary air represented as % of the stoichiometric air required.
C : Primary air velocity at the burner nozzle.
5.7 Burner Parameters 107

Example: Primary airflow rate is 2.14 kg/sec; the stoichiometric air required is
22.17 kg/sec. The nozzle velocity at the burner is 165.6 M/sec.
The primary air % = 2.14/22.17 = 9.6%.
The Primary air momentum = 9.6*165.6 = 1598 % M/s.
C. Burner momentum
The burner momentum (N/MW) is calculated in the following manner:

Nozzle velocity (M/s) x Primary airflow rate (kg/s)

Burner Momentum = .
Total heat input in the kiln (MJ/s)

Example: The nozzle velocity is 165.6 m/s, the primary airflow rate is 2.14 kg/s,
and the total heat input in the kiln is 65.7 MJ/s.

Bur ner Momentum = 165.6 ∗ 2.14/65.7 = 5.39 N /M W.

D. Nozzle velocity

Nozzle velocity is calculated using the following equation.

Nozzle Velocity:
 
 
 2k Pamb
k−1


k
C pr = × R (t pr + 273.15) × 1 − [m/s],
k−1 Pamb + PN

where
pamb (mbar) pressure at Nozzle.
tpr Primary Air Temperature.
K~ 1.4 Isentropic exponent for air.
R~Gas constant (286.89 (J/kgK)).
Cpr Nozzle Velocity (m/s).

Example: Primary Air temperature = 60 Degree C.

Primary pressure at nozzle = 242 mbar.
Ambient pressure = 972 mbar.
K = 1.40.
R = 286.89 J/kg k.
Putting all these values in the above formula for calculating nozzle velocity,

N ozzle V elocit yC pr = 165.60 m/s.

E. EstimatedBurner Nozzle velocity (v)

v ∼ 4
Ps m/ sec (Ps in mmW C),
108 5 Fundamentals of Cement Chemistry …

200 × Ps
v ∼ m/ sec (Ps in mbar ),
ρ

where P measured at the axial air pressure point.

p measured as Density.

V = 4 X S Q RT ( primar y air static pr essur e).

Primar y air pr essur e = 1600 mmwg N or mal Coal.
Primar y air pr essur e = 2420 mmwg Petcoke.
N ozzle V elocit y = 4 X S Q RT (1600)
= 160 m/s f or nor mal coal
= 4 X S Q RT (2420)
= 196.76 m/s f or petcoke.

F. Position of Burner in Cement Kiln

The position of the burner in the kiln and the flame profile inside the kiln shell play
an important role in achieving the optimum level of heat transfer to the material
for obtaining the desired cement-related reactions without impacting the refractory
lining. This concept is depicted in Fig. 5.1.
The optimum position, therefore, depends on many factors. (Hegde, 2020). In
the past, it was a common practice to point the burner a little bit down compared to
the kiln axis, in direction of the charge. This was primarily done to compensate for
the tendency of the flame to go upwards due to convection and entrainment by the
secondary air.
Today, with modern high-momentum burners, this is no longer recommended.
The jet momentum being stronger, if you point the burner towards the charge, the
risk is that the flame will touch the charge. The local reducing conditions would
increase sulphur circulation and increase the risk of coating and blockages in the

• Position 1,2,3,4 & 7 are close to the

refractory lining and may impact its
performance.
• Position 6, 8 & 9 are close to the process
material and may cause over heating the
same.
• Position 5 is the best because it is placed
away from process material and also from
the refractory and provides opportunity for
optimum performance

Fig. 5.1 Position of the burner in the cement kiln

5.7 Burner Parameters 109

preheater. The consensus is that high-momentum burners should be placed parallel

to the kiln axis. Basic positions would be on the kiln axis, but the burner can also be
shifted sideways (still parallel to the kiln axis). Some recommend shifting the burner
horizontally away from the charge when using coarse waste fuel to limit the risk that
coarse particles would fall into the charge. Similarly, if you use only fine, easy-to-
burn fuel, the burner can be shifted towards the charge to improve heat exchange. As
radiation is the primary heat exchange mechanism, the effect is, however, limited.
Regarding insertion depth of burner inside the kiln, according to theory, the further
inside is the better. This is to get away from the perturbation of the change of direction
of the secondary air and to improve the precooling zone to avoid snowmen in the
cooler. There is, however, a limit due to the length and related weight of the burner
and the risk of damage by big pieces of coating falling on the burner. The usual
insertion depth would be 50 cm–1 m inside the kiln. But many kilns operate with
the burner just at the limit of the kiln (0 cm). Having the burner outside the kiln is
generally not recommended.

5.8 Conclusions

Utilization of AFRs through co-processing requires alignment of the chemistry of

AFRs with that of the input materials and design of the raw mix to achieve a desired
clinker composition. The objective is to ensure that the final chemistry of the resultant
mix of fossil materials and alternative materials remains the same as is required to
produce a desired quality of clinker. Further, it is also desired that the undesired
components entering through the alternative materials are curtailed to the levels
that permit trouble-free and environmentally sound process operation. This requires
an understanding of the various aspects of the cement chemistry as well as the
operational and quality control in the cement manufacturing process. This chapter
dealt in detail with the understanding of these aspects with case study examples using
typical data.

References

CII-Godrej GBC, Cement Formulae Handbook published by CII - Sohrabji Godrej Green Business
Centre. (2010).
BIS, ORDINARY PORTLAND CEMENT, 33 GRADE—SPECIFICATION, IS 269, Bureau of
Indian Standards. (2013, Mar).
BIS, ORDINARY PORTLAND CEMENT, 53 GRADE—SPECIFICATION, IS 12269, Bureau of
Indian Standards. (2013, Mar).
BIS, ORDINARY PORTLAND CEMENT, 43 GRADE—SPECIFICATION, IS 8112, Bureau of
Indian Standards. (2013, Mar).
Dr. Hegde, S. B. (2020, February 7). Position of Burner in Cement Kiln, Linkedin post.
 Part IV
Co-processing: Guidelines, Sustainability
and Legislation
Chapter 6
Guidelines on Pre-processing
and Co-processing
of AFRs—International Best Practices

6.1 Introduction

Co-processing of AFRs is being practised globally for about four decades. Over
this long period, there have been many learnings and experiences in undertaking
co-processing initiatives. Many best practices have come in place in the process.
These learnings and best practices have helped build appropriate guidelines. These
guidelines, best practices, and learnings are discussed in detail in this chapter. The
most important principle of these guidelines is to ensure that the unsuitable and
unacceptable wastes are prevented from being co-processed and that emissions from
co-processing activity do not get influenced by the co-processing activity.
Common concerns of AFR co-processing in cement kilns are the following:
• Spills, accidents, and exposure during handling.
• Emissions during handling/pre-processing and co-processing.
• Contamination of the product.
This guideline elaborates the international best practices employed to achieve
environmentally sound management of the AFRs / Wastes (GTZ-Holcim, 2006;
IPPC, 2013; UNEP, 2007); World Business Council for Sustainable Development
(WBCSD), 2006). When the same are required to be practised elsewhere, they need
to be adopted to the local considerations. The local raw material and fuel chem-
istry; availability of AFRs and waste materials; infrastructure available at the cement
production plant; availability of equipment for controlling, handling, and feeding
the waste materials; and site-specific health, safety, and environmental issues are
typical local considerations that need to be addressed. Some of these considerations
would be site-specific and will be varying from plant to plant. Hence, these recom-
mendations need to be perceived as general ones. The local permit, therefore, must
specify the final details of the pre-processing and co-processing practices that would
be allowed.The following requirements need to be put in place by the cement plant or
the agency handling the waste / AFR materials (Dahai Yan et al., 2014; Karstensen
et al., 2014; Karstensen, 2014, 2011; Karstensen et al., 2010; Karstensen, 2008;

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 113
S. K. Ghosh et al., Sustainable Management of Wastes Through Co-processing,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-6073-3_6
114 6 Guidelines on Pre-processing and Co-processing of AFRs …

Karstensen et al., 2006; Karstensen, 2006). These requirements prevent or reduce the
risks associated with them—especially the hazardous ones. The following require-
ments have been categorized for easy understanding which need to be complied with
or adhered to. Table 6.1 demonstrates the requirements.

Table 6.1 Requirements by the cement plant or waste / AFR materials handling agency
Categories of requirements Requirements
Compliances to international, national, and local Approved EIA and applicable national and local
Regulation Legislation and conventions permits
Regulatory compliance at national and local levels
Performance of the BAT/BEP and compliance to
the relevant conventions such as Basel and
Stockholm
Facility approval and Reliable Resource support Facilities for pre-processing and co-processing
that are approved
Reliable power and water supply
Appropriate laboratory and equipment facilities
Pollution including emission control Appropriate pollution control devices and
continuous emission monitoring systems at stacks
for ensuring compliance to relevant regulations
Preventing dioxin and furan formation by
conditioning / cooling the exit gas to below 200
°C quickly
Calibration Calibration of measuring and monitoring
equipment and instruments regularly through
baseline monitoring processes
Trial Management Demonstration of destruction performance
through co-processing trials
Training and Competence of personnel on Personnel with required skills to manage health,
technology, HSE, and emergency response safety, and environmental issues of the hazardous
wastes
Regular training of the personnel to handle safety
equipment, procedures, and emergencies
Responsibility matrix Well-defined organizational structure with clearly
defined responsibilities
Defined acceptance, quality control, and Safe receipt, storage, pre-processing, and
authorization procedure co-processing of hazardous wastes
Authorization for collection, transportation, and
handling of hazardous wastes
Waste acceptance and co-processing control
through appropriate laboratory and equipment
facilities
Adequately defined control procedures for product
quality
(continued)
6.2 Important Operational Aspects 115

Table 6.1 (continued)

Categories of requirements Requirements
Records keeping and reporting Maintenance of the records of hazardous wastes
and emissions
Regular disclosure of performance status through
open reports
Reporting system for employees to efficiently deal
with errors
Certification of management systems Implementation of ISO 9001, ISO 14001, ISO
50001, ISO 45000, EMAS, or similar systems to
ensure quality, environmental and energy
management, occupational health and safety, and
continuous improvement
Complaints handling system and Auditing Regular audits through independent agencies and
emission monitoring and reporting through
third-party agencies
Engagement with local community and authorities
to address comments and complaints

6.2 Important Operational Aspects

While starting to undertake co-processing in cement plants, certain measures and

considerations need to be addressed. The following aspects are very important to
look into and for taking appropriate actions.
(a) Compliance with regulations:

An appropriate and effective regulatory framework should be established to guarantee

high-level protection of impacts on environment. It is suggested that a register of
applicable legislation with acceptance limits is maintained and all the relevant data
are entered into it in each shift. Threshold limits must be set for each of the critical
parameters. A system of indicative measures needs to be installed which will help
in taking appropriate corrective and preventive actions so that the parameters so that
the limiting conditions are never reached.

(b) Location, health, and safety aspects:

There will always be some concerns associated with community related to emissions,
logistics, transport, infrastructure, etc. The feasibility of the location for undertaking
pre-processing and co-processing activities needs to be carefully evaluated prior
to deciding any location. This will reduce risks associated with proximity to the
community. There will also be a need to put in place corrective measures to avoid the
release of vapours, odours, etc. The pre-processing facility and cement plant operator
must, therefore, design and put in place appropriate operational and management (O
& M) procedures to deal with emergency situations so that the safety of neighbours,
116 6 Guidelines on Pre-processing and Co-processing of AFRs …

workers, and installations is addressed appropriately; these needs to be systematically

reviewed and revised.
(c) Training:

A training programme for employees to address operation, safety, health, environ-

ment, and quality issues needs to be implemented and the associated training records
need to be filed.

(d) Involvement and communication:

Before starting to use any wastes, adequate documentation, and information about
is safe handling and management are mandatory must be provided to all employees.
Relevant authorities must be given access to relevant information about the waste
material during the permitting process. Further, the operator of the pre-processing
facility and cement plant must do the following:
• By having transparent, continuous, and consistent communication with the author-
ities and other involved stakeholders, necessary trust will be created. Stakeholders
must have access to relevant information to allow them to clearly understand the
purpose of the co-processing activity.
• Ensure that authorities can evaluate the entire process by providing them with all
the necessary information.
• By working with the local community and authorities, the operator must establish
a stakeholder engagement plan, which provides procedures for responding to
community’s interests, comments, or complaints.

(e) Reporting performance:

Transparency and accountability are important criteria for building trust among stake-
holders. Updated performance reports will ensure a fair and balanced judgment of
the co-processor or the activities at the site and its performance.

(f) Environmentally sound management:

Hazardous wastes defined within the Basel and Stockholm Convention need to be
brought under environmentally sound management (ESM) policy concept.

(g) Environmental management system:

For ensuring continuous improvement in its performance, the pre-processing facility

should have a environmental management system (EMS) in place. The same is
expected with the cement plant as well. ISO 14001 and the European standard—
EMAS—are the two most frequently used international standard guidelines for EMS
design.
6.3 Waste Evaluations 117

6.3 Waste Evaluations

The cement plant operator must specify the waste acceptance criteria in advance
to the pre-processing facility or the waste owner prior to any deliverables. These
outer boundaries will define the acceptance at a particular kiln and then facili-
tate the definition of the requirements to comply with the delivery specification.
Waste fed to a cement kiln should preferably be homogenous and have stable heat
and moisture content and have a pre-specified size distribution with stable chem-
ical and physical composition. In actual practice, the co-processor usually receives
wastes having varying physico-chemical characteristics. To fulfil the requirements
mentioned above, wastes may need to be pre-treated or pre-processed. Points needed
for the waste evaluation process should include incoming waste evaluation, assess-
ment of possible impacts, banned wastes, risky wastes, and Checklist for acceptance
control which are explained below and those should be adopted in the facility.
(a) Incoming Waste evaluation:

Wastes need to be received from parties that can provide traceability prior to the recep-
tion and unsuitable wastes need to be quarantined and refused. The pre-processing
facility and cement plant operator must develop a joint evaluation and acceptance
procedure for the waste.

(b) Assessment of possible impacts:

After receiving the waste-related information, the co-processor should adopt the
following procedures.

1. Evaluate any negative impact of handling and co-processing the wastes on the
safety and health of the employees, contractors, and the community.
2. Identify suitable PPEs that facilitate safe handling of the waste at the site and
provide them to the employees.
3. Ensure that non-compatible wastes are not mixed.
4. Assess the physico-chemical characteristics of the wastes and evaluate the
impact the waste may have on the process operation due to the presence of
alkalis, chlorine, sulphur, and fluorine content in the wastes. These may build
up in the kiln system, leading to process concerns such as unstable operation
and clogging. The calorific value defines the contribution waste makes to the
energy requirement while the moisture content may reduce the efficiency and
the productivity of the kiln system. The chemical composition of the cement
will be influenced by the ash content in the waste and its chemical composition
needs to be suitable or adjusted in the raw mix.
5. Understand the potential impact of the waste on the quality of the final product
and the process stability.
6. Understand the impact that waste may have on emissions.
118 6 Guidelines on Pre-processing and Co-processing of AFRs …

7. Define the quality control parameters of the waste that the supplier will have to
adhere to. Each delivery must comply with the same prior to acceptance at the
site.

(c) Banned wastes:

The following are the banned waste materials for co-processing. Some of them are
banned materials both for pre-processing and co-processing. Local circumstances,
statutory conditions, and company policy may cause some companies to exclude
additional materials.
Materials Banned for pre-processing and co-processing
1. Infectious and biological active medical waste.
2. Explosives.
3. Asbestos.
4. Radioactive waste.
5. Unknown/unidentified wastes.
Materials Banned for co-processing after pre-processing
1. Entire Batteries.
2. Electronic waste.
3. Mineral acids and corrosives.
4. Unsorted municipal waste.

(d) Risky wastes:

The following are the waste streams that pose risk in the cement manufacturing
process and may be restricted by some of the cement plants. For some waste streams,
specific packaging may be required to prevent any potential reaction of wastes during
transport.
1. Wastes containing mercury and thallium.
2. Waste containing peroxides.
3. Wastes forming acid gases during combustion.
4. Wastes containing phosphides.
5. Wastes containing isocyanates.
6. Wastes containing Cyanides.
7. Wastes with alkaline metals or other reactive metals.

(e) Checklist for acceptance control:

The operator must make sure that the following criteria are agreed prior to signing any
commercial contract. Figure 6.1 illustrates some typical waste acceptance criteria.

1. Adequate information on the risks associated with the material along with its
composition and an agreement to deliver the same through a declaration.
6.3 Waste Evaluations 119

Fig. 6.1 Waste acceptance criteria

2. No substances, compounds, or preparations which are on the “negative list” or

not agreed for acceptance should be sent.
3. Each waste must be tested for its compliance with the agreed waste character-
istics. After comparison of the results of testing of the waste materials brought
for delivery with the data contained in the declaration, the waste is accepted at
the cement plant or sent to an appropriate pre-processing facility or rejected in
the case of significant deviations.
4. Blending of incompatible materials is prohibited and a compatibility test is
performed by the process owner, if needed.
5. Before acceptance of commercial contracts, the plant shall carry out sampling
of the waste at the site of the provider and tested for its physico-chemical
characteristics. This analysis can be carried out by own- or third-party certified
laboratories.
6. Before completion of the acceptance process, cement plants should not permit
the transportation of the wastes to the plant site.
7. To ensure that PPEs and safety gears are utilized appropriately, cement
plants shall communicate the health risks and the safety concerns to the
personnel associated with the downstream operations, including transportation,
pre-processing, and co-processing.
8. Personnel handling the waste needs to be provided SOP of materials handling
based on the material properties and available safety information. MSDS (Mate-
rial Safety Data Sheet) or any such document must be made available at
the workplace and knowledge and facility of implementing MSDS must be
provided.
120 6 Guidelines on Pre-processing and Co-processing of AFRs …

9. To facilitate enforcement of the waste acceptance criteria, the cement plant

shall provide adequate training in the subject of chemistry to their commercial
employees.

6.4 Waste Collection, Handling, and Transport

Standard procedure for collection, handling, and transport of wastes to the cement
plant and the pre-processing facility must be established, monitored, and evalu-
ated in full compliance to the national regulatory requirements. Qualified, autho-
rized by respective local and/or national regulatory authority, and licensed transport
companies shall be used as the service provider for transportation of the wastes.

(a) Waste collection and handling:

Appropriate training needs to be provided to the operating manpower at the pre-

processing and co-processing facilities. The hazardous and other wastes must be
handled separately. This will prevent intermixing and contamination.

(b) Waste transport:

Packaging of wastes that are hazardous in nature is desired before undertaking their
transportation. This is true even for wastes contaminated with hazardous materials.
The material stored in containers must meet transport requirements so that when they
are transported, they meet the applicable requirements.
Figure 6.2 illustrates the transport vehicle carrying well-stacked drums containing
waste

6.5 Waste Reception and Handling

Waste material must be packed, labelled, and loaded properly during transportation.
This will ensure that waste material will safely reach the pre-processing and co-
processing facility. Detailed instructions on the types of waste material packed in the
drums is mentioned properly on the drums. Compliance to the specifications confirms
that the waste is positively verified. Therefore, all wastes should be evaluated for this
compliance. Until then it should be treated as unknown and hazardous. The procedure
to be followed for accepting the vehicle and he waste contained in the same shall be
as follows.

(a) Vehicle must be stopped on its arrival and necessary identification has to be
made.
(b) Weight of vehicles should be taken and recorded at the site incoming and exit
gate.
6.5 Waste Reception and Handling 121

Fig. 6.2 Transport vehicle carrying well-stacked drums containing waste

(c) Documents relating to hazardous waste must be checked. Verification must

be done for compliance with site acceptance specifications and applicable
regulations.
(d) Waste certificates, transport certificates, and other such certifications must be
checked at the site.
(e) Waste material must be sampled and tested to check compliance with the
accepted quality criteria.
(f) The truck driver must be properly made aware about safety and emergency
requirements pertaining to the waste being transported. He should also be
made aware of the unloading instructions. This procedure must be ensured
before any of the materials are loaded into the truck.
(g) Non-complying vehicles should not be permitted to enter the site.

6.5.1 Management of Non-Compliant Deliveries

The contractual agreement for the supply of wastes should accompany the SOP to be
adopted on the non-compliant deliveries by the waste producer. In case of conflict,
there should be agreement on criteria for rejection of the received vehicle along with
the material contained in it. Where relevant, the rejection must be communicated to
the relevant authority. Statistical analysis of the performance and reliability of each
waste producer must be carried out based on the waste acceptance criteria and the
records must be kept for a definite record retention period; their contracts also need
122 6 Guidelines on Pre-processing and Co-processing of AFRs …

to be reviewed periodically. These performance data should be considered as inputs

for rating the waste producers/suppliers for making the AVL (Approved Vendor List)
for further orders.

6.5.2 Analysing Incoming Wastes

Delivered wastes must undergo specific admission controls and must be confirmed
to comply with the agreed specifications. The techniques for checking, inspection,
and detection of materials are described below.

(1) Techniques for checking wastes:

Different techniques varying from simple to complete chemical analysis are

employed for checking the waste streams. The procedures adopted will depend upon
the following.

(a) Experiences of dealing with the wastes.

(b) Nature and composition of waste.
(c) Existence or absence of a quality specification of the waste.
(d) Heterogeneity of the waste.
(e) If the waste is of a known or unknown origin.
(f) Known difficulties with wastes.
(g) Specific sensitivities of the installation concerned.

(2) Inspection:

The following inspection scheme is applied for the waste.

(a) Assessment of flash point of wastes in the bunker and its control.
(b) Comparison of data in the declaration list with delivered waste.
(c) Blending tests on liquid wastes prior to storage.
(d) Sampling of all bulk tankers.
(e) Screening for elemental composition.
(f) Assessment of combustion parameters.
(g) Checking of drums randomly.
(h) Checking of packaged loads.

(3) Detectors for radioactive materials:

Operational and safety problems will be faced due to higher levels of radioactive
sources or substances in waste. The same needs to be checked with appropriate
detectors and controlled.
6.5 Waste Reception and Handling 123

6.5.3 Reception and Handling

For the unloading, storage and handling of liquid and solid wastes, there should
be written procedures and instructions available at the site. These must include
following.

(a) Clearly designated routes within the site for vehicles carrying specified
hazardous wastes.
(b) Training of relevant employees in the company’s operating procedures and
implementing regular auditing of these procedures for compliance.
(c) There should be appropriate signs at storage, stockpiling, and tank locations
indicating the nature of hazardous wastes stored there.
(d) Control emissions to air, water, and soil from the storage facilities.

6.5.4 Labelling

With every delivery of the waste, its suitable description needs to be put up. Appro-
priate assessment of this description of the waste and assessment of the waste itself
form a basic part of waste quality control. The following may be considered as the
most important parameters for labelling.

(a) Origin of the waste.

(b) Name and address of the deliverer.
(c) Volume.
(d) Concentration of chlorides, sulphur, heavy metals, and fluorides.
(e) Calorific value.
(f) Water and ash content.

Figure 6.3 demonstrates the labelling of UN Dangerous goods.

6.6 Waste Pre-Treatment and Pre-Processing

To achieve continuous and smooth kiln operation, desired product quality, and no
impact on the site’s normal environmental performance, pre-processing of wastes to
achieve more stable combustion conditions and homogeneous characteristics may
be necessary.
Pre-treatment and pre-processing include shredding, drying, mixing, grinding,
etc. These operations would be employed depending on the type of waste. Pre-
processing may be located inside or outside the cement plant and is usually designed
as per the waste characteristics. If the waste is prepared into alternative fuels outside
the cement plant, these fuels only need to be stored at the cement plant. These are
then proportioned suitably and fed to the cement kiln.
124 6 Guidelines on Pre-processing and Co-processing of AFRs …

Fig. 6.3 UN Dangerous goods labelling

6.6.1 Types of AFRs

AFRs are of five types.

1. Gaseous such as refinery waste gas, landfill gas, pyrolysis gas, and coke oven
gases.
2. Liquids such as hydraulic oils, low-chlorine spent solvents, insulating oils,
distillation residues, and lubricating as well as vegetable oils and fats.
3. Pulverize, such as planer shavings, granulated plastic, ground waste wood,
animal flours, sawdust, fine crushed tyres, agricultural residues, dried sewage
sludge, and residues from food production.
4. Coarse such as crushed tyres, waste wood, re-agglomerated organic matter, and
rubber/plastic waste.
5. Lump such as material in bags and drums, whole tyres, and plastic bales

The feeding and combustion behaviour of the wastes will be improved by mixing
and homogenization. Mixing of wastes should only be carried out according to a
known and documented recipe to avoid risks.
6.6 Waste Pre-Treatment and Pre-Processing 125

6.6.2 Pre-Processing of AFRs

There are several techniques that are utilized for waste pre-processing. These include
the following:
(a) Mixing of liquid wastes to comply with the desired level of composition, heat
content, and/or viscosity.
(b) Packaged wastes and bulky combustible wastes are processed through shred-
ding, crushing, shearing, etc.
(c) Mixing of wastes in a bunker.
(d) Processing of source segregated combustible waste and/or other non-hazardous
waste to produce refuse-derived fuel (RDF).
A bunker or a pit is utilized to mix the solid heterogeneous wastes prior to loading
into the truck or sending to the feed systems.

6.6.3 Segregation of Waste Types for Safe Processing

The techniques utilized for segregating different wastes depend upon the waste type.
To separate chemically incompatible materials, extensive knowledge is required;
avoid mixing of non-hazardous and hazardous ones. Figure 6.4 depicts the guidance
on the compatibility of chemicals.

Fig. 6.4 Compatibility and reactions

126 6 Guidelines on Pre-processing and Co-processing of AFRs …

6.6.4 General Design Considerations

All processing facilities need to ensure access to emergency escape routes, maintain-
ability of the plant and equipment, and day-to-day operations.

A. Design for reception and storage of hazardous wastes

The design of transfer and storage areas must take into account the accidental spills
of the waste materials into rainwater or firewater and managing them. To avoid risks
from fugitive vapour or spillage or emissions, safe material transfer systems to the
storage area need to be put in place. Further, to minimize the impact of unloading
activities, suitable vapour filtration and capture equipment should be implemented at
the reception point and surrounding areas. This requires appropriate considerations
for containment, isolation, and treatment. These are elaborated below.

(a) Ensure that the spills will not penetrate the ground and contaminate soil and
groundwater. For this, recommendations are to have properly designed drainage
and sealed concrete surfaces.
(b) All spills, leaks, and contaminated rainwater are properly collected and sent
for disposal.
(c) The runoff water from the storage area should get mixed with the sewers or
stormwater drains. Such runoff should be designed for diverting them into a
storage tank from where it can be sent for high-temperature destruction in the
kiln.
(d) Leak-free design should be implemented.
(e) Piping leaks must be recovered without environmental contamination. For
these, suitable methods to contain and recover them are designed.
(f) Adequate alarms should be installed to identify abnormal conditions.

Periodic monitoring of VOC emissions should be carried out. To signal accidental

waste fuel leaks, VOC detection should be placed at key process locations.
Volatile organic emissions from waste storage and pre-processing facilities should
be exhausted into the hot zones of the cement kiln to achieve destruction. When
loading the tank trucks, the vents of the storage tanks and the tank trucks should
be connected through a closed vapour line to return the displaced VOCs from the
storage tanks to the tank truck.
An activated carbon adsorption filter system could be provided as a backup to
control VOCs from the storage tank. All the storage tanks should be equipped with
explosion-proof safety valves.

B. Housekeeping

General tidiness and cleanliness standards need to be exercised in the facility to

achieve a good working environment. This also allows the identification of potential
operational problems in advance.
6.6 Waste Pre-Treatment and Pre-Processing 127

6.6.5 Waste Storage

It is desired to evaluate maximum permissible waste storage possible based on the

installed fire protection systems in the storage area and then limit waste volumes in
storage to a level lesser than the same. The fire protection system should also include
temperature and smoke detectors.
To consider the unknown nature and composition of wastes, assure that storage
facilities fit their purpose. Storage time limits need to take local regulations, health,
and safety risks into consideration.
Try to ensure that hazardous wastes are stored in the same containers (drums) that
are used for transport, thus, avoiding the need for additional handling and transfer.

A. Liquid and solid wastes

Hazardous wastes should be stored in an isolated area having an appropriate security

system and protected from intruders. Incompatible wastes must be kept separate. The
waste liquid storage sump area should be enclosed, and all gases from the sump area
and storage tank should be vented to the VOC destruction system. Appropriate dust
control systems should be implemented on the solid materials handling systems.
Liquid hazardous waste and sludges are usually stored in a series of tanks. Some
tanks have storage under a Nitrogen atmosphere depending upon the flammable
nature of the stored liquid. Liquid waste may be pumped to the kiln for co-processing
using a suitably designed piping system. Sludges can be fed by using special “viscous-
matter” pumps. Relevant safety and design codes must be utilized for the design
of storage systems for the storage of liquid wastes based on operating pressures
and temperatures. They also must have the adequate arrangement for secondary
containment. Figure 6.5 depicts the good practices in stacking the drum packaged
materials.

B. Storage time

Storage of hazardous waste should be in accordance with the permit and regulation
and for as brief a period as possible. Recommended storage times are as follows:

(a) 10 days for mixed wastes and hazardous wastes.

(b) 21 days for impregnated substrates.
(c) For non-hazardous AFR, storage time is limited by the designed storage
capacity and installed fire systems.

C. Storage of solid waste

Solid that do not have smell can be stored temporarily in bunkers. The air in the bunker
may be sent to the kiln using a duct. In addition to constant monitoring by personnel,
heat-detecting cameras need to be used in locations where fires are anticipated.
128 6 Guidelines on Pre-processing and Co-processing of AFRs …

Fig. 6.5 Storage of drummed waste at a pre-processing facility

D. Storage of pumpable waste

To avoid reactions of incompatible liquid/pasty materials, a larger number of storage

tanks/systems need to be made available at the site. Such arrangement avoids the
danger of explosion or polymerization. The design, material selection, and construc-
tion of the valves, pipelines, tanks, and seals need to be adapted to the waste charac-
teristics. They must be corrosion-proof and offer the option of cleaning and sampling.
It may be necessary to homogenize the tank contents with agitators. These agitators
may be hydraulic or mechanical in design. Some tanks may be requiring heating
depending on the waste characteristics. Figure 6.6 depicts the storage arrangement
for liquid pumpable materials.

E. Safety aspects of storage

The following measures are desired in storage areas:

(a) Alarms to alert about emergency situations.

(b) Well-maintained and manned communications system at the site. This helps
to have contact with the control room and the local fire department in case of
any fire emergency.
(c) All electrical equipment need to be grounded with appropriate devices.
6.6 Waste Pre-Treatment and Pre-Processing 129

Fig. 6.6 Tanks for liquid hazardous wastes

F. Fire detection and control systems

When storing flammable liquid waste, automatic fire control systems should be
provided. These would include foam, water, and cannons with options to use foam
or water, dry powder, and carbon dioxide. Nitrogen blanketing may be needed for
pre-treatment and kiln loading of hazardous wastes.
Temperature measurements and monitoring should be installed whenever feasible.
Temperature variations can be used to trigger alarms.
When ammonia is used, NH3 detection and water spray devices to absorb its
releases need to be put up as a safety measure.

6.6.6 Best Available Techniques (BAT) and Best

Environmental Practice (BEP)

Large amounts of natural materials get conserved when secondary resources are
utilized. These include AFRs and cementitious materials such as fly ash, slags, and
chemical gypsum.
A. BAT/BEP for cement production

Dry preheater/pre-calciner kilns are considered as one of the best available techniques
(BAT) which contribute to the best environmental practice (BEP). This is the most
130 6 Guidelines on Pre-processing and Co-processing of AFRs …

economically feasible technological option. BAT has a competitive advantage and

contributes to gradually phasing out of outdated, polluting, and less competitive
technologies.
Dry process kiln with multi-stage preheating and pre-calcination is the best
available technique for the production of cement clinker for new plants and major
upgrades. For reduced kiln emissions and efficient energy usage, the kiln needs to
be run as a smooth and stable process and operating close to the process parameter
setpoints.
Careful monitoring and control of the input substances entering the kiln help in
the reduction of the emissions. When feasible, it is desired to select homogenous
AFRs with low contents of sulphur, nitrogen, chlorine, metals, and volatile organic
compounds.
B. BAT/BEP for controlling emissions of PCDD/PCDFs

It is important to note that if alternative raw material includes elevated concentrations

of organics, feeding it as a part of the raw material mix should be avoided. Further, no
AFR should be fed during start-up and shutdown. Quick cooling of the kiln exhaust
gases to lower than 200 °C is the most important measure to avoid PCDD/PCDF
formation in wet kilns. This feature is already present in the process design of the
modern preheater and pre-calciner kilns and has air pollution control device (APCD)
operating at temperatures less than 150 °C.
C. Conventional fuels

There are three different types of conventional fuels are used in cement kiln in
decreasing order of importance. These are fossil in nature.
• Pulverized coal and petcoke.
• Fuel oil (heavy).
• Natural gas.
Cement kilns are normally operated at the lowest feasible excess oxygen levels to
keep heat losses to the minimum. For easy and complete combustion of these fuels in
the kiln system, fuel is fed in a uniformly processed form with reliable fuel metering
systems. These conditions are essential for all types of natural and alternative fuels.
The different fuel feed points into the cement kiln system are the following.
• Main burner at the rotary kiln.
• Pre-calciner burners.
• Feed chute to the pre-calciner.
• Mid-kiln valve to long wet and dry kilns (for lump fuel).
• Fuel burners at the riser duct.
• Feed chute at the transition chamber at the rotary kiln inlet end.
The fuel fed in the main burner of the kiln produces the flame having temperatures
around 2000 °C. The flow rate and pressure of the primary air help in adjusting the
shape and thermal characteristics of the flame in the main burner.
6.6 Waste Pre-Treatment and Pre-Processing 131

6.6.7 Co-processing of AFRs

Co-processing of AFRs is required to be carried out in compliance with the permit

issued by the authorities. These permits are issued in many ways.
• Some do not encourage co-processing of AFRs/hazardous wastes beyond certain
categories or concentration limits.
• Some specify an explicit list of acceptable AFRs. This list may prescribe certain
maximum and/or minimum values for parameters such as chlorine content,
calorific value, and heavy metals.
• Some regulations specify a negative list with waste categories not allowed.
• Some focus on emissions limits only.

The waste categories that can be accepted for co-processing at the specific plant
depend upon the local raw material and fuel chemistry, the availability of equipment
for handling, feeding the waste materials, and controlling the same.

A. Input control

To maintain stable conditions during kiln operation, consistent long-term availability

of appropriate wastes is required. Content of various elements of concern in them
needs to be specified and controlled. These elements include metals, VOCs, fluorine,
sulphur, chlorine, nitrogen, etc. Their limitations in the product and/or the process
need to be established and defined. While feeding waste to the kiln, it is important
to ensure that the waste materials are getting exposure to:

(a) Sufficient mixing conditions.

(b) Sufficient oxygen.
(c) Sufficient retention time.
(d) Sufficient temperature.

Determination of the appropriate feeding point for the waste depends upon the
waste type and its composition. Wastes should not be fed as part of raw mix feed if it
contains organics and not be fed during start-up and shutdown. Automated monitors
should be employed to alert operators, for example, in the event of sudden pressure
drop due to pipe rupture or pump failure, a pressure transducer should turn off the
waste fuel pump automatically. The pressure transducer is located in the waste piping
at the entrance of the kiln.
Interlocks should stop the flow of waste automatically while the normal fuel or
feed supply and/or the combustion airflow is interrupted. Interlocks should also stop
the flow when CO levels indicate a problem.
B. Selection of the feed point

A constant feed rate and quality of the waste material are essential to ensure that
the use of AFRs does not destabilize the smooth operation of the kiln. This is also
132 6 Guidelines on Pre-processing and Co-processing of AFRs …

Fig. 6.7 Liquid hazardous waste fed through the main burner

required to be done to ensure that the site’s normal environmental performance or

the product quality is not impacted. The selection of the feed point for wastes into
the kiln depends upon the nature of the wastes used.

(a) Only the main burner is required to be utilized for co-processing highly chlori-
nated organic compounds and persistent organic pollutants (POPs). This is to
ensure that their destruction occurs to the desired level due to the long retention
time and high combustion temperature available in the kiln. Other feed points
are selected only when high levels of destruction and removal efficiency (DRE)
are demonstrated through tests.
Figure 6.7 depicts the feeding arrangement of liquid AFR to the main burner.

(b) AFRs with high volatile organic components should be fed into the high-
temperature zones of the kiln system directly

Figure 6.8 depicts the solid feeding arrangement in the kiln inlet.

(c) Mineral inorganic wastes that do not have organic constituents can be fed in
the raw meal or raw slurry preparation system.

Figure 6.9 depicts the feeding arrangement of feeding the material to the raw mill.

(d) Operations and process control

It is desired to specify acceptable operating limits of the retention time, oxygen

levels, feed rates, temperatures, etc., for each waste. Acceptable composition and
6.6 Waste Pre-Treatment and Pre-Processing 133

Fig. 6.8 Feeding of solid waste to the kiln inlet

variations in the physical and chemical properties of the waste also need to be spec-
ified. Principles of good operational control need to be followed and all relevant
process parameters need to be monitored and recorded. These include the following.
(a) Free lime.
(b) Oxygen concentration.
(c) Carbon monoxide concentration.
(e) Kiln operation and feeding of wastes

During co-processing, it is desired that the cement plant operates in a smooth and
steady manner. It is desired to establish reference data by adding controlled doses of
waste, evaluate the changes, and implement required practices to control emissions.
The impact of wastes on the total input of circulating volatile elements such as
chlorine, sulphur, or alkalis must be assessed carefully prior to acceptance of the
waste to avoid operational troubles in the kiln system. Input limits and operational
setpoints for these components shall be based on the site conditions.
In case of failure of any plant equipment, procedures for stopping waste feed must
be designed and implemented. The logic for each of the feed cut-off considerations
must be specified properly for clear understanding. Waste and AFR should only be
fed when normal operating temperatures are achieved in the kiln system. The same
should not be fed to the kiln during start-up, shutdown, or major kiln upset conditions.
(f) Laboratory and quality control

A well-equipped laboratory with appropriate facilities for sampling and testing is

essential for successful co-processing. To monitor the performance and to improve
134 6 Guidelines on Pre-processing and Co-processing of AFRs …

Fig. 6.9 Feeding of mineral inorganic wastes in the raw mill

it, inter-laboratory tests need to be carried out periodically. The laboratory personnel
must be competent and trained in analysing different kinds of AFRs, hazardous, and
non-hazardous wastes.
Wastes/AFRs, raw materials, and fuels entering the cement plant for co-processing
or being produced in cement plant need to be controlled regularly. An appropriate
QA/QC plan must be prepared and utilized. This should include the following.

(a) Sampling.
(b) Frequency of sampling and analysis.
(c) Laboratory protocols and standards.
(d) Recording and reporting protocol.
(e) Calibration procedures and maintenance.
(f) Personnel assignment.
6.6 Waste Pre-Treatment and Pre-Processing 135

Fig. 6.10 Sampling and

analysis of AFRs

Fig. 6.11 Bomb calorimeter

Figures 6.10, 6.11, 6.12, 6.13, 6.14, 6.15, and 6.16 depict some of the practices
and instruments associated with the QA/QC of the AFRs

6.6.8 Cement Quality

The most important aspect while undertaking co-processing is to ensure that the
desired quality cement is produced. For this, evaluation of chemical and physical
characteristics of all relevant parameters is a must. It should address all aspects
concerning potential clinker contamination and cement quality and data must be
kept recorded.
136 6 Guidelines on Pre-processing and Co-processing of AFRs …

Fig. 6.12 Flash point

analyser

Fig. 6.13 Chloride titrator

Fig. 6.14 Sulphur analyser

6.6 Waste Pre-Treatment and Pre-Processing 137

Fig. 6.15 GC–MS

Fig. 6.16 ICP AES

The fact that the co-processing of AFRs has not affected the cement quality must
be documented. The following needs to be considered:

(a) Zinc, Phosphate, and Fluorine influences the strength and setting time of the
cement.
(b) Alkalis, Sulphur, and Chlorine contents in waste / AFR keep circulating in the
kiln system and impact the overall product quality.
(c) For sensitive users, allergic reactions may be caused by Chromium.

Cements are normally tested in terms of their strength with standard test
procedures.
138 6 Guidelines on Pre-processing and Co-processing of AFRs …

6.6.9 Emission Monitoring

To demonstrate compliance with existing regulations and agreements, emission

monitoring is obligatory. Controls are necessary on the input of conventional mate-
rials and their potential impacts. Organic carbon in raw materials results in volatile
organic compound (VOC) emissions, CO, and CO2; Sulphides in raw materials result
in the release of SO2. Heavy metals in fuel and raw material need to be assessed,
monitored, and controlled. This is true especially for the heavy metals that are volatile
in nature because they are not completely captured in the clinker.

A. Emission limit values

Directive 2000/76/EC governs the co-processing AFR and treating hazardous wastes
in the cement kilns in the EU. The emissions limits in flue gases given in table 1
below, corrected to 273 K, 101.3 kPa, 10% O2 and dry gas (IPCC, 2013; Council
Directive, 2000) are to be complied with in the EU. Daily average values of pollutants
for cement plants co-incineration of hazardous waste are given in table 6.1. In co-
incineration of hazardous waste less than 40% of the resulting heat release must
come from waste at 10% O2, dry gas.

B. Continuous monitoring

Continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) should be in place in the exit stack
to monitor the following parameters online:

(a) Exhaust volume.

(b) Humidity.
(c) Temperatures.

Table 6.2 Co-incineration of

Pollutant C (all values in mg/m3)
hazardous waste: Daily
average values of pollutants Total dust 30
in cement plants HCl 10
HF 1
HOx 500(1) /800(2)
Cd + Tl 0.05
Hg 0.05
Sb, As, Pb, Cr, Co, Cu, Mn, Ni, V 0.5
Dioxins and furans 0.1 ng TEQ/m3
SO2 50(3)
TOC 10(3)
(1) new plants (2) existing plants (3) exceptions may be authorized
by the component authority in cases where SO2 and TOC do not
result from the waste
6.6 Waste Pre-Treatment and Pre-Processing 139

(d) Particulate matter.

(e) O2 .
(f) NOx .
(g) SO2 .
(h) CO.
(i) Volatile organic compounds (VOC).
(j) HCl.
(k) Pressure.

C. Regular monitoring

Some parameters should be monitored on a periodical basis in the exit stack:

(a) Metals and their compounds.

(b) Chlorobenzenes, HCB, and PCBs including coplanar congeners and chloro-
naphthalenes.
(c) Total organic carbon.
(d) HF.
(e) NH3 .
(f) PCDD/PCDF.

D. Occasional monitoring

Occasional monitoring is required under special operating conditions for the

following parameters (Karstensen, 2008):
Figure 6.17 depicts the photo of the emission monitoring being carried on the
cement kiln stack.

(a) Benzene, toluene, and xylene.

(b) Other organic pollutants.
(c) Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.
(d) Destruction and removal efficiency (DRE).
(e) Destruction efficiency (DE).
(f) Heavy metals such as Cd, Tl, Hg, Sb, As, Pb, Cr, Co, Cu, Mn, Ni, and V.

E. Additional measures for exit gas cleaning

Pollutants such as ammonia (NH3), ammonium (NH4+) compounds, hydrogen chlo-

ride (HCl), hydrogen fluoride (HF), organic compounds, sulphur dioxide (SO2),
heavy metals, and residual dust are usually removed from the exhaust gas in conven-
tional filters. An activated carbon filter has high removal efficiency for trace pollutants
such as mercury and PCDD/PCDF (>90%). Selective catalytic reduction (SCR) can
be applied for reducing NOx to the desired extent from the stack gases. The efficiency
of NOX removal is very high in the SCR process. In this process, NO and NO2 get
converted to N2 by reacting it with NH3 over a catalyst at a temperature below
400 °C.
140 6 Guidelines on Pre-processing and Co-processing of AFRs …

Fig. 6.17 Stack gas emission monitoring

6.6.10 Test Burn and Performance Verification

Test burns are required to be carried out in cement kilns to demonstrate the destruc-
tion of principal organic hazardous compounds (POHC) through destruction and
removal efficiency (DRE) and destruction efficiency (DE) (Karstensen, 2011, 2014;
Karstensen et al., 2006, 2010). Test burns with hazardous compounds require
independent verification and professional supervision.
The DRE considers emissions to air only. The DE considers emissions to all three
streams, namely solid, liquid, and gas. It is the most comprehensive way of verifying
the co-processing performance.
The following conditions should be fulfilled in a test burn:
(a) For POPs, the DRE/DE should be ≥ 99.9999%. The DRE for other hazardous
compounds should be > 99.99%.
(b) PCDDs/PCDFs emissions limit of 0.1 ng TEQ/Nm3 needs to be demonstrated
both under baseline and test burn conditions.
(c) Parallelly, existing emission limit values need to be complied with by the
cement kiln.

Test burns with non-hazardous waste are done to evaluate their impact on the
process and clinker product. These simplified tests are usually carried out by process
engineers at the cement plant. In these tests, already installed online monitoring
equipment is utilized to generate the required data.
References 141

References

Basel Convention. (2007). General technical guidelines for the environmentally sound management
of wastes consisting of, containing or contaminated with persistent organic pollutants (POPs).
http://www.basel.int/techmatters/techguid/frsetmain.php?topicId=0.
Council Directive. (2000). Council Directive 2000/76/EC on the Incineration of Waste. Official
Journal of the European Communities, Brussels, Official Journal L 332, 28/12/2000.
Dahai Yan, Zheng Peng, Kåre Helge Karstensen, Qiong Ding, Kaixiang Wang, & Zuguang Wang.
(2014). Destruction of DDT wastes in two preheater/precalciner cement kilns in China. Science
of the Total Environment, 476–477(2014), 250–257. ISSN No. 0048–9697.
GTZ-Holcim. (2006). Guidelines on Co-Processing Waste Materials in Cement Production. http://
www.holcim.com.
IPPC. (2013). Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for the Production of Cement,
Lime and Magnesium Oxide: Industrial Emissions Directive 2010/75/EU. 978-92-79-32944-9.
Kåre Helge Karstensen, Ulhas V. Parlikar, Deepak Ahuja, Shiv Sharma, Moumita A. Chakraborty,
Harivansh Prasad Maurya, Mrinal Mallik, Gupta, P. K., Kamyotra, J. S., Bala, S. S., & Kapadia,
B. V. (2014). Destruction of concentrated Chlorofluorocarbons in India demonstrates an effective
option to simultaneously curb climate change and ozone depletion. Environmental Science and
Policy, 38(2014), 237–244. ISSN No. 1462–9011.
Karstensen, K. H. (2014). Destruction of hazardous chemicals and POPs in cement kilns. Zement,
Kalk und Gips—ZKG International, July 2014. ISSN: 0949–0205.
Karstensen, K. H. (2011). Compilation of performance verification and trial burns results in
cement kilns. Chapter in Basel Convention Technical guidelines on the environmentally
sound co-processing of hazardous wastes in cement kilns. UNEP, Geneva, 11 November
2011. http://www.basel.int/TheConvention/Publications/BrochuresLeaflets/tabid/2365/Default.
aspx. ISBN No. UNEP/CHW.10/6/Add.3/Rev.1.
Karstensen, K. H., Mubarak, A. M., Bandula, X., Gunadasa, H. N., & Ratnayake, N. (2010). Test
burn with PCB in a local cement kiln in Sri Lanka. Chemosphere, 78, 717–723. ISSN: 0045–6535.
Karstensen, K.H. (2008). Formation, release and control of dioxins in cement kilns—A review.
Chemosphere, 70, 543–560.
Karstensen, K. H., Kinh, N. K., Thangc, L. B., Viet, P. H., Tuan, N. D., Toi, D. T., Hung, N. H.,
Quan, T. M., Hanh, L. D., & Thang. D. H. (2006, October). Environmentally sound destruction of
obsolete pesticides in developing countries using cement kilns. Environmental Science & Policy,
9(6), 577–586. ISSN No. 1462–9011.
Karstensen, K. H. (2006). Formation and Release of POPs in the Cement Industry. Report to the
World Business Council for Sustainable Development. 30 January.
UNEP. (2007). Stockholm Convention Expert Group on Best Available Techniques and Best Envi-
ronmental Practices. Expert group on BAT/BEP - Cement Kilns firing hazardous Waste, submitted
February 2007. UNEP. http://www.pops.int/documents/guidance/batbep/batbepguide_en.pdf.
World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). (2006). Guidelines for the Selec-
tion and Use of Fuels and Raw Materials in the Cement Manufacturing Process. www.wbcsd.com.
Chapter 7
Sustainability Considerations in Cement
Manufacturing and Co-processing

7.1 Introduction

Cement manufacturing is a highly resource and energy-intensive process. In addi-

tion, it also emits a significant amount of CO2 due to calcination of limestone, raw
material, and also due to firing of fossil fuels. Cement industry has a large carbon
footprint accounting for over 7% of the CO2 released globally. The same figure for
India also works out to about 7%. Cement industry also contributes to pollution in
the environment due to the release of emissions such as Particulate Matter, SOx,
NOx, VOC, etc. Cement industry also undertakes limestone mining which impacts
the local ecosystem and biodiversity. The Cement industry is not water intensive, but
water consumption is certainly a critical resource during the manufacturing process.
It utilizes a considerable amount of plastics as the packaging material for cement.
Thus, irreversible use of natural resources, large carbon footprint, release of air
pollutants, biodiversity impacts, water consumption, and plastic packaging are the
critical concerns of the industry from a sustainability point of view. To be sustain-
able, cement industry is undertaking several initiatives to address these concerns:
Environmental, Economic, and Social. Following measures are being taken up as
sustainability-related initiatives by the corporates. (1) Reducing CO2 footprint, (2)
Waste reduction, (3) Investing in renewable energy, and (4) Helping agencies that
are supporting the cause of sustainability. They are also making bold announcements
with respect to their journey towards sustainability.

7.2 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG)

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were adopted by the United Nations in
2015 as a universal call to take action to end poverty, protect the planet and ensure
that all people enjoy peace and prosperity by 2030 (UNDP, 2015). These goals are
17 in number as mentioned in Fig. 7.1.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 143
S. K. Ghosh et al., Sustainable Management of Wastes Through Co-processing,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-6073-3_7
144 7 Sustainability Considerations in Cement Manufacturing and Co-processing

Fig. 7.1 United nations sustainable development goals

A total of 193 countries have adopted this 2030 agenda and are leading actions
on the same through a well-defined action plan and mechanism. The Indian Cement
Sector also has formulated its SDG Roadmap and has launched in 2019.

7.3 Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI)

Twenty-four major cement producers, representing about 30% of the cement produc-
tion of the world, with operations in more than 100 countries have come together to
take up the Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI). CSI members consider that there
is a strong business case to pursue the agenda of sustainable development.
CSI is a part of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development
(WBCSD). It has focussed on understanding, managing, and minimizing the impacts
of cement production and use by addressing different issues. In 1999, under the
auspices of the WBCSD, 10 leading cement companies commissioned the Battelle
Memorial Institute, a US-based not-for-profit consulting firm, to conduct independent
research into how the cement industry could meet these sustainability challenges.
Battelle’s final report, Towards a Sustainable Cement Industry, was released in April
2002. (CSI, 2002). The companies responded to the Battelle recommendations by
issuing an Agenda for Action, outlining individual and joint actions by the industry
in adopting the sustainability initiatives.
The major initiative of the cement industry is reducing its carbon footprint.
The other parameters include biodiversity, water conservation, plastics reduction,
improving resource efficiency, conserving natural resources, reducing emissions,
etc.
In 2019, the work carried out by the Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI) is
officially transferred from the World Business Council for Sustainable Development
(WBCSD) to the Global Cement and Concrete Association (GCCA). The Global
7.3 Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI) 145

Cement and Concrete Association (GCCA) was formed in January 2018 by seven
major cement companies, including several WBCSD CSI members.

7.4 CSI and Low-Carbon Technology Road (LCTR) Map

Reducing the carbon footprint in the cement manufacturing process is an important

requirement of the cement industry. Drawing a road map for reducing carbon foot-
print in the cement industry is an important requirement. Indian Cement Industry
has prepared this road map in the year 2013. International Energy Association
and Cement Sustainable Initiative have together brought out a report Technology
Roadmap Low-Carbon Transition in the Cement Industry (IEA, 2013). These road
maps define the action plans to achieve the desired level of carbon emission reduction.

7.5 GCCA and Getting Numbers Right

Global cement production continues to rise due to growing demand. Estimates

suggest that 4.1 Giga Tonnes of cement was produced globally in 2019. China is the
largest cement producer, accounting for about 55% of global production, followed
by India at 8%. Global Cement and Concrete Association (GCCA) represents about
30% of the total cement production of the world. GCCA is guiding the implemen-
tation of sustainability initiatives of cement and concrete manufacturing industries
worldwide. It also monitors and documents the relevant information related to the
sustainability initiatives of the cement and concrete sector.
It is compiling a database called “Getting Numbers Right” (GNR). In this database,
key sustainability-related data pertaining to the cement industry is monitored and
recorded (GCCA, 2019). This includes data pertaining to cement production, CO2
emissions, Power production and Consumption, Heat production and Consumption,
co-processing of Alternative Fuels and Raw materials, and Mineral Components.
Table 7.1 provides data pertaining to the production of clinker and cement by the
GCCA member cement companies.
The data tabulated in this chapter pertains to these production figures which can
be seen as increasing year on year. To document the global status on co-processing,
the data available in the GNR database of GCCA is utilized. This data does not

Table 7.1 Production of Clinker & Cement by member companies of GCCA

Material Year 1990 2000 2006 2012 2018
Units
Clinker Million TPA 423 520 626 642 650
Cement Million TPA 502 628 797 852 861
146 7 Sustainability Considerations in Cement Manufacturing and Co-processing

represent the total cement industry of the world but represents a sizable portion of
the same to provide a representative view of the sustainable growth pursued by the
cement industry. This database is updated till 2018.
Following data from the GNR database is represented as graphs to represent the
sustainability initiatives of the cement industry:
a. Clinker Factor,
b. TSR% due to use of AFRs,
c. CO2 released per tonne cement,
d. Thermal Energy Utilized per Ton of Clinker,
e. Electrical Energy utilized per Ton of Cement.
Although the data is documented by GCCA on a yearly basis, for representation
purposes, five-yearly data is utilized in these graphs.

7.6 Carbon Footprint

The CO2 emissions from the cement industry consist of Scope 1 emission, Scope
2 emission, and Scope 3 emissions. The different levers which are identified in the
carbon footprint reduction road map are as follows;
A. AFR co-processing,
B. Energy efficiency improvement,
C. Clinker substitution,
D. Waste Heat Recovery, and
E. New technologies that are under development.

7.6.1 Scope 1 Emissions

These are the CO2 emissions occurring directly from the cement manufacturing
operations. Almost half of the CO2 emissions come from the calcination of limestone
in the raw mix when calcium carbonate is thermally decomposed, producing lime and
carbon dioxide. A significant proportion of CO2 is emitted during the combustion of
fossil fuels.
International Energy Agency (IEA) along with World Business Council for
Sustainable Development (WBCSD) have teamed together to identify these avenues
and have brought out specific approaches on the same. Since 2002, cement-producing
companies in the Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI) have initiated measuring,
reporting, and mitigating their CO2 .
This initiative has made considerable progress in mitigating CO2 levels. In 2009,
the urgent need of identifying technology to reduce the energy use and CO2 intensity
in cement production was felt and CSI member companies around the world worked
with the IEA on this subject. Through this collaboration, the first industry roadmap
7.6 Carbon Footprint 147

Gross CO2 Emission intensity

800
Kg / Ton

700

600
1,985 1,990 1,995 2,000 2,005 2,010 2,015 2,020
Year

Fig. 7.2 Reduction in Primary CO2 Emissions from the cement industry

to mitigate the CO2 emissions was worked out. That roadmap defines emissions
reduction potential from such technologies that can be implemented in the cement
industry.
A similar road map was also prepared for Indian Cement Industry considering
its large capacity of cement manufacture in the country and was published in 2013.
(IEA and WBCSD, 2013). Figure 7.2 provides the status of Primary CO2 emission
reduction achieved by the global cement industry as reported in the GNR by GCCA.
A. Alternative fuels and raw materials:
By using this pillar, CO2 emission reduction is achieved by promoting the use of
wastes as Alternative Fuels and Raw materials. The wastes, that are combustible in
nature, such as sorted municipal waste, industrial wastes, and biomass get utilized
as Alternative Fuels. They replace the fossil fuels. These wastes would otherwise
get combusted in incinerators or get land-filled or improperly dumped. The CO2
footprint of biomass is zero and it is considered carbon neutral. The CO2 released
from other waste streams has a lower carbon footprint than fossil fuels.
There are also waste materials that can replace other mineral elements such as
Calcium, Iron, Aluminium, and Silica used in cement manufacture. These include
lime sludges from the paper industry, ETP sludge from the chemical industry, and
water treatment plants. These provide Calcium elements in cement manufacture.
Iron sludges, Mill scale, Iron scrap, etc., provide Iron, Aluminium dross provides
Aluminium while Aluminium and Iron are provided by Red mud and silica is obtained
from rice husk ash. These waste streams replace the natural materials that are utilized
in cement manufacture to derive these elements. The advantage of AFR utilization
is that it facilitates reduction in CO2 emissions and also facilitates reduction in the
use of mined minerals.
148 7 Sustainability Considerations in Cement Manufacturing and Co-processing

Figures 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6 provide the data pertaining to AFR utilization in the
GCCA member cement industries
These figures clearly demonstrate the sustainability aspiration of the cement
industry located worldwide. These figures also indicate that the sustainability agenda
requires time for implementation.

AFR utilisation in cement Industry

20.0%

18.0%

16.0%

14.0%

12.0%
TSR

10.0%

8.0%

6.0%

4.0%

2.0%

0.0%
1,985 1,990 1,995 2,000 2,005 2,010 2,015 2,020
Year

Fig. 7.3 AFR utilized in the cement industry

Fig. 7.4 Use of different

fossil Fuels by the cement
industry
7.6 Carbon Footprint 149

Fig. 7.5 Use of different

Alternative Fuels by the
cement industry

Fig. 7.6 Use of different

Biomass Fuels by the cement
manufacture

In the given 28 years of the monitored data (GCCA, 2019), one can observe that
TSR improved from 2 to 18%, Clinker Factor reduced from 84.3 to 75.4%, CO2
emissions reduced from 776 kg / T Cement to 642 kg / T Cement. Electrical Energy
reduced from 119 KWH / T cement to 102 KWH / T Cement and the specific energy
consumption reduced from 4250 GJ / T Cl to 3483 GJ / T Cl. It needs to be noted
here that all these figures are average figures of all the representative plants.
B. Thermal and electrical energy efficiency:
By deploying state-of-the-art technologies in new cement plants, and retrofitting
more energy-efficient equipment in existing plants the CO2 emissions get reduced.
The other initiatives include reducing heat losses from the preheater, kiln systems and
cooler sections, reducing the ambient air ingress through the joints in the equipment
and systems, increasing the heat transfer efficiency of the kiln and cooler sections by
150 7 Sustainability Considerations in Cement Manufacturing and Co-processing

providing additional heat transfer stages or areas, etc., also has helped in improving
thermal efficiency and reducing CO2 emissions.
Figures 7.7 and 7.8 depict the improvement the cement industry has achieved in
the electricity and thermal energy usage in the manufacture of cement, respectively.
C. Clinker substitution:
Pozzolanic materials namely, (i) Fly ash, (ii) Granulated blast Furnace Slag, (iii)
Natural volcanic ash, etc. are utilised as substitution to clinker in the cement manu-
facture. This substitution helps in avoiding the CO2 released in clinker manufac-
turing. Figure 7.9 provides the improvement achieved in the clinker factor by cement
industries. Since clinker gets substituted with these materials, all the CO2 released
in its manufacture gets avoided. These pozzolanic materials include (i) Fly ash, (ii)
Granulated blast Furnace Slag, (iii) Natural volcanic ash, etc. Figure 7.9 provides
the improvement achieved in the clinker factor.

Electrical Energy Consumption in cement manufacture

120
118
116
114
112
KWH / T

110
108
106
104
102
100
98
1,985 1,990 1,995 2,000 2,005 2,010 2,015 2,020
Year

Fig. 7.7 Electrical energy consumption in cement manufacture

Thermal Energy Consumption in Clinker Manufacturer

4,400
4,200
4,000
KCal / KG Cl

3,800
3,600
3,400
3,200
3,000
1,985 1,990 1,995 2,000 2,005 2,010 2,015 2,020
Year

Fig. 7.8 Thermal energy consumption in clinker manufacturer

7.6 Carbon Footprint 151

Clinker Factor Improvement

86.0%

84.0%
Clinker Factor
82.0%

80.0%

78.0%

76.0%

74.0%
1,980 1,990 2,000 2,010 2,020
Year

Fig. 7.9 Clinker factor improvement achieved by the cement industry

D. Newer technologies:
Newer technologies that could substantially improve the CO2 reduction potential of
the cement industry are the following:
i. Use of mineralizers,
ii. Geopolymer cement and use of nanotechnology in cement production,
iii. Fluidized-bed advanced cement kiln system (FAKS),
iv. Carbon used for algal growth for biofuels production,
v. Replacing thermal energy with electrical energy coming from renewable
sources,
vi. Carbon capture and storage.

7.6.2 Scope 2 Emissions

This carbon is on account of the use of electrical energy derived from the local or
external thermal power plant. This can be reduced using the following technological
interventions:
A. Use of renewable electrical energy for operating cement plant,
B. Avoiding the use of electricity in the cement manufacture that is produced
using fossil fuels,
C. Waste heat recovery in the cement manufacturing.
Waste Heat Recovery technology is used to convert the excess thermal energy available in
the cement kiln into electricity. This partially offsets the electrical energy requirement in
the cement manufacturing process. The waste heat recovery is feasible from the pre-heater
system as well as from the cooler system. Generally, the acid due point of the exhaust gases
determines the lowest temperature to which the systems are designed. Following different
technology-based WHR designs are available for implementation in the cement plants.
152 7 Sustainability Considerations in Cement Manufacturing and Co-processing

(i) Conventional Rankine cycle:

This design utilizes steam as the power transfer media that is utilized in conventional
Thermal Power Plants. Here the temperature of the hot gas needs to be above 350
OC.
(ii) Organic Rankine Cycle:
This design utilizes an organic compound (Pentane) as the power transfer media
instead of steam used in the conventional Rankine cycle. Here the temperature of the
hot gas may be lower than 350 OC also.
(iii) Kalina Cycle:
This design utilizes a mixture of Ammonia and water as the power transfer media
instead of steam used in the conventional Rankine cycle. Here the temperature of the
hot gas may be lower than 350 OC also.

7.6.3 Scope 3 Emissions

The scope 3 carbon footprint is on account of transportation of the cement produc-

tion in the marketplace. This can be reduced by reducing (a) the average distance
of transportation by concentrating on the local markets (b) by using biofuels for
transportation.

7.7 Conservation of Natural Resources and Circular

Economy

The major release of CO2 happens from the calcination of limestone. By using
already calcined lime bearing wastes in the cement manufacture, the limestone usage
gets reduced and hence the CO2 emissions. There are also some new technological
innovations that are awaiting commercialization such as LC3 cement. LC3 is a new
type of cement that is based on a blend of limestone and calcined clay (LC3). These
cements have substantially low carbon footprint than the conventional cement such
as OPC.
Out of the different levers elaborated above, co-processing is one of the major
levers available for the cement industry. Technically, it is possible to replace large
amount of fossil raw materials and fossil fuels using wastes, thereby promoting
circular economy. There are a few operating cement plants globally that have been
7.7 Conservation of Natural Resources and Circular Economy 153

able to replace fossil fuels to an extent of >90%. Hence, almost all cement plants
have aspiration to improve the AFR utilization in their cement plants so as to address
the sustainability factors.

7.8 Reduction in Emissions

The major emission concerns from cement plants are NOx emissions generated
during thermal treatment and SOx emissions—if any, from the use of sulphur-
containing raw materials. The SOx can be converted into gypsum using the FGD
technology. In case we want to treat both SOx and NOx emissions, then the same can
be converted into Ammonium Sulphate and Ammonium Nitrate fertilizer. This tech-
nology development has been done in Japan. Commercial application of this process
has been achieved, with the co-operation of the Chinese government and EBARA
Corporation in 1997 at the coal-fired Chengdu Power Station in China (Yoshitaka
Doi, 2000).

7.9 Water Conservation and Harvesting

Many efforts are being made by the cement industry to become water positive by
harvesting the rainwater in the old exhausted mine sites. There are other bene-
fits of water harvesting (a) improvement of the water table in the surrounding
region, (b) availability of water during the summer season, (c) improving greenery
in the plant/mines/surrounding area due to availability of water for plantation, (d)
improving the agricultural productivity, etc.
If the cement plant’s efforts help in conserving more water than the one utilized
by it in the manufacturing operations, then it becomes water positive. Many cement
plants these days are putting efforts to become water positive.

7.10 Plastic Packaging

Many cement companies package the cement in plastic bags and then send it to the
marketplace. After the intended use of this packaging is over, it’s utilized in some
other applications such as material filling at the construction site, rain protection, etc.
Subsequently, it becomes a waste material adding to the plastic waste management
problem. There are two options available for the cement plants to tackle this problem:
(a) To avoid packaging in plastic bags and resort to bulker-based movement. (b) Co-
process plastic waste received from the marketplace. This way if the cement plant
can co-process more plastic waste than the plastic bag weight employed by it in
packaging, then the company becomes plastic negative.
154 7 Sustainability Considerations in Cement Manufacturing and Co-processing

7.11 Biodiversity

Mining activity in the cement industry involves blasting which causes sound pollution
and vibrations. Vibrations displace the soil and cause vegetation loss. On account of
these effects, a lot of biological species get directly or indirectly impacted. Several
initiatives are being employed by the cement industry to mitigate the impact on
local biodiversity and the ecosystem. These include the following: (a) Sustainable
mining practices to protect and enhance the landscape and biodiversity value of
the area around the mines such as surface mining, controlled blasting to minimize
dust and noise, covered transportation of raw material, development of water bodies
and pastureland, plantation of native species, and land rehabilitation, etc. Setting up
nesting and breeding habitats for migratory and local avifauna is another practice
that the industry employs. Green belts in and around the mine lease and plant areas
are also developed.

7.12 Challenges Faced in Implementing Sustainability

Initiatives

The cement industry is pursuing a sustainability agenda with different sets of param-
eters. There are, therefore, different learnings with the cement industry with respect
to pursuing different sustainability parameters. While undertaking the sustainability
journey, several challenges are faced by the cement industry. These are discussed
below.
A. Resistance to change:
Pursuing the sustainability journey requires implementing changes in the existing
business processes. What is grey will sell is the general tendency in the cement
industry, and therefore, a huge resistance is encountered in implementing the changes.
To achieve the desired changes in a successful manner, management commitment is
the most important aspect. It also requires a dedicated, task-oriented, and passionate
team to implement the same.
B. Desired Technology Interventions:
The sustainability journey requires technology interventions and the availability of
the same is an important aspect. Co-processing, clinker factor reduction, CO2 capture
and storage, reduction in energy consumption, etc. certainly require technology
intervention. These technologies are new and need assimilation and adaptation.
C. Cost of implementing technology:
All the sustainability-related technologies need additional capex and opex. These
need to be factored into the budgets beforehand. This requires special efforts in its
planning and implementation.
7.12 Challenges Faced in Implementing Sustainability Initiatives 155

D. Capacity building:
All these technologies also need to be appropriately digested into the routine oper-
ational processes for their effective implementation. This requires capacity building
in the operating team through offline and online training sessions.
E. Scaling the learning curve:
While implementing each of the sustainability initiatives, one needs to go through the
learning curve. For example, to implement co-processing of a waste stream, one has
to go through a large amount of learning in respect of its health and safety aspects,
impact on the environment, process, quality of output, etc. This can be achieved
through a gradual and progressive approach.

7.13 Sustainability and Co-processing

Co-processing is an important pillar of sustainability. It provides a huge opportunity

to reduce GHG emissions and also reduce the environmental damage being caused
by the wastes. It is a zero-waste technology and helps build a new circular economy.
It also helps in replacing the natural resources with wastes and conserves them. It
creates new opportunities for business. It supports ten SDGs, namely: (1) No poverty,
(3) Good health and well-being, (6) clean water and sanitation, (9) industry, inno-
vation, and infrastructure, (11) sustainable cities and communities, (12) responsible
consumption and production, (13) Climate action, (14) life below water (15) Life on
land (17) partnership for the goals.

7.14 Conclusions

Cement industry is a substantially sensitive industry to the cause of sustainability.

It has undertaken a large number of sustainability initiatives as a voluntary measure
that encompasses the entire gamut of manufacturing activities starting from quarry
to lorry. Cement industry also has adapted to relevant BAT and BET options and has
aligned itself to the SDGs defined by United Nations. Currently, the entire cement
industry worldwide is adopting co-processing technology and is making reasonable
progress in the same. One of the important advantages of co-processing is that it can
adapt to the growing waste management needs of the society and facilitate circular
economy.
156 7 Sustainability Considerations in Cement Manufacturing and Co-processing

References

CSI, Agenda for Action, July 2002. Retrieved from https://www.wbcsd.org/Sector-Projects/Cem

ent-Sustainability-Initiative/Cement-Sustainability-Initiative-CSI.
GCCA, Getting the Numbers Right, 2019. Retrieved from https://gccassociation.org/sustainability-
innovation/gnr-gcca-in-numbers/.
IEA, Technology Roadmap—Low-Carbon Technology for the Indian Cement Industry—Anal-
ysis—IEA Feb 2013. Retrieved from https://www.wbcsd.org/Sector-Projects/Cement-Sustainab
ility-Initiative/Resources/Technology-Roadmap-Low-Carbon-Technology-for-the-Indian-Cem
ent-Industry.
Michel Grant, Investopadia, Sustainability Definition updated October 13, 2020. Retrieved from
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sustainability.asp#:~:text=Sustainability%20focuses%
20on%20meeting%20the%20needs%20of%20the,social%E2%80%94also%20known%20info
rmally%20as%20profits%2C%20planet%2C%20and%20people.
UNDP, Sustainable Development Goals, 2015 Retrieved form https://www.undp.org/sustai
nable-development-goals#:~:text=The%20Sustainable%20Development%20Goals%20%28S
DGs%29%2C%20also%20known%20as,by%202030%20all%20people%20enjoy%20peace%
20and%20prosperity.p.org
Yoshitaka Doi et al. (2000, March). Operational experience of a commercial scale plant of electron
beam purification of flue gas. Radiation Physics and Chemistry, 57(3–6), 495–499
Chapter 8
Waste Management Rules in India
and Other Countries Focussing
on Co-processing

8.1 Introduction

The environment comprises all entities, natural or manmade, external to oneself

and their interrelationships which provide value, now or perhaps in the future, to
humankind. Environmental concerns relate to their degradation through the actions
of humans. Human beings carry out several different activities during which different
kinds of wastes get generated. Generally, waste generators tend to discard them into
the environment causing environmental degradation. This environmental degradation
happens due to the pollution impact of the wastes on the air, soil, and water.
To protect the environment from such pollution, the governments of different
countries enact different environment policies that consist of acts, laws, rules, guide-
lines, advisories, etc. In these policy frameworks, several technology options are
also normally recommended and described along with the methodology of imple-
menting them. Such policy-related information is provided in this chapter. This
chapter explains the policy framework of India and some other countries with specific
reference to the co-processing option for the management of wastes.

8.2 Environmental Regulation and Legal Framework

in India—Constitutional Perspective

• Under Article 48-A of the constitution of India, the responsibility regarding

environmental protection has been laid on the states. This article reads as follows:
“The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to
safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country”.
• Under Article 51-A(g) of the constitution, Environmental protection has been
defined as a fundamental duty of every citizen of this country. This article reads
as follows:

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 157
S. K. Ghosh et al., Sustainable Management of Wastes Through Co-processing,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-6073-3_8
158 8 Waste Management Rules in India and Other Countries …

“It shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural
environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion
for living creatures.”
• Article 21 of the Constitution is a fundamental right which reads as follows:
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to
procedure established by law.”
• Article 48-A of the Constitution comes under Directive Principles of State Policy
and Article 51-A(g) of the Constitution comes under Fundamental Duties.
• Under Article 47 of the Constitution, the states have been given responsibility
regarding raising the level of nutrition and the standard of living to improve
public health. This article reads as follows:
“The State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of
living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary
duties and, in particular, the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the
consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs
which are injurious to health.”
The 42nd amendment to the Constitution was brought about in the year 1974. As
per this amendment, the responsibility of the State Government is to protect and
improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country.
Further, it is the fundamental duty of every citizen to protect and improve the
natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife, and to have
compassion for living creatures. Figure 8.1 demonstrates the environmental and
associated legislation in India.
• As conferred by Article 246(1), while the Union is supreme to make any law
over the subjects enumerated in List I, the States, under Article 246 (3), enjoy
competence to legislate on the entries contained in List II, and both the Union and
the States under Article 246(2) have concurrent jurisdiction on entries contained
in List III. In the event of a clash, the Union enjoys a primacy over States in that its
legislation in the Union and the Concurrent List prevails over State legislations.
Also, the Parliament has residuary powers to legislate on any matter not covered
in the three Lists (Art. 248). These are provided in Tables 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3.

8.3 Indian Legislative Framework Related

to Environmental Protection

Many environmental-related policies have been enacted by the government of India

after attaining independence in 1947. These include acts and rules. Acts are the
overarching policy instruments that define the objectives and the framework in each
act, there are several rules notified to meet the objectives of the act. To explain
the genesis of rules in an illustrative manner, several guidelines are prepared and
published.
8.3 Indian Legislative Framework Related to Environmental Protection 159

Fig. 8.1 Framework and key policies across lifecycle stages in India focussing SDGs, Resource
conservation Circular Economy and 5R. (Source Ghosh, 2020)

Table 8.1 List I—union list

Entries
52 Industries
53 Regulation and development of oil fields and mineral oil resources
54 Regulation of mines and mineral development
56 Regulation and development of inter-State rivers and river valleys
57 Fishing and fisheries beyond territorial waters

Table 8.2 List II—state list

Entries
6 Public health and sanitation
14 Agriculture, protection against pest, and prevention of plant diseases
18 Land, colonization, etc
21 Fisheries
23 Fishing and fisheries beyond territorial waters
24 Fisheries
160 8 Waste Management Rules in India and Other Countries …

Table 8.3 List III—Common

Entries
or Concurrent List
17A Forests
17B Protection of wild animals and birds
20 Economic and social planning
20A Population control and family planning

8.4 Important Acts Related to Environment

and Co-processing

Following are the important environmental protection acts enacted by the government
after the independence was achieved by India in 1947:
a. The Factories Act of 1948.
b. The water Act, 1974.
c. The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
d. The Air Act, 1981.
e. The Environment Protection Act, 1986.
f. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
g. The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991.
h. The National Environment Tribunals Act, 1995.
i. The National Environment Appellate Authority Act, 1997.
All the above environment-related acts are important, and the objectives defined
therein need to be addressed appropriately while undertaking the industrial activities.
The salient features of each of the above are explained in brief below.

8.4.1 The Indian Factories Act 1948

The Factories Act, 1948 (Act No. 63 of 1948), was amended by the Factories (Amend-
ment) Act, 1987 (Act 20 of 1987). It serves to assist in formulating national policies
in India in regard to occupational safety and health in factories in India. It deals with
various issues related to safety, health, efficiency, and well-being of the persons at
workplaces.
This Act is administered by the Ministry of Labour and Employment in India.
This ministry is assisted by Directorate General Factory Advice Service and Labour
Institutes (DGFASLI) and by the State Governments through their factory inspec-
torates. DGFASLI advises the Central and State Governments on the administration
of the Factories Act and coordinating the factory inspection services in the States.
The Act is applicable to all factories using power and employing 10 or more
workers. If the factory is not using power, then the same is applicable if it is employing
20 or more workers on any day of the preceding twelve months and in any part of
8.4 Important Acts Related to Environment and Co-processing 161

which a manufacturing process is being carried on with the aid of power. This does
not include a mine, or a mobile unit belonging to the armed forces of the union, a
railway running shed or a hotel, restaurant or eating place (The factories Act, GOI,
1948).

8.4.2 The Water Act 1974

The Water Act represented India’s first attempts to comprehensively deal with envi-
ronmental issues. The Act prohibits the discharge of pollutants into water bodies
beyond a given standard and lays down penalties for non-compliance. The Act was
amended in 1988 to conform closely to the provisions of the EPA (Environment
Protection Act), 1986. CPCB (Central Pollution Control Board) was established to
develop standards and procedures for the prevention and control of water pollution.
At the state level, the SPCBs (State Pollution Control Board) function under the
direction of the CPCB and the state government (The Water Act, GOI, 1974).

8.4.3 The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980

This Forest (Conservation) Act 1980 was adopted to protect and conserve forests.
The Act restricts the powers of the state with respect to the de-reservation of forests
and the use of forestland for non-forest purposes (the term “non-forest purpose”
includes clearing any forestland for the cultivation of cash crops, plantation crops,
horticulture, or any purpose other than re-afforestation (The Forest (Conservation)
Act, GOI, 1980).

8.4.4 The Air Act 1981

Ambient air quality standards were established in India under the Air Act 1981. This
Act provides means for the control and abatement of air pollution. This Act seeks
to reduce air pollution by avoiding the use of polluting substances and regulating
appliances that cause air pollution. Under this Act, industrial consents are required
from state boards for establishing and operating industries. It is the pollution control
board’s responsibility to implement the needful measures to reduce air pollution. This
involves testing of the air in the pollution control areas, inspection of the pollution
control equipment, and manufacturing processes (The Air Act, GOI, 1981).
In April 1994, CPCB notified the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) for major pollutants. These standards are designed with adequate safety
margins to protect public health, vegetation, and property. The NAAQS prescribe
specific standards for different sectors such as industrial, residential, rural, and others.
162 8 Waste Management Rules in India and Other Countries …

Industry-specific emission standards have also been developed for different industry
segments such as iron and steel, cement, fertilizer, refineries, aluminum, etc. (The
Air act, GOI, 1981).
The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Amendment Act, 1987, was enacted
to empower the central and state pollution boards to meet grave emergencies. With
this act, the boards are authorized to take immediate measures to tackle emergencies
and recover the expenses incurred from the offenders. The Act also empowers the
boards to cancel consent for non-fulfillment of the conditions prescribed.

8.4.5 Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (EPA)

This Act is an umbrella legislation designed to provide a framework for the co-
ordination of central and state authorities established under the Water (Prevention
and Control) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control) Act, 1981. Under this
Act, the central government is empowered to take measures necessary to protect
and improve the quality of the environment by setting standards for emissions and
discharges; regulating the location of industries; management of hazardous wastes,
and protection of public health and welfare (The Environment Protection Act, GOI,
1986).
From time to time, the central government issues notifications under the EPA for
the protection of ecologically sensitive areas or issues guidelines for matters under
the EPA.

8.4.6 Motor Vehicle Act 1988

The different objectives for which the motor Vehicles Act 1988 has been prepared
are the following (Motor Vehicles Act, GOI 1988):
i. To deal with the increasing number of commercial and personal vehicles in
the country.
ii. To facilitate the adoption of higher technology in the automotive sector.
iii. To deal with a larger flow of passengers and freight so that islands of isolation
are not created leading to regional or local imbalances.
iv. To mitigate concerns related to road safety, pollution and to set control
measures standards for transportation of hazardous and explosive materials.
v. To simplify procedures and policies for private sector operations in the road
transport field.
vi. To provide effective ways of tracking down traffic offenders.
vii. Rationalization of certain definitions particularly with respect to new types of
vehicles.
8.4 Important Acts Related to Environment and Co-processing 163

viii. To monitor and control procedures relating to grant of driving licenses and its
validity.
ix. Laying down of standards for the components and parts of motor vehicles.
x. Standards for anti-pollution control devices.
xi. Provision for issuing fitness certificates of vehicles.
xii. Enabling provisions for updating the system of registration marks.

8.4.7 Public Liability Insurance Act (PLIA), 1991

The Act covers accidents involving hazardous substances and insurance coverage for
these. Where death or injury results from an accident, this Act makes the owner liable
to provide relief as is specified in the Schedule of the Act. The PLIA was amended
in 1992, and the Central Government was authorized to establish the Environmental
Relief Fund, for making relief Payments (Public Liability Insurance Act (PLIA),
GOI, 1991).

8.4.8 National Environment Tribunal Act, 1995

The National Environmental Tribunal Act, 1995, provided strict liability for damages
arising out of any accident occurring while handling any hazardous substance and for
the establishment of a National Environment Tribunal for effective and expeditious
disposal of cases arising from such accident, with a view to give relief and compen-
sation for damages to persons, property, and the environment, and for the matters
connected therewith or incidental thereto (National Environment Tribunal Act, GOI,
1995).

8.4.9 The National Environmental Appellate Authority Act,

1997

This National Environmental Appellate Authority Act, 1997, provided for the estab-
lishment of a National Environment Appellate Authority. This authority is created
to hear appeals with respect to restriction of areas in which any industry operation
or process or class of industries are allowed to establish and operate to ensure safe-
guards under the Environment Protection Act 1986 (The National Environmental
Appellate Authority Act, GOI, 1997).
164 8 Waste Management Rules in India and Other Countries …

8.5 Important Rules Related to Environment

and Co-processing in India

To implement the provisions of the Acts to fulfil the desired objectives, the envi-
ronment ministry at the central government and state governments have formulated
and notified different rules with respect to each of the acts, and the same remain
applicable in that state/central jurisdiction and need to be complied to.
Following are the MoEFCC notified rules that are specifically relevant in respect
of the co-processing initiative:
a. Hazardous and Other Waste Management Rules, 2016.
b. Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016.
c. Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016.
The specific features pertaining to the co-processing initiative included in the
above rules are elaborated below.

8.5.1 Hazardous and Other Waste (Management

and Trans-Boundary Movement) Rules, 2016

The Hazardous Waste Management Rules were notified first time by the Environ-
ment Ministry of Government of India in 1989 (HWM Rules 1989). In these HWM
Rules (1989), the major focus was scientific disposal of Hazardous waste through
incineration and scientific landfilling. Facilities for incineration and landfilling got
implemented in some of the states but not in all due to the Not In My Back Yard
(NIMBY) syndrome and the objective of the rules was not getting fulfilled.
Subsequently, these rules were newly notified in 2008 with an inclusion of the
provision of Rule 11 to permit the utilization of Hazardous waste if the same was
scientifically and environmentally feasible to be implemented.
The HWM Rules were substantially modified and notified in 2016 with a focus
towards sustainable management of wastes. A new category of wastes named as
“Other” wastes was created. These included waste tyre, paper waste, metal scrap,
used electronic items, etc. These wastes are recognized as a resource for recycling and
reuse in these rules. They are termed as “Hazardous and Other Waste (Management
and Trans-Boundary Movement) Rules, 2016. (HOWM Rules, GOI, 2016).
These rules included the following specific features:
• “Other Wastes” have been included.
• Waste Management as per waste management hierarchy has been proposed.
• Significantly revised forms for permitting import/export, filing of annual returns,
undertaking transportation, etc., have been included.
• Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for safeguarding the health and environ-
ment from waste processing industry has been prescribed.
8.5 Important Rules Related to Environment and Co-processing in India 165

• Single window clearance for setting up of hazardous waste disposal facility and
import of other wastes has been incorporated.
• Co-processing has been prescribed as a preferential mechanism for the manage-
ment of wastes over disposal options.
• The approval process for co-processing of hazardous waste has been streamlined
based on emission norms rather than trials.
• The process of import/export of waste under the Rules has been streamlined.
• Exemption methodology has been proposed for the import of metal scrap, paper
waste, and various categories of electrical and electronic equipment for reuse.
• State Government responsibilities for environmentally sound management of
hazardous and other wastes have been introduced.
• List of processes generating hazardous wastes has been aligned to the technolog-
ical evolution in the industries.
• List of Waste Constituents with concentration Limits has been revised as per
international standard and drinking water standard.
• The list of items prohibited for import has been included.
• State Pollution Control Board (SPCB) is mandated to prepare an annual inventory
of the waste generated; waste recycled, recovered, utilized including co-processed.

8.5.2 Plastic Waste Management Rules 2016

Plastic Waste has been a cause of concern because of its adverse environmental
impact. The plastic waste—that is not economically attractive or technically not
feasible for recycling—tends to get littered in the environment. The plastic waste
that is recyclable has economic value and hence has an appropriately operating value
chain for recycling. The littered plastic waste not being a biodegradable material,
tends to contaminate soil, water, and air causing survival concern to human beings,
animals, and aquatic life due to its ingestion in the body through the food chain.
Hence, this non-recyclable littered plastic waste needs to be appropriately managed.
Most of this plastic waste is either packaging material or it is single use plastics.
It is estimated that around 25,940 tonne per day of plastic waste is generated in
the country.
The government of India notified the first plastic waste management Rules in
1999. Subsequently, it notified the Plastic waste management rules in 2011 and then
in 2016.
The Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016, mainly addressed the non-recyclable
packaging waste and have following specific features (PWM Rules, GOI, 2016):
• Increase the minimum thickness of plastic carry bags from 40 to 50 microns.
• Expand the jurisdiction of applicability from the municipal area to rural areas.
• Implement Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) to plastic producers,
importers, and brands.
• Introduction of Plastic waste management fee from producers, importers of plastic
carry bags/multi-layered packaging, etc.
166 8 Waste Management Rules in India and Other Countries …

• To promote the use of plastic waste in different applications such as road

construction, energy recovery, waste to oil, etc.
To address the concerns of the Single Use Plastics (SUPs), several state govern-
ments have also formulated their own rules and notifications and have notified
them.

8.5.3 Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016

To address the concern of the Municipal Solid Waste generated in the country and its
impact on the environment, Environment Ministry had formulated the Solid Waste
Management Rules first time in the year 2000. The major focus of these rules was to
dispose of the waste through composting of the biodegradable waste, Recycling of
the recyclable waste and scientific landfills and incineration (with or without energy
recovery) options for other waste.
Since the Solid Waste contains substantial quantity of resource value and recovery
of the same is important from the sustainability point of view, Environment Ministry
notified the new SWM Rules in 2016. (SWM Rules, GOI, 2016).
The salient features of SWM Rules 2016 are as follows:
• The jurisdiction has been increased beyond Municipal areas.
• The source segregation of waste has been mandated.
• Responsibilities have been introduced to segregate waste into Wet, Dry, and
domestic hazardous wastes.
• Integration of waste pickers/rag pickers and waste dealers/Kabadiwalas in the
formal system.
• Concept of “User Fee” and “spot fine” has been incorporated.
• Procedure to deal with used sanitary waste like diapers and sanitary pads has been
incorporated.
• The concept of partnership in Swachh Bharat Abhiyan has been introduced.
• Responsibility has been fixed on all hotels and restaurants to segregate and treat
the biodegradable waste.
• Responsibilities have been set for all resident welfare and market associations,
gated communities, and institutions with an area > 5,000 sq. m. on managing the
waste.
• New townships and Group Housing Societies have been made responsible to
develop in-house waste handling and processing arrangements for biodegradable
waste.
• Responsibilities have been set for every street vendor, developers of Special
Economic Zone, industrial estate, industrial park, manufacturers of disposable
products such as tin, glass, plastics packaging, etc.
• Responsibilities of all industrial units using fuel and located within 100 km from
a solid waste-based RDF plant shall make arrangements to replace at least 5% of
their fuel requirement by RDF.
8.5 Important Rules Related to Environment and Co-processing in India 167

• Non-recyclable waste having a calorific value of 1500 kcal/kg or more shall not
be disposed of on landfills.
• High calorific wastes shall be used for co-processing in cement or thermal power
plants.
• Construction and demolition waste should be stored, separately disposed of, as
per the C&D Waste Management Rules, 2016.
As of 2018, 55,913 wards (out of the total 82,842 wards) are covered by 100%
door-to-door collection. 22.85% of the total waste generated is currently being
processed. Currently, there are 9 functional waste-to-energy (WTE) plants and 148
waste-to-compost (WTC) plants that are operational across the country (MoHUA,
2018) new_AR-2017–18 (Eng)-Website.pdf (mohua.gov.in).

8.6 Environment Policy Framework of India and Option

of Co-processing

The present national policies in India for environmental management are contained
in the National Forest Policy, 1988, National Conservation Strategy and Policy State-
ment on Environment and Development, 1992, Policy Statement on Abatement of
Pollution,1992. Some sector policies such as the National Agriculture Policy, 2000
National Population Policy, 2000 National Water policy 2002 have also contributed
towards environmental management. All these policies have recognized the need for
sustainable development in their specific contexts and formulated necessary strate-
gies to give effect to such recognition. The National Environment Policy seeks to
extend the coverage and fill in gaps that still exist, considering present knowledge
and accumulated experience. It does not displace but builds on the earlier policies. To
achieve growth in a sustainable manner, the government of India introduced several
policy measures in 2016.
Co-processing in cement kilns was one of the important options that was intro-
duced in the policy framework of India notified in the year 2016 for the manage-
ment of non-recyclable wastes derived out of Industrial and Municipal activities and
non-cattle feed biomass generated while undertaking agricultural activities.
The options for waste management specified in the rules notified prior to 2016
were based on the principle of disposal. Landfill and incineration were the proposed
options in those rules. The new rules notified in 2016 are based on the principle of
sustainability. As per earlier rules, these materials used to get dumped or landfilled
and their resource value was getting wasted. Co-processing of these waste streams
helps the substitution of fossil fuels and natural raw materials in the cement plants
reducing the GHG emissions and also conserving the natural materials.
168 8 Waste Management Rules in India and Other Countries …

8.7 Co-processing Related Documents Published

by Different Agencies Internationally

Following documents have been published at the international level to promote co-
processing:
A. Guidelines on co-processing Waste Materials in Cement Production published
through GTZ Holcim Public–Private Partnership in 2006 (GTZ/Holcim, 2006).
B. Technical guidelines on the environmentally sound co-processing of hazardous
wastes in cement kilns published by Basel Convention in 2011 (UNEP, 2011).
C. Guidelines for Co-Processing Fuels and Raw Materials in Cement Manufac-
turing published by WBCSD in 2014 (WBCSD, 2014).
D. Guidelines on pre-processing and co-processing of wastes in cement production
published by GIZ/LafargeHolcim in 2020 (GIZ/LafargeHolcim, 2020).

8.8 Recognition of Co-processing by Different Global

Bodies

Following different global bodies have provided recognition to co-processing.

8.8.1 UNEP

United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), through the Basel Convention,

has developed technical guidelines on the environmentally sound co-processing of
hazardous waste in cement kilns.

8.8.2 SINTEF

Various researchers at SINTEF, the largest independent research organization in

Scandinavia, consider co-processing as a problem solver and support the use of
local cement kilns for the environmentally sound destruction of hazardous organic
chemicals like toxic pesticides and persistent organic pollutants in several countries.
8.8 Recognition of Co-processing by Different Global Bodies 169

8.8.3 GIZ

GIZ operates worldwide and assists the German government in achieving its objec-
tives in the field of international cooperation, especially regarding sustainable devel-
opment and resource management. In 2018, the organization together with Lafarge-
Holcim, updated its guidelines for an efficient and environmentally sound pre-
processing (preparation of the waste to make it suitable for its treatment in cement
kilns) and co-processing (recycling and recovery process) activities.

8.8.4 ADEME

The French Environment and Energy Management Agency has approved the tech-
nical reliability of co-processing. ADEME promotes co-processing as a waste
treatment solution for public bodies in charge of waste management.

8.8.5 MOEFCC, Government of India

In 2016, the Indian Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, and Central
Pollution Control Board recognized that “there is dual benefit in co-processing waste
in cement kilns, in terms of utilizing the waste as a supplementary fuel as well as an
alternative raw material” and stated that “co-processing in cement kilns is considered
an environmentally friendly option for managing different kinds of waste”.

8.8.6 Five-Year Plan on Ecology and Environment

Protection, China Government

In the context of setting up the 13th Five-Year Plan on Ecology and Environment
Protection (November 2016), the Chinese government encourages the development
of waste treatment infrastructures. Within this framework, the co-processing of
municipal solid waste and hazardous waste is promoted. By 2020, the aim is to
significantly increase the number of cement plants equipped to co-process waste.
170 8 Waste Management Rules in India and Other Countries …

8.9 Co-processing Related Regulations in Different

Countries

Co-processing of wastes in cement kilns is being practiced for more than three
decades. In the earlier days, it used to be practiced in a few countries. Currently,
it is practiced in many different countries. When appropriate regulations are not
in place, co-processing can cause significant negative impacts on human health
and environment. Effective regulatory frameworks are essential to have beneficial
co-processing practices. Several countries have established a regulatory framework
for co-processing and have refined them several times through amendments subse-
quently. Following are the regulatory frameworks of some of the European countries,
as well as other countries, such as Japan, United States, Australia, Brazil, and South
Africa. These different countries have created their own regulatory framework to
permit co-processing in the cement plant located in their countries. These regulations
are briefly discussed in this section (Hasanbeigi et al., 2012).
Many countries around the world have established emission limits for different
types of pollutants from co-processing plants, some of which are described below.
The EU WID establishes limits on the emissions of heavy metals, dioxins and furans,
CO, dust, total organic carbon, HCl, HF, SO2, and NOx from co-processing plants.
Dioxins and furans must be measured at least twice per year, and at least every
3 months for the first 12 months of a plant’s operation (Karstensen, 2008).
Dust from de-dusting equipment can be partially or totally recycled into cement
manufacturing processes. If recycling is not feasible or not allowed, the dust must
be evaluated before use in soil or waste stabilization or for agricultural purposes
(GIZ/Holcim, 2006). If dust is landfilled, the landfill design must use BAT. In most
EU countries, test burns are usually conducted to evaluate the performance of new
technology or process to reduce emissions; the quality of the resulting clinker is also
evaluated to ensure that hazardous residues from the waste-burning process do not
leach from the final product and pose an environmental hazard (GIZ/Holcim, 2006).

8.9.1 European Union

Through the Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC) (WFD), The European Union
has defined its basic waste policy. All member states of the European Union are
desired to align their national policies with the WFD directive within a defined
period of time. Basic concepts and definitions, including waste avoidance, reuse,
recycling, recovery, and management are the main inclusions in the WFD. The WFD
also defines the waste management hierarchy that prioritizes sustainable approaches
such as avoidance of waste generation as against the unsustainable ones such as land
filling. Cement kiln co-processing is regarded in WFD as resource recovery and is
thus prioritized over incineration or landfilling. Therefore, waste avoidance, reuse,
recycling, and recovery of wastes do not compete with co-processing. The WFD has
8.9 Co-processing Related Regulations in Different Countries 171

also established the “extended producer responsibility” and “polluter pays” princi-
ples. This provides a considerable incentive for the cement industry to undertake
co-processing. Due to these principles, waste-producing and waste-handling agen-
cies need to pay the cement industry the co-processing services extended by it (EU,
2008).
One of the important drivers for the cement industry to undertake co-processing
in Europe was the Landfill Directive (1999/31/EC), which was established in 1999.
As per this directive, the members of the European Union are required to estab-
lish national strategies to reduce the landfilling requirements. As per this directive,
Sweden banned landfilling of separated combustible wastes in 2002 and organic
wastes in 2005. Because of this directive, for the wastes that cannot be reused or recy-
cled, alternative options of incineration and co-processing have started getting imple-
mented. European Commission have also formulated the Waste Incineration Direc-
tive (WID) (2000/76/ EC) in 2000, which addresses the public concerns related to the
environmental and health impacts of burning waste. The WID has laid out method-
ologies for granting permits for delivery and reception of waste, water discharges,
operational conditions, air emissions limits, residues, monitoring and surveillance,
access to information and public participation, reporting, and penalties, etc., for
incineration and co-processing. The WID directive imposes stringent regulations on
emissions, operational conditions, and technical requirements than those that were
previously in place.
The Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Directive has been
framed by European Union which also applies to co-processing plants. This directive
provides an integrated approach for the application of “best available techniques”
(BATs) and environmental permitting system (EIPPCB, 2006).
In most EU member states, regulatory and enforcement responsibility is divided
among several different “competent authorities.” In several member states, such as
Austria, Germany, Belgium, and Bulgaria, regulatory functions are divided between
the national/federal level and the regional/state level. In other countries, such as in
Denmark and Hungary, regional authorities carry out the major control functions for
industrial installations. Regulatory functions are carried out at the municipal/local
authority level in the Czech Republic, Netherlands, UK, and Ireland (Milieu, 2011).

8.9.2 Japan

Japan’s Waste Management and Public Cleaning Law was established in 1970.
During the past decade, Japan has developed an integrated waste and material
management approach that promotes dematerialization and resource efficiency.
Landfill shortage and dependency on imported natural resources have been key
drivers of these changes. The 2000 Basic Law for Establishing a Sound Material-
Cycle Society. Also, on December 7, 2009, EPA signed two distinct findings (Endan-
germent Finding and Cause or Contribute Finding) regarding greenhouse gases under
Sect. 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. Endangerment Finding indicates that six GHGs
172 8 Waste Management Rules in India and Other Countries …

threaten the public health and welfare of the current and future generation. However,
these findings do not themselves impose any requirements on industry or other enti-
ties that have integrated the environmentally sound management of waste with the
“3R” (reduce, reuse, and recycle) approach. This represents a shift in emphasis from
waste management to sound materials management.
The eco-towns policy is how cement co-processing has been directly incorporated
into industrial planning policies in Japan in recent years. The eco-town concept orig-
inated through a subsidy system established by the Japanese Ministry of Economy,
Trade, and Industry and the Ministry of the Environment in 1997.

8.9.3 United States of America

In the U.S., MACT standards are established under Sect. 112 of the Clean Air Act
through the national emissions standards for HAPs. The MACT standards, such as
the Portland Cement Kiln MACT, are intended to achieve “the maximum degree
of reduction in emissions,” while taking into account cost, non-air-quality health
and environmental impacts, and energy requirements. Emissions standards for the
U.S. cement industry are specified in the Code of Federal Regulations 40, Part 60,
Subpart F. The standards apply to kilns, clinker coolers, raw mill systems, finish mill
systems, raw mill dryers, raw material storages, clinker storages, finished product
storages, conveyor transfer points, bagging, and bulk loading and unloading systems
Under the authority of Sect. 129 of the Clean Air Act, the U.S. EPA has proposed
rulemaking for commercial and industrial solid waste incineration units (CISWI),
which potentially include co-processing cement plants. The CISWI MACT standards
were released and now the U.S. EPA is in the process of reconsideration based on
feedback.
The U.S. regulations for co-processing were largely the result of concerns related
to environmental protection and the implementation of the 1970 Clean Air Act. In
the United States, the U.S. EPA regulates emissions from the U.S. cement industry
co-processing or delegates this authority to state or local agencies. In 2008–2010,
the U.S. EPA established the national “New Source Review/Prevention of Signifi-
cant Deterioration (NSR/PSD)” enforcement initiative for the cement industry. The
initiative was continued in the form of the national initiative “Reducing Air Pollution
from the Largest Sources” for the years 2011–2013.

8.9.4 Brazil

National Regulatory Act No. 264/99 of Brazil establishes technical and oper-
ational criteria, emissions limits, and pre-permit testing requirements for co-
processing permits for cement kilns. National Regulatory Act 316/02 (Licensing of
Incineration/Co-incineration), establishes limits for emissions of dioxins and furans
8.9 Co-processing Related Regulations in Different Countries 173

(0.5 Nanograms per cubic nanometre [ng/Nm3] from cement kiln co-processing
(Maringolo, 2007).

8.9.5 South Africa

National Policy on the Thermal Treatment of General and Hazardous Waste (the
South Africa National Policy) relies on the EU Incineration Directive 2000/76/EC
(especially for air emissions limits) and other international policies, including co-
processing guidelines by WBCSD and Holcim, as models.

8.9.6 China

The various Chinese policies that promote the cause of co-processing are the
following:
• The Development Policy of Cement Industry (NDRC, 2006).
• Technical Policy on Pollution Prevention and Control for Co-processing Solid
Waste in Cement Kilns, 2016.
• Industry Green Development Plan (2016–2020).
• Planning for the Innovative Capacity Development of Industrial Technology
(2016–2020).
Based on the above defined policy support, by the end of 2018, there had been
57 CKC production lines for MSW treatment distributed in 16 provinces. The top
3 provinces with the highest treatment capacity are Guizhou (2613 t/d), Guangxi
(2500 t/d), and Anhui (1900 t/d). Green Manufacturing Specific Action Plan, 2016—
The launch of pilot projects of co-processing MSW in cement kilns was one of the
actions in 2016 s Green Manufacturing action plan. Circular economy development
strategies and near-term actions encourage cement kilns to co-process solid wastes
for resource utilization (Kosajan et al., 2021).
Industry green development plan (2016–2020) encourages the implementation of
co-processing of solid waste in cement kilns according to local conditions. Plan-
ning for the Innovative Capacity Development of Industrial Technology (2016–
2020) supports the research, development, and implementation of the complete sets
of technologies and equipment for co-processing waste in cement kilns. Technical
policy on pollution prevention and control for co-processing solid waste in cement
kilns. Establish the technical requirements for different implementation scenarios of
CKC. Notice on accelerating industrial energy conservation and green development.
Develop and improve the green finance instruments to further support the projects
for comprehensive utilization of resources, e.g., co-processing solid waste in cement
kilns (Hasanbeigi et al., 2012).
174 8 Waste Management Rules in India and Other Countries …

8.10 Conclusion

For implementing pre-processing of wastes into AFRs and co-processing them in

cement kilns in a trouble free, environmentally sound, and ecologically sustaining
manner, appropriate regulations and standards are required. These are needed in five
key areas: environmental performance, product quality, waste quality, operational
practices, and safety and health requirements for employees and local residents.
Many countries have drafted their regulatory framework by addressing the important
aspects of these five years. This chapter has reviewed briefly the various regulatory
provisions made by different countries that are practicing co-processing and the
Indian regulatory framework in detail.

References

EIPPCB (European Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Bureau). (2006). Reference Docu-
ment on Best Available Techniques for the Waste Treatment Industries. European Commission.
http://eippcb.jrc.es/reference/wt.html
Environment (Protection) Act (EPA). (1986). https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/A1986-29.
pdf
EU. (2008). DIRECTIVE 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19
November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives, Official Journal of the European
Union.
GIZ/LafargeHolcim. (2020). Guidelines on pre-processing and co-processing of wastes in cement
production. https://www.giz.de/de/downloads/giz-2020_en_guidelines-pre-coprocessing.pdf
Ghosh, S.K. (2020). Circular Economy in India, book, Circular Economy: Global Perspective.
Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1052-6
GTZ/Holcim. (2006). Guidelines on co-processing of wastes in cement production
Hasanbeigi, A., Lu, H., Williams, C., & Price, L. (2012). International best practices for pre-
processing and co-processing municipal solid waste and sewage sludge in the cement industry.
HOWM Rules. (2016). Notified by MoEFCC Government of India (GSR 395 E) dated 4 April 2016.
http://moef.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/GSR-395E.pdf
Karstensen, K. H. (2008). Formation, release and control of dioxins in cement kilns-A review.
Chemosphere, 70(2008), 543–560.
Kosajan, V., Wen, Z., Zheng, K., Fei, F., Wang, Z., & Tian, H. (2021). Municipal solid waste (MSW)
co-processing in cement kiln to relieve China’s MSW treatment capacity pressure. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105384
Milieu Law & Policy Consulting Ltd (Milieu). (2011). Provisions on penalties related to legislation
on industrial installations: Document on good practices. Brussels, Belgium.
Maringolo, V. (2007). Use of waste-derived fuels and materials in the Brazilian cement industry.
Global Fuels Magazine:33–34.
MoHUA, Annual Report 2017–2018. http://mohua.gov.in/upload/uploadfiles/files/new_AR-2017-
18%20(Eng)-Website.pdf
Motor Vehicles Act. (1988). https://www.morth.nic.in/motor-vehicles-act-1988-0
PWM Rules. (2016). Notified by MoEFCC, Government of India (GSR 320 E) dated 18 March
2016 PWM-Rules-2016-English.pdf (moef.gov.in).
Public Liability Insurance Act (PLIA). (1991). GOI. https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/
A1991-06.pdf
References 175

SWM Rules. (2016). Notified by Mo”EFCC, Government of India (SO1357 E) dated 8 April 2016.
SWM-2016-English.pdf (moef.gov.in).
The Air act. (1981). https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/A1981-14.pdf
The Forest (Conservation) Act. (1980). https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/A1980-69_0.pdf
The National Environmental Appellate Authority Act. (1997). GOI. https://legislative.gov.in/sites/
default/files/A1997-22_0.pdf
The factories Act. (1948). GOI. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/1530/1/AAA
1948_63.pdf
The Water Act. (1974). https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/A1974-6.pdf
UNEP. (2011). Technical Guidelines on environmentally sound co-processing of Hazardous wastes
in cement kilns
WBCSD. (2014). Guidelines for Co-Processing Fuels and Raw Materials in Cement Manufacturing.
CSI_Co-Processing_Fuels_and_Raw_Materials.pdf (wbcsd.org)
 Part V
Co-processing, Pre-processing and AFR
in Cement Kiln: Operations, Maintenance
and Emission Controls
Chapter 9
Emission Considerations in Cement Kiln
Co-processing

9.1 Introduction

Thermal treatment of every combustible or volatile material causes emissions. The

nature and characteristics of these emissions depend upon the chemical nature of the
material being combusted or volatilized. Emissions can be of different types and their
impact on the environment or living beings can be varying and disastrous sometimes.
It is important therefore that the thermal treatment needs to be implemented in
such a manner that emissions that are harmful to the living beings or environment are
avoided or maximally reduced. Therefore, different countries have enacted emission
standards to ensure that the thermal treatments are implemented with the desired level
of caution to reduce impacts on health and environment. Countries revise these emis-
sion standards progressively in a downward direction for improved environmental
protection.
Co-processing is a thermal treatment process, and therefore, there is an impact of
the same on the emissions from the cement manufacturing process. There is a need
to understand these aspects well to ensure that they are monitored and controlled
appropriately to comply with specified standards.

9.2 Different Kinds of Emissions Encountered During

Thermal Treatment of Fossil Fuels and Wastes

There are different types of emissions that take place during the thermal treatment
of materials, such as, particulate emissions, acidic emissions, GHG emissions, toxic
emissions, poisonous emissions, VOC emissions, Heavy metal emissions, Dioxin
and Furan emissions, etc. These gases are released from the thermal processes while
using both fossil fuel/resources and alternative fuel/resources.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 179
S. K. Ghosh et al., Sustainable Management of Wastes Through Co-processing,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-6073-3_9
180 9 Emission Considerations in Cement Kiln Co-processing

9.2.1 Particulate Emissions

The particulate emissions or dust emissions from cement plants are of two kinds—
Stack and fugitive emissions. The stack emissions occur due to the inefficiencies
associated with the dust control devices such as Cyclones, Electro Static Precipitators
(ESP)s, Baghouses installed on the raw mills, cement kilns, cooler, grinding mills,
and packing plants. The dust emission from all the stacks needs to be appropriately
monitored and controlled.
The fugitive emissions occur on account of inefficiencies associated with the dust
control devices such as dust extraction and dust suppression systems installed at
the storage and material handling and transfer stations. In the case of co-processing
operation, the particulate emissions of relevance are the kiln stack emissions and
these are measured as PM0.1 , PM1 , PM2.5 , and PM10 . The major concentration of the
particulate emissions generally includes PM2.5 and PM10 fractions. The particulate
emissions in the kiln stack consist of raw material constituents and also various heavy
metals (Gupta et al., 2012).
Usually, kiln dust is completely returned to the process—either to the kiln system
or to the cement mill. Kiln dust is highly alkaline and may contain trace elements
such as heavy metals corresponding to the contents in the source materials. Bypass
dust extracted from the kiln system may be highly enriched in alkalis, sulphates, and
chlorides and—similarly to filter dust—in some cases cannot be completely recycled
to the process.
Impact
The particulate emissions affect the life and wellbeing of workers, children, and
people in close communities as well as the flora and fauna. Diseases such as chronic
obstructive pulmonary, silicosis, preterm delivery, psychasthenia, endocrine disrup-
tion, cancer, infertility, etc., are associated with these pollutants (Adeyanju and Okeke
2019). Cement industry-derived pollutants appear to play multiple roles in stimu-
lating abiotic stress responses in plants. Cement dust deposition on agriculture fields
can affect soils, photosynthesis, transpiration, and the respiration of plants (Shah
et al., 2020). Also, Cement dust depositing on the nearby water bodies impacts the
quality of the water and the marine species.
Monitoring and Control
Considering the impact of particulate emissions on the health and environment, it is
important to control the level of these emissions from the cement kiln stacks. For
achieving this control, five different types of devices are utilized, namely Gravity
Settling Chambers, Mechanical collectors, Particulate Wet Scrubbers, Electro Static
Precipitators, and Fabric Filters (Zulfiqar et al., 2013).
9.2 Different Kinds of Emissions Encountered During Thermal … 181

9.2.2 Acidic Emissions

These emissions are those that tend to get converted into acids while combining with
water vapour from the environment and tend to cause acid rain. These consist of SO2 ,
SO3 , HCl, HF, NO, NO2 , P2 O5 , H2 S, CO2 , etc. These are released in the thermal
process when the relevant chemical constituent is present in the fossil or alternative
material. For example, the presence of Sulphur releases H2 S, SO2, and SO3 ; the
presence of Chlorine causes HCl emissions; the presence of Fluorine causes HF
emissions, the presence of Nitrogen causes NOx emissions, presence of the Carbon
causes CO2 emissions.
NOx formation is an inevitable consequence of the high-temperature combustion
process, with a smaller contribution resulting from the chemical composition of
the fuels and raw materials. Nitrogen oxides are formed by oxidation of molecular
nitrogen in the combustion air (“thermal” NOx is the sum of nitrogen oxides; in
cement kiln exhaust gases, NO and NO2 are dominant, >90% NO and <10% NO2 ).
Thermal NOx formation is dependent on the combustion temperature with a marked
increase above 1400 °C. In the secondary firing of a preheater/precalciner kiln with a
flame temperature of not more than 1200 °C, the formation of thermal NOx is much
lower compared to the main burner flame. Up to 60% of the total fuel can be burnt
in the calciner. NOx emissions in cement kilns (expressed as NO2 ) typically vary
between 300 and 2000 mg/m3 .
Sulphur compounds enter the kiln system either with the fuels or with the raw
materials. Sulphides and organic sulphur compounds in raw materials are pyritic in
nature. It gets decomposed and oxidized at moderate temperatures of 400 to 600 °C
to produce SO2 when the raw materials are heated by the exhaust gases. At these
temperatures, not enough calcium oxide is available to react with the SO2 . Therefore,
in a dry preheater kiln, about 30% of the total sulphide input may leave the preheater
section as gaseous SO2 . The emission limits from the cement plants, therefore, are
linked to the pyritic sulphur content in the raw materials. The allowance limits for
SOx emissions for cement plants have been proposed by MoEFCC—Government of
India—as 100, 700, and 1000 mg/Nm3 , for the pyritic sulphur content in the limestone
of < 0.25%, 0.25 to 0.5%, and more than 0.5%, respectively. During direct operation,
i.e., with the raw mill off—most of it is emitted to the atmosphere. During compound
operation, i.e., with the raw mill online—typically between 30 and 90% of that
remaining SO2 is additionally adsorbed to the freshly ground raw meal particles in
the raw mill (“Physico-Chemical absorption”). Sulphur compounds in raw materials,
namely sulphates, are thermally stable up to temperatures of 1200 °C, and will thus
enter the sintering zone of the rotary kiln where they are decomposed to produce SO2 .
Part of the SO2 combines with alkalis and is incorporated into the clinker structure.
The remaining part of SO2 is carried back to the cooler zones of the kiln system
where it reacts either with calcined calcium oxide or with calcium carbonate, thus
being reintroduced to the sintering zone again, called chemical SO2 absorption.
Inorganic and organic Sulphur compounds introduced with the fuels will be
subject to the same internal cycle consisting of thermal decomposition, oxidation
182 9 Emission Considerations in Cement Kiln Co-processing

to SO2 , and reaction with alkalis or with calcium oxide. With this closed internal
cycle, all the Sulphur which is introduced via fuels or raw material sulphates will
leave the kiln chemically incorporated in clinker and will not give rise to gaseous
SO2 emissions.
Impact
Acid gases cause significant damage to the pipelines or stacks through which they
run. They bring about extensive corrosion and rusting, while they can also signifi-
cantly shorten the lifespan of both pipelines and stacks replacement. The repair of
these components is significantly cost intensive. In addition to their corrosive nature,
acid gases can also cause serious health complications among humans. Prolonged
exposure to acid gases can bring about severe illness or exacerbate existing condi-
tions, even causing death in the most extreme situations. Finally, the release of acid
gases into the atmosphere can do untold damage to the environment, manifesting
itself in such phenomena as acid rain and global warming.
Monitoring and Control
To monitor these emissions during co-processing, it is important to have the neces-
sary and appropriate stack monitoring system installed on the stacks of the cement
kilns. There are different online stack monitoring devices available using which it is
possible to measure these various Acidic emissions online.
In the co-processing operation, the acidic gases that get generated are SOx, NOx,
HCl, HF, CO2 , and P2 O5 . Some of the acidic gases generated during thermal treatment
of the fossil as well as alternative fuels such as HCl, HF, P2 O5 , SO2 , and SO3 get
fully picked up due to their reaction with the limestone present in the raw meal being
fed into the cement kiln. They get fully absorbed and reacted with the finely ground
limestone powder. Hence, these acid emissions are not a cause of concern in cement
kiln.
Only acidic gases that do not get reacted with the limestone are the NOx and
CO2 emissions. Control of CO2 is explained in the next section dealing with GHG
emissions. The NOx emissions need to be controlled through another technology
which is called DeNOx.
There are two technologies for reducing NOx using DeNOX technology. The first
one is Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) Technology. In this technology, NH3 gas
is used to react with NOx over a bed of catalyst at a temperature of 300–400 degree
C to convert it into Nitrogen. This technology is utilized substantially in Thermal
Power Plants and is not so much used in the cement industry. The other technology is
Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) technology. In this technology, Aqueous
Ammonium Hydroxide (NH4 OH) / Urea solution (CH4 N2 O) is used to react with
NOx at about 1000 degree C to convert it into Nitrogen.
9.2 Different Kinds of Emissions Encountered During Thermal … 183

9.2.3 GHG Emissions

These emissions are those that cause the climate change impact. These include CO2 ,
CH4 , HCl, N2 O, CFC, HFC, etc. In the thermal treatment of fossil and alternative
materials, the GHG emission of major concern is CO2 .
Carbon dioxide emissions arise from the calcination of raw materials and the
combustion of fossil fuels. CO2 resulting from calcination can be influenced to a
very limited extent only. Emissions of CO2 resulting from fuel combustion have
generally been reduced due to the strong economic incentive for the cement industry
to minimize fuel energy consumption. Nearly 30% of CO2 reduction takes place
in the last 25 years arising mainly from the adoption of more fuel-efficient kiln
processes leaving little scope for further improvement. Potential is mainly left to the
increased utilization of renewable alternative fuels or other waste-derived fuels and
the production of blended cement with mineral additions substituting clinker.
Impact
CO2 in the GHG emission is the major cause of concern currently from the climate
change point of view. At current emission rates, temperatures in the atmosphere could
increase by 2 °C, which the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) designated as the upper limit to avoid “dangerous” levels, by 2036.
Monitoring and Control
CO2 emissions from the Cement manufacturing process are calculated by using CSI-
WBCSD protocol. The cement Industry pursues various levers like Clinker factor
reduction, thermal efficiency improvement, enhanced utilization of alternative fuels
and raw materials, enhanced utilization of renewable electrical energy, utilization
of waste heat recovery systems, improvement of process efficiency, and adoption
of the latest technologies from time to time to control/reduce CO2 emissions from
the process. However, to achieve the desired reduction in CO2 emissions, cement
industry also has to adopt the secondary abatement technologies such as Carbon
Capture and Storage (CCS) that are at different stages of development.

9.2.4 VOC Emissions

Natural raw materials such as limestone’s, marls, and shales may also contain up
to 0.8 % w/w of organic matter—depending on the geological conditions of the
deposit. A large part of this organic matter may be volatilized in the kiln system
even at moderate temperatures between 400 and 600 ° degrees C. Kiln tests with
raw meals prepared from raw materials of different origins have demonstrated that
approximately 85% to 95% of the organic matter present in them is converted into
CO2 in presence of 3% excess oxygen and 5 to 15% is oxidized to CO. A small
184 9 Emission Considerations in Cement Kiln Co-processing

proportion, usually less than 1% of the total organic carbon (“TOC”) content may
be emitted as volatile organic compounds (“VOC”) such as hydrocarbons.
The emission level of VOC in the stack gas of cement kilns is usually between 10
and 100 mg/Nm3 , with a few excessive cases up to 500 mg/Nm3 . The CO concentra-
tion in the clean gas can be as high as 1000 mg/Nm3 , even exceeding 2000 mg/Nm3
in some cases. The carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon contents measured in the stack
gas of cement kiln systems are essentially determined by the content of organic matter
in the raw materials and are, therefore, not an indicator of incomplete combustion
of conventional or alternative fuels. Organic matter introduced to the main burner
and the secondary firing will be destroyed due to the high temperatures and the long
retention time.
Impact
VOC coming from raw material sources such as limestone, etc., will be observed in
the kiln stack. The same generally is not toxic but still needs to be controlled to the
desired levels.
Monitoring and Control
The best approach is to reduce or eliminate the use of organics containing raw mate-
rials. However, in case the extent of VOC is very high, the feasibility of imple-
menting technologies such as flaring, or adsorption may need to be explored for
implementation.

9.2.5 Heavy Metal Emissions

The various heavy metals of concern in the emissions are Mercury (Hg), Cadmium
(Cd), Thallium (Tl), Antimony (Sb), Arsenic (As), Lead (PB), Cobalt (Co),
Chromium (Cr), Copper (Cu), Manganese (Mn), Nickel (Ni), Vanadium (V), Zinc
(Zn), Selenium (Se), and Tin (Sn) and their compounds (CPCB, 2010).
Impact
Heavy metals can bind to vital cellular components such as structural
proteins, enzymes, and nucleic acids, and interfere with their functioning. Symp-
toms and effects can vary according to the metal or metal compound, and the dose
involved. Broadly, long-term exposure to toxic heavy metals can have carcinogenic,
central and peripheral nervous system, and circulatory effects (Lanids et al. 2000).
Monitoring and Control
Monitoring of the heavy metals in the emissions is carried out by sampling the stack
gases and determining their concentrations using various instruments such as Atomic
Absorption, X-Ray fluorescence, Chemical analysis, etc. They need to be controlled
by ensuring their concentrations in the input streams.
9.2 Different Kinds of Emissions Encountered During Thermal … 185

9.2.6 Dioxin and Furan Emissions

Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) can be unintentionally produced and emitted

from waste co-processing in cement kilns. Detailed study of POP formation and
emission by cement kilns co-processing is needed to assess to know the potential
risks. Researches [(Yang et al., 2019, Shibamoto et al., 2007, Liu et al., 2015, 2016,
Mukherjee et al., 2016)], studied in fields and laboratory simulation experiments
to investigate the formation and release of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and
dibenzofurans (PCDD/Fs). However, the formations, characteristics, and emission
factors of various emerging unintentionally produced POPs (PCDD/Fs and poly-
brominated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans, polychlorinated naphthalenes, and
chlorinated and brominated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) in cement kilns co-
processing have been comprehensively reviewed by a few researchers (Zou et al.,
2018, Karstensen, 2008). Data from field studies indicated that the main stages in
which POPs are unintentionally produced in cement kilns co-processing solid waste
are the cyclone preheater outlet, suspension preheater boiler, humidifier tower, and
back-end bag filter. The raw material composition, chlorine and bromine contents,
and temperature are the most important factors affecting POP formation.
Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) are organic chemical substances, that is, they
are carbon-based. They possess a particular combination of physical and chemical
properties such that, once released into the environment, they:
• remain intact for exceptionally long periods of time (many years);
• become widely distributed throughout the environment as a result of natural;
processes involving soil, water and, most notably, air;
• accumulate in the fatty tissue of living organisms including humans, and are found
at higher concentrations at higher levels in the food chain; and
• are toxic to both humans and wildlife.
As a result of releases to the environment over the past several decades due
especially to human activities, POPs are now widely distributed over large regions
(including those where POPs have never been used) and, in some cases, they are found
around the globe. This extensive contamination of environmental media and living
organisms includes many foodstuffs and has resulted in the sustained exposure of
many species, including humans, for periods of time that span generations, resulting
in both acute and chronic toxic effects.
In addition, POPs concentrate on living organisms through another process called
bioaccumulation. Though not soluble in water, POPs are readily absorbed in fatty
tissue, where concentrations can become magnified by up to 70,000 times the back-
ground levels. Fish, predatory birds, mammals, and humans are high up the food
chain and so absorb the greatest concentrations. When they travel, the POPs travel
with them. As a result of these two processes, POPs can be found in people and
animals living in regions such as the Arctic, thousands of kilometers from any major
POPs source.
186 9 Emission Considerations in Cement Kiln Co-processing

Specific effects of POPs can include cancer, allergies and hypersensitivity, damage
to the central and peripheral nervous systems, reproductive disorders, and disruption
of the immune system. Some POPs are also considered to be endocrine disrupters,
which, by altering the hormonal system, can damage the reproductive and immune
systems of exposed individuals as well as their offspring; they can also have
developmental and carcinogenic effects.
PCDD/PCDFs are produced unintentionally due to incomplete combustion, as
well as during the manufacture of pesticides and other chlorinated substances. There
are 75 different dioxins (PCDD) and 135 different types of furans (PCDF).
Dioxins and Furans have been associated with a number of adverse effects in
humans, including immune and enzyme disorders and chloracne, and they are clas-
sified as possible human carcinogens. Food (particularly from animals) is the major
source of exposure for humans.
Impact
Dioxins are persistent and not easily degraded by environmental microbes. They tend
to accumulate in the environment. Dioxins are substantially more soluble in lipids
than in water. Their concentration keeps on magnifying at each trophic level. This
leads to high concentrations at the highest trophic levels which are seals and predatory
birds. The human diet is quite diverse and hence, its concentrations in humans are not
as high as in the most endangered wild species. Dioxin-like compounds are regulated
strictly since the 1980s because of their toxicity and persistence (Jouko, 2019).
Monitoring and Control
For new cement kilns and major upgrades, the BAT for the production of cement
clinker is a dry process kiln with multi-stage preheating and precalcination. A smooth
and stable kiln process, operating close to the process parameter set points is benefi-
cial for all kiln emissions as well as the energy use. PCDD/PCDF control in cement
production becomes a simultaneous effort to reduce the precursor/organic concentra-
tions, preferably by finding a combination of optimum production rate and optimum
gas temperatures and oxygen level at the raw material feed end of the kiln, and
reducing the APCD temperature. Feeding of alternative raw materials as part of raw-
material-mix should be avoided if it includes elevated concentrations of organics and
no alternative fuels should be fed during start-up and shut down. The most important
measure to avoid PCDD/PCDF formation in wet and long dry kilns seems to be
quick cooling of the kiln exhaust gases to lower than 200 °C. Modern preheater and
precalciner kilns have this feature already inherent in the process design and have
APCD temperatures less than 150 °C. Operating practices such as minimizing the
build-up of particulate matter on surfaces can assist in maintaining low PCDD/PCDF
emissions.
9.2 Different Kinds of Emissions Encountered During Thermal … 187

9.2.7 Other Toxic Emissions

Combustion and thermal processes are dominant sources of toxic air pollution. They
also produce chronically toxic products of incomplete combustion (PICs) such as
benzene, polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans (PCDD/Fs), acry-
lonitrile, and methyl bromide, PAH, VOCs, etc. They are also PAH and Although
these toxic combustion by-products are formed in many types of combustion and
thermal processes, they have historically been of particular concern for incinera-
tion of hazardous wastes and soils/sediments contaminated with hazardous wastes.
Further, low- or moderate-temperature treatment has the potential to form more toxic
by-products than incineration (Stephania et al., 2006).
Impact
These emissions mainly impact health. Diseases caused due to these substances
include principally respiratory problems, such as Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary
Disease (COPD), asthma, bronchiolitis, and also lung cancer, cardiovascular events,
central nervous system dysfunctions, and cutaneous diseases, etc (Ioannis et al.,
2020).
Monitoring and Control
The monitoring of these emissions is carried out using online emission monitoring
systems and with improved combustion processes having a higher temperature,
sufficient residence time and proper control over operating parameters. Sometimes
post-combustion treatment processes may be required which include adsorption on
activated carbon, etc.

9.3 Description of the Cement Kiln Co-processing

Operation

The cement kiln system consists of a rotary kiln shown in brown colour which is
slightly inclined and is rotating at a defined speed. Figure 9.1 illustrates the cement
kiln co-processing operation. At one end, fossil fuel such as coal, oil or gas is fired
with a regulated quantum of air. The temperature of the flame is generally maintained
above 1800 °C and the residence time of the gases above 1100 °C is 6–8 seconds.
The temperature at the calciner is above 850 °C.
The hot gases from the fuel burning process travel to the other side of the kiln and
travel up through a preheater system which consists of a combination of a calciner and
a set of cyclones. The raw materials consisting of a finely pulverized mix of Limestone
and additive materials consisting of Iron, Silica, and Aluminium are sent to the top
of the pre-heater tower from where they travel down in the kiln due to gravity. The
hot gases traveling up through the pre-heater system heat up the raw materials where
they are calcined first and then dropped in the kiln and then converted into a liquid
phase in which the reaction takes place to produce the desired configuration of clinker
188 9 Emission Considerations in Cement Kiln Co-processing

Fig. 9.1 Salient features of cement Kiln operation

chemistry. The liquid phase while travelling out of the kiln from the other end of the
kiln gets cooled into solid clinker in a cooler and then sent out.
The objective of the co-processing operation is to replace the fossil fuels and raw
materials with waste materials. The waste materials are therefore called Alternative
Fuels and Raw materials (AFRs). These AFRs are fed in the cement kiln through
different entry points as shown in Fig. 9.1. These entry points are termed as calciner,
kiln burner, and kiln end. The AFR feeding can be done through any or all of these
three entry points.
When the AFRs enter the kiln, its combustible fraction gets fully combusted as
a fuel and the ash fraction gets mixed with the fossil material and gets utilized as
raw material. The exhaust gases get released from the pre-heater top and are let out
through the stack after sending it through the dedusting system such as ESP or Fabric
filter.

9.4 Impact of Co-processing on the Emissions

from the Cement Kiln

In the cement manufacturing process, the materials introduced in the kiln get
subjected to very high temperature and long residence time. Under these conditions,
the efficiency of combustion of the combustible matter is very high, which is much
higher than that of the incinerator. This high level of combustion efficiency ensures
a reduction in the VOC escaping out of the kiln system to the desired levels. This
combustion efficiency is measured in terms of Destruction and Removal Efficiency
(DRE).
The acid gases are generated due to the oxidation of elements such as Chlorine,
Phosphorous, Florine, Sulphur, etc. They will, however, react with the hot calcined
9.4 Impact of Co-processing on the Emissions from the Cement Kiln 189

lime present in the preheater section and get neutralized fully, and hence they are not
found in the exhaust gases at higher concentrations. Heavy metals present in the input
materials entering the kiln system get embedded in the clinker matrix very strongly
and remain in it as a non-leachable component forever. Only Nitrogen Oxides that
get generated in the kiln system tend to get exhausted because there is no provision
available in the kiln system to treat the same.
The constituents, that are responsible for the emissions in the kiln stack, are heavy
metals, Chlorine, Phosphorous, Florine, Sulphur, difficult to burn organics, etc. The
concentration of particulate emissions occurring in the kiln stack would depend
upon the efficiency of the dust collection system. Hence, for lower emissions, high-
efficiency systems are desired. The acidic gases are not a cause of concern as they
get scrubbed with the lime in the preheater section and get neutralized.
One of the major hazards in the emissions in the flue gas from cement kilns
utilizing AFRs are the heavy metal (HM) content. Not all heavy metals are toxic
and not all toxic heavy metals have the same toxicity. Therefore, many countries
differentiate between different toxicity classes:
– Class I: Cd, Hg, Tl;
– Class II: As, Co, Ni, Se, Te;
– Class III: Pb, Cr, Cu, Pt, V, Sn, Pd, Sb, Mn, Rh.
The heavy metal in class I are the most toxic and harmful, the heavy metal in
class III the least ones. The main sources of heavy metal emissions from cement
kiln stacks are either raw materials or fuels containing heavy metals (Jovovic et al.,
2010). The quantum of heavy metals present in the flue gases would depend upon
the volatility of the heavy metal or its compounds present in the kiln system. If the
heavy metal content in the kiln system is more than the embedding capability of the
clinker matrix, then the heavy metal would tend to get leached out from the clinker
or the cement manufactured from this clinker.
Nitrogen Oxides are other emissions that are a cause of concern because they do
not get treated in the kiln system unless a specific provision is made for the same.
Usually, the control of Nitrogen Oxide is achieved using DeNOx systems. The most
popular one in the cement industry is the selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR)
System.
The VOC quantum present in the kiln flue gases would depend upon the efficiency
of combustion. The lower the efficiency, the higher is the quantum. It is desired,
therefore, that the combustion efficiency is improved using various means such as
temperature, burner momentum, oxygen level, flame intensity, etc.

9.5 Monitoring of the Emissions from the Cement Kiln

Monitoring of emissions can be done offline or online. Offline monitoring involves

the collection of the sample from the stack gas as per the defined methodology
190 9 Emission Considerations in Cement Kiln Co-processing

and analysis of the components present in the same. Online monitoring consists of
measurements made by installing the instruments in the flue gas stream.
Different technologies are utilized for the measurement of the different emission
constituents and many of the constituents can be measured these days online. The
standard measurement principles associated with online (continuous) monitoring of
different parameters are depicted in Table 9.1.
The major requirements of an efficient Continuous Emission Monitoring System
(CEMS) are defined by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) in India are
mentioned below:
a. It should be capable of operating unattended over a prolonged period.
b. It should produce analytically valid results with precision/ repeatability.
c. The analyzer should be robust and rugged, for optimal operation under extreme
environmental conditions, while maintaining its calibrated status. 1st Revised
Guidelines for Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems August 2018 6.
d. The analyzer should have inbuilt zero check capability or external capability
with a condition that no human intervention should be required to carry out a
daily check at a defined time.
e. It should have a data validation facility with features to transmit raw and vali-
dated data to the central server at SPCB/CPCB. The data validation will be
done after approval of SPCB/PCC or after 07 days of submission of a request
for validation to SPCB/PCC wherever is earlier.
f. It should have Remote system access from the central server for provisional log
file access. The facility shall be incorporated in the system within 06 months
of the issue of these 1st Revised Guidelines.
g. It should have provision for simultaneous multi-server data transmission from
each station without an intermediate PC or plant server.
h. It should have a provision to send system alarm to the central server in case
any changes are made in configuration or calibration. The facility shall be
incorporated in the system within 06 months of the issue of these 1st Revised
Guidelines.
i. It should have a provision to record all operational information in a log file.
j. There should be provision for independent analysis, validation, calibration, and
data transmission for each parameter.

Table 9.1 Principle of operation of emission measuring devices

Parameter Principle
Particulate Matter Opacity
Oxygen ZrO2
H2 O, CO2 , CO, N2 O, NO, NO2 , SO2 , HCl, HF, Fourier Transform InfraRed (FTIR)
NH3 , CH4 , C2 H6 , C3 H8 , C2 H4 , C6 H14 , and CH2 O.
Total Organic Carbon (TOC), SO2 , NOx, HCl, HF
Hg Cold Vapor Atomic Fluorescence (CVAF)
9.5 Monitoring of the Emissions from the Cement Kiln 191

k. The instrument must have a provision of system memory (non-volatile) to

record data for at least one year of continuous operation. Existing instruments
not having adequate system memory shall be backed up with external devices
within six months. All new instruments installed shall have an inbuilt provision
of system memory.
l. It should have the provision of Plant level data viewing and retrieval with the
selection of ethernet, Modbus, and USB.
m. Record of calibration and validation should be available on real-time basis at
the central server from each location/parameter.
n. Record of online diagnostic features including analyzer status should be
available in the database for user-friendly maintenance.
o. It must have low operation and maintenance requirements.
The CEMS system is also proposed to include the following features as per CPCB:
a. Continuous measurements on a 24 × 7 basis.
b. Direct Measurement of pollutant concentration.
c. Expression and display of measurements in ppm, mg/m3 or volume % as
specified in standards.
d. Display the measurement values as well as all the information required for
checking/maintenance of the analyzer.
e. Display of functional parameters.
f. Response time <200 s.
g. Power supply compatible with utilities available on Indian industrial sites.
h. Digital communication with the distant computer for data acquisi-
tion/recording/reporting.
i. RS232/RS485/Ethernet/USB communication ports.
j. Analog Outputs for transmission to Plant’s supervision centre.
k. The maximum lifetime of analyzers should be restricted to the expected life
period specified by the Vendors or upon the perusal of deterioration in the perfor-
mance of the analyzers i.e., frequent breakdowns and requirement of minimum
data capture are not on it.
l. Type approved according to Indian Certification Scheme (or by foreign
accredited institutes such as TÜV, MCERTS or USEPA).

9.6 Notified Emission Standards for the Cement Kilns

in Different Countries

Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change (MoEFCC) of the Govern-

ment of India has notified the following emission standards in 2016 for the cement
kilns (MoEFCC, 2016). These standards are notified for both types of kilns—those
which are not undertaking co-processing of AFRs and those which are undertaking
co-processing of AFRs. MoEFCC has also mandated that cement plants monitor
Particulate matter, SO2, and NOx online and transmit the values directly from the
192 9 Emission Considerations in Cement Kiln Co-processing

plant to the server of CPCB and relevant SPCB so that the same are available online
assessment by the authorities. This mandate is for both kinds of plants—those that
are co-processing and those that are not co-processing.
The co-processing plants must undertake the monitoring of all other mandated
parameters such as VOC, Heavy metals, Dioxin and Furans, etc., through accredited
analytical laboratories once a year and submit the results to CPCB and relevant SPCB.
There are different accredited laboratories that are approved by the authorities to carry
out the stack analysis to measure and report the emissions from the same to ascertain
that the cement kilns are complying with the prescribed emission standards. These
emissions could be both from co-processing and non-co-processing kilns. One such
laboratory from India is VIMTA Laboratories Ltd. Its detailed features are illustrated
in Fig. 9.2.
The prescribed emission limits in different countries (Edvards, 2014, Da Hai Yan
et al., 2014, European union, 2020) are demonstrated in Table 9.2. The values in
Table 9.2 have been grossly simplified to provide a broad overview of the prescribed
emission standards in different countries. For a detailed understanding of the same, it
would be desirable to review the actual notifications made by the respective countries.
The main understandings from the table are that the emission standards in developed
countries are more stringent than in developing countries.

Fig. 9.2 Features of an emission testing laboratory—VIMTA Labs Ltd. India

9.6 Notified Emission Standards for the Cement Kilns … 193

Table 9.2 Prescribed emission limits in different countries (Source Edvards, 2014)
Parameter PM SOx NOx Hg
Country mg / Nm3 mg / Nm3 mg / Nm3 mg / Nm3
Case1 Case2 Case1 Case2 Case 1 Case2
Germany 20 50 200 0.03
Austria 20 350 500 0.05
EU 30 50 500 800 0.05
China 20 30 100 200 400 320 0.05
India 30 100 600 800 0.05
UK 30 200 500 0.05
Australia 95 50 800 0.1
(New South Wales)
Egypt 100 50 400 600 0.05
Nigeria 100 2000 1200 0.05
Turkey 120 50 300 400 None
Columbia 150 250 500 550 None
Bolivia 300 600 1800 None

Table 9.3 Co-processing specific emission standards

Country TOC HCl HF Cd + Tl Heavy Metals Dioxin & Furan
Units Mg / Nm3 Mg / Nm3 Mg / Nm3 Mg / Nm3 Mg / Nm3 ng TEQ/Nm3
EU 10 10 1 0.05 0.5 0.1
China 10 10 1 1.0* 0.5 0.1
India 10 10 5 0.05 0.5 0.1
* Along with Pb and As

In some countries there are graded standards to accommodate certain situa-

tions/conditions such as quality of raw materials & fuel, age of the plant, adaptability
of the available technology, etc. in addition to the above standards, many countries
have also co-processing specific standards. These are provided in Table 9.3.

9.7 Conclusion

Different kinds of emissions are caused when a material is thermally treated. In

cement kilns also different kinds of emissions take place. Some of them get trapped
due to the alkaline environment and some tend to exit along with the exhaust gases.
These emissions have different impacts on the environment and also on the living
beings and hence need to be properly monitored and controlled. Different coun-
tries have notified limiting values for these emissions for the cement kilns in the
194 9 Emission Considerations in Cement Kiln Co-processing

country to comply with. In this chapter, different emissions caused in the cement
kiln, their impacts, monitoring, and control mechanisms, prescribed standards by
different countries to comply while undertaking co-processing, and otherwise have
been discussed.

References

Adeyanju, E., & Okeke, C. A. (2019). Exposure effect to cement dust pollution: A mini review. SN
Applied Science, 1, 1572. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-019-1583-0.
CPCB. (2010). Guidelines on co-processing in Cement/Power/Steel Industry, published by CPCB
in Feb 2010.
Edvards, P. (2014). Global cement emissions standards. Global Cement Magazine, 24–33
European Union Directive 2000/76/EC, IPCC, 2013; Council Directive, 2000
GSR 497 E (2016). Moefcc, Government of India, notification dated 10th May 2016
Gupta, R. K et al. (2012). Particulate matter and elemental emissions from a cement kiln. Fuel
Processing Technology, 104, 343–351. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257210587_Par
ticulate_matter_and_elemental_emissions_from_a_cement_kiln
Jovovic, A. et al. (2010). The emission of particulate matters and heavy metals from cement kilns-
case study: Co-incineration of tires in Serbia. Chemical Industry and Chemical Engineering
Quarterly, 16(3). https://doi.org/10.2298/CICEQ090902010J
Karstensen, K. H. (2008). Formation, release and control of dioxins in cement kilns. Chemo-
sphere, 70(4), 543–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2007.06.081. Epub 2007 Aug 14.
PMID: 17698165 Review.
Khattak, Z., et al. (2013). Contemporary dust control techniques in cement industry, electrostatic
precipitator - a case study. World Applied Sciences Journal, 22(2), 202–209.
Lanids Wayne, G. et al. (2000). Introduction to Environmental Toxicology: Molecular Substructures
to Ecological Landscapes, Fifth Edition. CRC Press
Liu, G., Zhan, J., Zheng, M., Li, L., Li, C., Jiang, X., Wang, M., Zhao, Y., Jin, R., & Hazar, J.
(2015). Field pilot study on emissions, formations and distributions of PCDD/Fs from cement
kiln co-processing fly ash from municipal solid waste incinerations. Mater, 15(299), 471–478.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2015.07.052 Epub 2015 Jul 26PMID: 26241773.
Liu, G., Zhan, J., Zhao, Y., Li, L., Jiang, X., Fu, J., Li, C., & Zheng, M. (2016). Distributions,
profiles and formation mechanisms of polychlorinated naphthalenes in cement kilns co-processing
municipal waste incinerator fly ash. Chemosphere, 155, 348–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.che
mosphere.2016.04.069 Epub 2016 Apr 29PMID: 27135696.
Manisalidis, I. et al. (2020). Environmental and health impacts of air pollution: A review. Front
Public Health, 8, 14. Published online 2020 Feb 20. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.00014
Mukherjee, A., Debnath, B., Ghosh, S. K. (2016). A review on technologies of removal of
dioxins and furans from incinerator flue gas. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 35, 528–540,
ISSN 1878-0296, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2016.07.037. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/
science/article/pii/S1878029616301268)
Shah, K., An, N., & Ma, W. et al. (2020). Chronic cement dust load induce novel damages in foliage
and buds of Malus domestica. Science Reports, 10, 12186. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-
68902-6
Shibamoto, T., Yasuhara, A., & Katami, T. (2007). Dioxin formation from waste incineration.
Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 190, 1–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-0-387-36903-7_1.PMID:17432330Review
References 195

Stephania, A. et al. (2006). Origin and health impacts of emissions of toxic by-products and fine
particles from combustion and thermal treatment of hazardous wastes and materials. Environ-
mental Health Perspectives, 114(6), 810–817. Published online 2006 Jan 26. https://doi.org/10.
1289/ehp.8629
Tuomisto, J. (2019). Dioxins and dioxin-like compounds: Toxicity in humans and animals, sources,
and behaviour in the environment. WikiJournal of Medicine, 6(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.15347/
WJM/2019.008
Yan, D., et al. (2014). China’s new emission limits. International Cement Review.
Yang, L., Zheng, M., Zhao, Y., Yang, Y., Li, C., & Liu, G. (2019). Unintentional persistent
organic pollutants in cement kilns co-processing solid wastes. Ecotoxicology and Environmental
Safety, 182, 109373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2019.109373. Epub 2019 Jun 28. PMID:
31255869.
Zou, L., Ni, Y., Gao, Y., Tang, F., Jin, J., & Chen, J. (2018). Spatial variation of PCDD/F and
PCB emissions and their composition profiles in stack flue gas from the typical cement plants
in China. Chemosphere, 195, 491–497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.12.114 Epub
2017 Dec 19 PMID: 29274995.
Chapter 10
Co-processing of Wastes as AFRs
in Cement Kilns

10.1 Introduction

Co-processing is a thermal treatment process to utilize wastes as resources in the

Resource Intensive Industries (RIIs) such as Cement kilns, Thermal Power Plants,
Steel Plants, Glass Manufacturing plants, Refractory Manufacture plants, and Lime
plants. Wastes get utilized as Alternative Fuels and Raw materials (AFRs) in the
RIIs and replace the fossil fuels and raw materials used traditionally in the RIIs.
Among the different RIIs, the cement manufacturing process has special features that
allow large quantum usage of wastes as AFRs in the cement kiln. When wastes get
utilized as AFRs, they replace the use of fossil fuels and fossil raw materials thereby
conserving them for future use. These special features of the kiln also provide oppor-
tunities for wastes to get sustainably managed in the cement manufacturing process
without impacting the quality of the clinker. Clinker is an intermediate product in
the manufacture of cement.

10.2 Co-processing of Wastes as AFRs in the Cement Kilns

Cement kiln co-processing technology provides opportunities for the sustainable

management of wastes from Municipal, Industrial, and Agricultural sectors. These
wastes have organic content and inorganic content. Organic content is a combustible
material, and it gets combusted during co-processing releasing the energy present in
it. The release of this energy in the kiln causes reduction in the fossil fuel consumption
of the kiln. The inorganic content present in the waste stream is generally a mixture
of oxides of Calcium, Iron, Silicon, Aluminium, and other metals. The raw materials
used in cement manufacture are also a mix of similar types of metal oxides. Hence,
this inorganic content gets utilized as raw material in cement manufacture. Therefore,
the waste material gets utilized as alternative fuels and raw materials (AFRs) in the
cement kiln co-processing.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 197
S. K. Ghosh et al., Sustainable Management of Wastes Through Co-processing,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-6073-3_10
198 10 Co-processing of Wastes as AFRs in Cement Kilns

10.3 Cement Kiln Operation

Cement manufacture consists of reacting oxides of Calcium, Iron, Silica, and

Aluminium in certain proportions to produce an intermediate product called clinker.
This reaction takes place at a high temperature of > 1400 ° C in the cement kiln. The
desired temperature in the kiln is achieved by firing appropriate fossil fuel in the
kiln. Different kinds of fossil fuels used by the cement industry include coal, oil,
or gas. A large amount of petcoke is also utilized by the cement industry as a fuel
source. The raw materials fed in the kiln get heated up to calcination temperature
(850–920 ° C) in which the limestone gets converted into lime and then the raw mate-
rial gets heated to temperatures up to 1450 ° C when the same react with one another
to form clinker having the desired characteristics. Clinker is an intermediate product
in cement manufacture. This intermediate product, manufactured in the kiln, is then
ground with gypsum to produce ordinary portland cement (OPC), with gypsum and
fly ash to produce Portland pozzolana cement (PPC), with granulated blast furnace
slag (GBFS) and gypsum to produce Portland slag cement (PSC) and with fly ash,
GBFS, limestone, and gypsum to produce Portland composite cement (PCC).
Clinker is manufactured in two kinds of kilns—rotary kiln and vertical shaft kiln
(VSK). The majority of the clinker gets manufactured in India and worldwide using
the Rotary kiln process. In the earlier days, cement manufacture used to be carried out
using wet process technology in which raw materials used to be converted in the form
of slurry in water, and the slurry was fired in the kiln. This operation was being carried
out in long wet kilns. Subsequently, the process changed to dry process technology
in which the raw material used to get processed in the dry form to produce desired
quality clinker. Later the long kiln technology was transformed into preheater-based
kilns. In the long wet kiln, long dry kiln, and the preheater kilns, the fuel is fired in the
main burner installed in the kiln. Now the latest technology is to utilize pre-calciner
kilns. In these kilns, fuel is fired in the pre-calciner to calcine the raw material and
then the raw material enters the kiln where it reacts to form clinker using the heat
provided by the fuel that is fired in the kiln burner. There are two kinds of pre-calciner
designs. The first one is in line calciner (ILC) and the other is separate line calciner
(SLC). Currently, the majority of the newly installed kilns are designed with ILC.

10.4 Important Aspects in Respect of Co-processing

There are a few important aspects in respect of co-processing, and these are defined
below:
10.4 Important Aspects in Respect of Co-processing 199

10.4.1 TSR

TSR stands for Thermal Substitution Rate. It signifies the percentage of energy
utilized from waste and AFR in the clinker in the manufacturing process. It is
calculated using the following equation:
{Thermal energy utilized from waste or AFR}
TSR% = {--------------------------------------------------------------} x 100
{Total Energy utilized in the kiln process}.

10.4.2 AFR/Waste Profile

AFR/Waste materials do not have prepared material safety data sheets (MSDS).
Therefore, it is desired that a similar sheet is generated for each AFR/waste stream
that will provide a reasonably good understanding of its safe handling and processing.
This is called AFR/Waste Profile. This needs to be generated by compiling the rele-
vant information through interactions with the relevant stakeholders and doing the
appropriate research (GTZ, 2006).

10.5 Salient Features of Cement Kiln Co-processing

Technology

The diagram of the present-day pre-calciner kiln with relevant infrastructure is

depicted in Fig. 10.1 below.
In Fig. 10.1, the brown cylinder with red flame is the cement kiln, the cyclone
string is the preheater column, brown equipment with the red flame is the pre-calciner,
blue equipment is the cooler, and the green equipment is the feed bin.
The raw material is fed from the feed bin into the kiln system. It travels down
from the top cyclone to the bottom cyclone of the preheater tower and then travels
inside the kiln. It gets heated in a counter-current manner by the hot gases that are
travelling up from the kiln burner end and calciner to the top of the preheater tower.
After exchanging heat with incoming material, the cooled gas gets exhausted into
the atmosphere after dedusting it in an ESP or bag filter. The clinker formed in the
kiln travels into the cooler and gets discharged after getting cooled.
The temperature of the flame in the kiln is > 1800 ° C, and the temperature in
the kiln at the other end is about 1100 ° C. The temperature in the calciner is about
900 ° C. The clinker production capacity of the kilns implemented at present is about
8000 TPD–12,000 TPD. This clinker production requires about 12,000 TPD–18,000
TPD of raw material and about 1000 TPD–2400 TPD of fuel depending upon its
calorific value. The diameter of the kiln varies from about 4.5 to 6 M and the length
of the kiln varies from 60 to 100 M. The height of the preheater tower ranges up to
200 10 Co-processing of Wastes as AFRs in Cement Kilns

Fig. 10.1 Cement kiln features and material feed points for co-processing

about 180 M. Both raw material and fuel are ground to a very fine size that is less
than 100 microns.
For co-processing, the feed point for introducing waste into the kiln system
depends upon the characteristics of waste material and are depicted in Fig. 10.1.
The different characteristics of the waste are the following:
• Lumpy waste: Tyres, waste-filled drums, and waste-filled bags. These are fed at
the kiln inlet.
• Coarse solid waste: coarsely shredded plastic and RDF material, and solid chunks.
These are fed in the calciner.
• Fine solid waste: Finely shredded plastics, and RDF and powdery material are
co-processed through the main burner.
• Liquid wastes: Aqueous and organic liquids. These are fed through the pre-calciner
and main burner [atomization required].
The salient features of the kiln that facilitate sustainable management of wastes
are the following.

10.5.1 Zero Waste Technology

The organic content in the waste gets completely combusted and inorganic content
becomes part of the raw material and reacts to become product clinker. Hence, co-
processing is a zero waste technology.
10.5 Salient Features of Cement Kiln Co-processing Technology 201

10.5.2 Kiln Emissions are Not Influenced

Very high temperature (900 to > 1800 ° C) and long residence time (6–10 s) available
in the kiln ensures the organic content in the waste is fully combusted. The Destruction
and Removal Efficiency of the kiln system is more than 100 times greater than that
of an incinerator. Hence, there is no cause of concern as far as volatile organic
compounds (VOC) are concerned.

10.5.3 Acidic Gases Get Absorbed in the Calcined Lime

Chlorine, fluorine, and sulphur, when subjected to thermal treatment, get converted
into acid gases, namely HCl, HF, SO2 , and SO3 . These acid gases, while travelling
up through the kiln systems, react fully with lime and get converted into Calcium
Chloride, Calcium Fluoride, and Calcium Sulphate. Hence, these acid gases are not
observed in the kiln emissions.

10.5.4 Dioxins and Furans

International studies generally indicate that most modern cement kilns today can meet
an emission level of 0.1 ng I-TEQ/m3 and that proper and responsible use of organic
hazardous and other wastes to replace parts of the fossil fuel is not an important
factor influencing the formation of PCDD/PCDFs. Modern preheater/precalciner
kilns generally seem to have lower emissions than older wet process or long dry
cement kilns without a preheater, but the main influencing parameter stimulating the
formation of PCDD/PCDFs seems to be the availability of organics/precursors in
the raw material and the temperature of the air pollution control device. Feeding of
materials containing elevated concentrations of organics as part of raw material mix
should therefore be avoided and the exhaust gases should be cooled quickly in wet
or long cement kilns.

10.5.5 Heavy Metals Get Fixed in the Clinker

Heavy metals present in waste get immobilized in the clinker matrix in such a manner
that they do not get leached in water. However, there is a limit to the capacity the
clinker has to embed the heavy metals in its matrix.
202 10 Co-processing of Wastes as AFRs in Cement Kilns

Fig. 10.2 Co-processing reduces GHG emissions

10.5.6 High Efficiency in Material and Energy Recycling

In co-processing, 100% of the material and 100% of energy present in waste gets
recycled in the manufacture of clinker. One Kg of raw material present in waste
[oxide content] replaces 1 kg of natural raw material and I KJ of energy coming from
waste replaces 1 kJ of energy coming from the fossil materials.

10.5.7 Reduction in Global Emissions

The quantum of emissions from cement kiln does not change due to the co-processing
of waste materials in place of fossil materials. Since co-processing avoids disposal
or degradation of the waste materials, the corresponding emissions also get avoided.
Hence at a global scale, the emissions get reduced. This is depicted in Fig. 10.2.

10.5.8 Local and Cheaper Solution for the Local Problem

Cement industries that are located close to waste generation locations can provide the
sustainable solution of co-processing locally. Further, the cement plants are already
present and hence the investment required to set up waste management infrastructure
is substantially less compared to a new solution that needs to be implemented. Further,
since the waste is replacing the natural resources, the economic proposition is more
favourable compared to options such as Waste to Energy and Incineration.
10.6 Different Kinds of Wastes Suitable for Co-processing 203

10.6 Different Kinds of Wastes Suitable for Co-processing

All wastes derived from Municipal, Industrial, and Agricultural sectors are suitable
for co-processing except the banned items. The following is the list of different wastes
that can be co-processed in cement kilns.

10.6.1 Municipal Sector

There are three kinds of waste that are derived out of MSW which can be utilized as
AFRs in the cement kilns.

10.6.1.1 Non-Recyclable Plastic Waste

Non-recyclable plastic waste includes single-use plastic, multi-layer packaging,

contaminated plastic scrap, thermo-set plastic waste, etc. Generally, this kind of
plastic waste is available from (a) agencies who are recycling plastic waste, (b)
brands who have an obligation under extended producer responsibility (EPR), (c)
material recovery facilities of municipalities, etc. Non-recyclable Plastic Waste in
bailed form is shown in Fig. 10.3.

Fig. 10.3 Non-recyclable plastic waste

204 10 Co-processing of Wastes as AFRs in Cement Kilns

Fig. 10.4 SCF from MSW

10.6.1.2 Segregated Combustible Fraction (SCF)

SCF from MSW is a mix of waste plastics, paper, rexine pieces, rubber, shoes, chap-
pals, tyre pieces, tubes pieces, old and torn clothes, contaminated plastics, paper and
clothes, wood pieces, coconut shells, other biomass, etc. SCF is generally available
from agencies who are processing mic garbage in an integrated MSW treatment
facility, agencies who are processing a dry fraction of MSW, and agencies who are
implementing dump yard remedying. SCF from MSW is shown in Fig. 10.4.

10.6.1.3 Dried Sewage Sludge (DSS)

DSS is generated during the treatment of the sewage sludge. The desired moisture
content in DSS for use as AFR in cement kiln is less than 10%. Dried Sewage Sludge
is shown in Fig. 10.5.
10.6 Different Kinds of Wastes Suitable for Co-processing 205

Fig. 10.5 Dried sewage sludge

10.6.2 Industrial Sector

Hazardous as well as non-hazardous wastes are generated during industrial manu-

facturing processes. These can be in the form of solid, liquid, and sludges.
Hazardous wastes consist of date-expired medicines, ETP sludges, distillation
residues, process residues, paint sludges, chemical sludges, obsolete pesticides,
failed batches containing hazardous substances, etc. Non-hazardous wastes consist
of packaging items, date-expired products from FMCG and food sector, etc.
These are demonstrated in Figs. 10.6 and 10.7 respectively.

10.6.3 Agricultural Sector

This includes non-cattle feed bio-waste such as agricultural waste, biomass,

tree/leaves felling, pulse stems, crop residue, residue from food processing industries,
etc.
Figure 10.8 depicts a picture of agro-wastes.
206 10 Co-processing of Wastes as AFRs in Cement Kilns

Fig. 10.6 Hazardous waste

Fig. 10.7 Non-hazardous

waste

Fig. 10.8 Agro-waste

10.7 Items Which Cannot/Should Not Be Co-processed 207

Electronic Waste Unsorted municipal

solid waste

Entire Batteries

Fig. 10.9 Items that can be co-processed only after pre-processing

10.7 Items Which Cannot/Should Not Be Co-processed

The following items are banned for pre-processing and/or co-processing from various
safety considerations.

10.7.1 Items that Can Be Co-Processed Only After

Pre-processing

Items that can be co-processed only after pre-processing are shown in Fig. 10.9.

10.7.2 Items that Cannot Be Pre-Processed or Co-processed

Items that cannot be pre-processed or co-processed are shown in Fig. 10.10.

208 10 Co-processing of Wastes as AFRs in Cement Kilns

Bio-medical Waste Radio-active Waste

Asbestos Based Waste Explosives

Fig. 10.10 Items that cannot be pre-processed or co-processed

10.8 Typical Examples of AFRs and Their Sources

As per the Basal Convention, co-processing is recommended for the safe management
of hazardous wastes and POPs (Basel Convention, 2011). As per the guidelines
published by CPCB (Guidelines, 2017)of India, all kinds of hazardous wastes, SCF,
RDF, plastic and other packaging wastes, tyre chips, non-hazardous industrial wastes,
biomasses, agro-wastes, date-expired or off-specification FMCG, food and kindred
and other products, etc., are feasible to be co-processed in the cement kilns. As
per CPCB, co-processing of wastes can be implemented while complying with the
prescribed emissions standards.
A list of typical wastes/AFRs which can be co-processed in cement kilns is
provided in Table 10.1 along with the feasible agencies from whom they can be
sourced.
10.9 Important Considerations for Smooth and Successful Co-processing 209

Table 10.1 Wastes that can be co-processed and their sources

S. No. Waste Source
1 Biomass/Agro-waste Local farming community, forest department, grain processing
industries, food processing industries, wood processing
industries, municipalities, traders dealing with biomass supply,
etc.
2 SCF Material Recovery Facilities created by municipalities,
Integrated Waste Management Facilities, dump yard remedying
project sites, NGOs, EPR projects implemented by PIBOs
3 RDF SCF to RDF processing plants, plastic pyrolysis projects
4 Plastic waste Plastic recyclers, municipalities, PIBOs implementing EPR
projects
5 Tyre Chips Tyre manufacturers, tyre processing agencies, rubber crumb
manufacturing industries, pyrolysis plants, imports
6 Rubber waste Rubber products manufacturing industries, shoe sole
manufacturing companies, shoe manufacturing companies
7 Hazardous wastes TSDF operators, industries generating hazardous wastes,
hazardous waste processing industries, FRP and SMC products
manufacturing companies, pharmaceutical companies for
date-expired medicines, etc.
7 Non-hazardous Wastes Non-hazardous waste generating industries, tyre pyrolysis
projects, sponge iron industries, FMCG, food and kindred
companies, water treatment projects

10.9 Important Considerations for Smooth and Successful

Co-processing

10.9.1 Pre-Processing of Wastes into AFRs

Generally, wastes do not have quality specifications. They vary considerably from
lot to lot and source to source. In cement kiln, uniformity in the quality of all input
materials is very important from the point of view of smooth kiln operation and clinker
quality. Hence, for achieving the desired quality of AFR from waste streams, their
pre-processing is required. For co-processing higher levels of AFRs, the standard
deviation in the quality of pre-processed AFR needs to be lowered.
Pre-processing can be carried out either by a cement plant or by a third-party
agency depending upon the convenience of the relevant business model.

10.9.2 Monitoring and Control of AFRs While Co-processing

AFRs are derived out of waste materials and may therefore contain constituents
that can influence emissions, impact product quality and disturb the clinkerization
210 10 Co-processing of Wastes as AFRs in Cement Kilns

process. Hence, it is important to monitor the AFR quality in required detail to

ensure smooth operation of the cement kiln. The following are the important quality
parameters that need to be evaluated for smooth and trouble-free cement kiln co-
processing operation:
• Net calorific value;
• Ash content;
• Moisture content;
• Chlorine content;
• Sulphur content;
• Ash analysis in terms of Cao, SiO2 , Al2 O3 , FeO, and other oxides;
• Heavy metal content;
• Viscosity of liquid waste stream;
• Unacceptable constituent present in liquid waste streams;
• Flash point.
Therefore, an important aspect is to also set up a laboratory with suitable
instruments at the co-processing site.

10.9.3 Emission Monitoring During Co-processing

As AFRs are derived out of waste materials and everything present in waste may
not have been analysed (for example, heavy metals and complete Ash analysis), it is
important to monitor the emissions from the kiln on real-time basis using Continuous
Emission Monitoring System (CEMS).
Currently, CEMS with different design considerations are available for installation
on the cement kiln stack. Some of these provide an online assessment of individual
parameters such as dust, SOx, NOx, and VOC. There are others which are more
versatile and in a single probe can provide online monitoring of various parameters
simultaneously such as SOx, NOx, H2 O, HCl, HF, CO2 , CO, VOC, and NH3 .
The statutory provision in India demands that the output from the online CEMS
installed on the kiln stack measuring dust, Sox, and NOx is connected to the data
servers of the pollution control boards of state and the centre.

10.9.4 Permissions for Co-processing of Wastes

Co-processing operation involves utilizing wastes as resources. Wastes have liabili-

ties and are uncertain in their behaviours. Therefore, as per regulatory frameworks of
the respective countries, the pre-processing and co-processing of wastes get moni-
tored and controlled by authorities who have been assigned the relevant respon-
sibilities of granting permissions. These permissions are of two kinds: (1) Setting
up facilities for pre-processing and co-processing of wastes and AFRs and (2) for
10.9 Important Considerations for Smooth and Successful Co-processing 211

handling, storage, pre-processing, and co-processing of the waste materials in these

facilities.
In India, appropriate regulation related to wastes is defined by Ministry of Envi-
ronment, Forest and Climate Change and monitored at the centre by Central Pollution
Control Board (CPCB) and at the state level by the respective State Pollution Control
Boards (SPCBs). For the agency that intends to generate, handle, transport, process,
manage, and dispose of any kind of waste, specific permissions are required to be
obtained by this agency from appropriate authority through the defined process.
Co-processing of wastes as AFRs in cement kilns also needs to be performed
after obtaining necessary permissions which will be granted by the CPCB and/or
SPCBs as per the provisions made in the respective rules. In India, the governing
rules are Solid Waste Management Rules 2016 (SWM Rules 2016), Hazardous and
Other Waste Management Rules 2016 (HOWM Rules), Plastic Waste Management
Rules 2016 (PWM Rules 2016), or the subsequent amendments/revisions made in
these rules.
Co-processing operation also requires an infrastructural facility to pre-process and
co-process the wastes. Permission is also required for the installation and operation
of this infrastructure. This is also given by CPCB and respective SPCB as per the
provisions of the rules.
Permissions for co-processing are also required when some specific materials are
proposed to be co-processed such as persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and ozone
depleting substances (ODS). These permissions are granted based on the results of
the co-processing trial which needs to be carried out as per the defined procedure.
Cement kiln co-processing is a globally practiced technology for the manage-
ment of different kinds of wastes in an environmentally sound and ecologically
sustaining manner. Different types of wastes, e.g., agro-wastes, hazardous and non-
hazardous industrial wastes, and segregated combustible fractions (SCF) from MSW
are disposed of in large quantities in many cement kilns in different countries all over
the world.
In India, cement plants have implemented about 90 co-processing trials of wastes
to prove the acceptability of cement kilns for their environmentally sound disposal.
Cement plants have implemented these demonstration trials on different kinds of
waste streams as per the protocol prescribed by Central Pollution Control Board.
Based on the critical evaluation of the results of these trials, Central Pollution Control
Board have endorsed the acceptability for their co-processing in cement kilns.
A critical review of the results of such 22 co-processing trials—which were
endorsed as successful by CPCB—were evaluated to understand the extent of vari-
ation present in the chemical constituents of these waste streams. It was concluded
through this evaluation that different waste streams having large variations in chem-
ical characteristics can be managed in an environmentally sound manner in the
cement kilns. Variation in the quantum content of different constituents present in
the waste streams utilized in these 22 trials is provided in Table 10.2 below (Ulhas
Parlikar et al., 2016).
The important aspect of these trials was that the quantum of AFR utilized in these
different trials was different in the respective trials.
212 10 Co-processing of Wastes as AFRs in Cement Kilns

Table 10.2 Composition of

PARAMETER MIN MAX
various constituents in the
waste materials co-processed Moisture (%) 0.60 67.4
in cement kilns Ash (%) 0.96 98.70
Volatile Matter (%) 0.3 94.9
Fixed Carbon (%) 0.1 45.7
Carbon 0.4 75.6
Hydrogen 0.2 9.1
Nitrogen 0 15.5
Sulphur 0.1 22
Oxygen 0 76.3
Gross Calorific Value (Kcal/Kg) 80 7960
Net Calorific Value (Kcal/Kg) 114.8 6042
Mineral Matter 3.5 34.5
Chloride as Cl (mg/kg) 0 14,200
Fluoride as F (mg/kg) 0 20.1
Moisture (%) 0.60 67.4
Ash (%) 0.96 98.70
VM (%) 0.3 94.9
FC (%) 0.1 45.7
Carbon 0.4 75.6
Hydrogen 0.2 9.1
Nitrogen 0 15.5
Sulphur 0.1 22
Oxygen 0 76.3
GCV (Kcal/Kg) 80 7960
NCV (Kcal/Kg) 114.8 6042
Mineral Matter 3.5 34.5
Chloride as Cl (mg/kg) 0 14,200
Fluoride as F (mg/kg) 0 20.1
VOC (mg/kg) 4.20 207.0
SVOC (mg/kg) BDL 0.2
PCB (mg/kg) 0.00 0.5
PCP (mg/Kg) BDL 1.4
TOC (%) 0.00 66.0
10.9 Important Considerations for Smooth and Successful Co-processing 213

Based on the results of these 90 trials, co-processing technology has been recog-
nized in the legal framework of India and also guidelines have been published which
define the procedure for permitting co-processing of hazardous and non-hazardous
wastes.
As per the rules notified in 2016, permission for co-processing can be granted
for different waste streams—except POPs and ODS materials—without undertaking
any co-processing trials.

10.10 Principles of Co-processing

The following are the principles that need to be followed for responsible co-
processing so that it contributes to the sustainable management of wastes.
Principle I—Co-processing shall not be used in cement kilns if better ecological
ways of recovery are available.
Principle II—During AFR co-processing, emissions from the cement kiln shall not
be higher than those with traditional fuel.
Principle III—The clinker, cement, and concrete shall not be abused as a sink for
heavy metals.
Principle IV—Companies and personnel engaged in co-processing should have good
environmental and safety compliance track records.
Principle V—Implementation of co-processing has to take into consideration
country-specific regulations and procedures.
Principal VI—Availability of proper infrastructure to control AFR feed rate.
There are various guidelines that are practiced internationally to ensure that wastes
are managed in an environmentally sound and safe manner. These guidelines and
practices are required to be practiced suitably while undertaking pre-processing and
co-processing of wastes/AFRs. These guidelines and practices are elaborated in detail
in Chap. 6 of this book.

10.11 Co-processing Technology

AFR Co-processing technology consists of different steps that are explained in detail
below.
214 10 Co-processing of Wastes as AFRs in Cement Kilns

10.11.1 Receipt of Waste/AFR Material

At the cement plant undertaking co-processing, depending upon the co-processing

rate, either waste or AFR will be received. The amount of waste that can be fed in
the kiln without impacting the cement kiln process or quality of the clinker product
would depend upon the nature and quality of the waste stream.
However, generally, if the utilization quantity is < 5% TSR, waste as such may be
acceptable to be fed in the kiln. At this feed rate, co-processing will proceed without
any major concerns. However, if the quantum utilization is > 5% TSR, pre-processing
of waste to AFR, meeting required specifications, would need to be implemented.
This pre-processing may be implemented by the cement plant or also by a third party.
The received waste/AFR is then taken inside the store after weighment if the quality
of the same is seen as acceptable/as per the agreement.

10.11.2 Quality Assessment of Incoming Waste/AFR Material

The laboratory is an important consideration in undertaking co-processing because

quality assessment of the waste/AFR stream has a substantial influence on the clinker
quality, emissions, and process of operation. The parameters to be evaluated depend
upon the nature and physico-chemical characteristics of the waste/AFR stream. Some
of the important considerations of the ingredients present in wastes/AFRs, which
need to be understood properly while co-processing, are the following:
1. Ash content: When the quantum of AFR usage starts increasing, the composi-
tion of ash becomes an important parameter because it may influence the raw
mix design. Hence, ash analysis of the wastes/AFRs needs to be done and needs
to be taken into consideration while designing the raw mix.
2. Chlorine content: Chlorine is an important parameter in the cement process
as there is a limit up to which it is permitted in the cement product and also it
influences the process by causing a coating of the alkali chlorides on the surfaces
reducing the flow path of gas and increasing pressure drop in the system.
3. Phosphorous content: Phosphorous, when present in the raw mix beyond a
certain proportion, has a tendency to reduce the setting time of the cement and
needs to be critically evaluated.
4. Fluorine content: Fluorine acts as a mineralizer and reduces the liquid
formation temperature in the clinker manufacturing process.
5. Presence of heavy metals: The presence of heavy metals in wastes/AFRs is
a matter of concern in co-processing due to toxicity and other considerations.
There are different guideline limits that have been specified in the waste/AFR
streams (GTZ, 2006).
10.11 Co-processing Technology 215

a. Chromium content: Chromium in cement in (+6) form tends to get leached

out easily when cement comes in contact with water. Chromium also causes
severe skin irritation. Its excessive content in wastes/AFRs is undesired.
b. Mercury, Cadmium, and Thallium content: The compounds of these
metals are volatile and highly toxic. Their excessive presence in the wastes
may cause the operating temperature in the clinkerization process and tend
to get released as toxic emissions. Their excessive content in wastes/AFRs
is undesired.
c. Present of other heavy metals: The crystalline phases in clinker have the
ability to embed heavy metals into them and make them non-leachable.
However, there is a limit for the same to happen in the clinker matric.
Beyond this value, the heavy metals tend to get leached out causing
environmental concern.
Depending upon the nature and source of the waste streams, the evaluations of the
above parameters need to be taken up. For this, appropriate instrumentation systems
need to be set up in the laboratory.
The design of the laboratory needs to be properly laid out so that safety prevails.
Generally, the facilities like oven furnace, etc., are kept in a separate room so that the
exhaust gases are properly vented out. Sophisticated instruments such as XRF, ICP-
MS, and GC need to be installed in closed and air-conditioned rooms. Laboratory
also needs to have a proper security system to preserve the safety of the facility,
safety of the data, and its integrity.
The laboratory also requires a sample preparation facility and sample storage
facility. The samples need to be preserved for a defined duration depending upon
whether the sample is a pre-qualification sample or the standard delivery sample.
This requirement of preserving of a sample is very important from the point of view
of traceability and auditability in case it is demanded in the given case. Usually, the
pre-qualification sample is preserved for 6 months to 1 year and the standard delivery
sample, which is evaluated for fingerprint and detailed analysis, for a period of 1–3
months.
There are three kinds of sample testing involved in the case of wastes/AFRs.
a. Pre-qualification analysis:
This consists of evaluating the nature and physico-chemical characteristics of
the waste/AFR stream for the first time to have it as a benchmark assessment for
future reference and considerations. This analysis consists of ultimate and prox-
imate analysis, halogen analysis, ash analysis, heavy metal content, and flash
point. In case of liquid, the analysis is to be carried out by Gas Chromatograph.
b. Fingerprint analysis
Fingerprint analysis is carried out after the material is reached at the plant
premises. This analysis is carried out to evaluate its results with the agreed
quality considerations with the supplier and giving its acceptance for shifting
it to plant stores. This analysis is carried out on a representative sample of the
received material while the material is awaiting delivery at the gate.
216 10 Co-processing of Wastes as AFRs in Cement Kilns

This analysis is generally carried out to evaluate parameters that define the
waste/AFR stream characteristics as agreed with the supplier. For Alternative
Fuels, it would be GCV, moisture, chlorine, flash point, and ash content and for
Alternative Raw materials, it will involve desired material content, moisture,
chloride and sulphur content, etc. If the waste stream is liquid, then the GC
analysis of the waste stream is carried out to compare the constituents with
those in the reference sample.
c. Detailed analysis
A detailed analysis of the waste/AFR stream is carried out to plan out its pre-
processing and co-processing actions. Usually, it involves preparing a represen-
tative sample from the total lot under consideration and analysing it in detail.
This consists of ultimate analysis, proximate analysis, heavy metal content, ash
content and the ash analysis, flash point, etc.
After the laboratory evaluation of the incoming material awaiting delivery at
the gate, the same is cleared for delivery.
d. Compatibility assessment of waste mixes: Waste/AFR materials tend to
contain materials having unknown characteristics. Sometimes, the mix of such
waste/AFR streams of different origins may lead to heating, runaway reactions,
polymerization, fires, and explosion. To ensure that these undesired reactions
do not occur, their compatibility evaluation is desired to be carried out.
a. General evaluation: The chemical compatibility chart depicted Fig. 6.4 in
Chap. 6 needs to be referred to while storing the materials in the laboratory
or in the waste stores. Incompatible materials need to be kept sufficiently
away from each other.
b. Compatibility assessment of liquid mixes: Before any fresh lot of liquid
waste/AFR received in the plant is transferred to the liquid storage tank,
it is desired to evaluate the chemical compatibility of mixing this fresh lot
with the existing material in the tank. For this, the following procedure
needs to be implemented.
i. Set up a one-liter three-necked round bottom glass flask in a fume
hood equipped with a stirrer, dropping funnel, and a thermometer.
ii. Take about 300 ml of the uniform sample of the liquid contained in
the storage tank and pour it in the one-liter tank.
iii. Take a uniform sample of the fresh lot of the liquid waste/AFR
received in the plant in the dropping funnel.
iv. The proportion of the samples of fresh liquid and the tank liquid
should be the same as it would be in the tank after the fresh lot is
added to the tank.
v. Add slowly, over a period of 10–15 min time, the liquid in the drop-
ping funnel into the round bottom flask while stirring and monitor the
temperature. If the temperature is seen as rising during this addition,
discard the evaluation as the rise in temperature indicates incom-
patibility of the materials. Do not transfer the received lot into the
storage tank—there could be a safety hazard.
10.11 Co-processing Technology 217

vi. If nothing happens during feeding the liquid, continue the stirring
for another 1 hour and continue monitoring the temperature. If the
temperature is seen as rising during this stirring process, discard the
evaluation. Do not transfer the received lot to the storage tank—there
could be a safety hazard.
vii. Manage the received liquid waste/AFR separately as per the feasible
option.

10.11.3 Storage of Waste/AFR Materials

Storage of AFR material consists of incoming material storage and outgoing material
storage. The design of the storage facility needs to comply with the local regulation
and needs to ensure the following requirement to the minimum:

A. Protection of material from rain

This requires a proper shed that is suitably covered with sheets from all sides
and the roof: an inclined roof with a height that allows safe movement of the
material handling equipment. Usually, a height of 6–7 Mts. is good enough.
A typical storage shed is depicted in Fig. 10.11.

Fig. 10.11 Storage of the waste/AFR material

218 10 Co-processing of Wastes as AFRs in Cement Kilns

Fig. 10.12 Impervious concrete flooring

B. Protection from pollution to the soil and groundwater due to spillage

Spillage of waste in the store area can seep into the ground causing pollution
to soil and groundwater. Hence, the entire floor area of the store needs to be
made of an impervious concrete floor. To protect damage to the side sheets due
to operating heavy equipment, it is desired to construct concrete walls up to a
height of 5 Mts.
A photo of the shed with the concrete impervious floor is depicted in
Fig. 10.12.
A full proof system would be to lay the geopolymer membrane on the floor
and then cast the concrete floor on the same. Further, it is required that such
floor spills are transported by gravity to a storage tank from where the spill
can be taken up for treatment. These drains and also the storage tank also are
required to be lined up with a geopolymer membrane or at least a coating of
epoxy paint to be done on all the sides to avoid soil and groundwater pollution.
Further, it is required that the rainwater drains and the spill drains are ensured
to remain independent of each other to avoid spills getting into the rainwater
drains.
Storage of material is also carried out in bunkers and its handling is carried
out using a bridge crane. Such a typical storage management facility with a
bridge crane provided by Walter Materials Handling is depicted in Fig. 10.13.
10.11 Co-processing Technology 219

AUTOMATED BRIDGE CRANE

WITH HYDRAULIC GRAB
For continuous & automated high feed of alternative fuels into
Extraction & dosing system hopper

Automated storage management with a bridge crane

is used for a high ϐlow rate. Since 1998, Walter
material handling has equipped many facilities with
automatic grab cranes, providing them all the
ϐlexibility to handle alternative fuels without much
human effort intervention.

This system is activated based on set points received

from the central control room without any manual
intervention at the site. Concrete bunkers/pits are
ϐilled by tippler trucks directly. Red/green signals are
provided for indication purposes for these truck Automated Bridge crane with orange peel grab
drivers, which works in line with the bunker/pit
product level. An intelligent PLC system monitors
product level in the pit as well and feeding hopper.
Bunker/Pit is equipped with auto entry barriers and
automated rolling shutters, ensuring a completely
enclosed building. The central control room is well
equipped to monitor & provides all operations control
under a single controller.

WMH can provide a single monorail grab crane, bi-

rail grab crane, OR bridge crane depending upon the
storage requirement or ϐlow rate requirement. This
crane travel in X and Y axis, i.e., vertical and
longitudinal direction. Mainly in this concept Automated Bi rail crane with orange peel grab
pit/bunker itself act as storage of the fuels. For high
volume handling, >1000 m3 bridge cranes with three-axis movement are proposed.

Cycle time for the operation is deϐined based on the Extractor feed rate. The volume of storage &
building is derived based on the density of the product to be handled. The Grab selection is dependent
on the product grain sizes. WMH provides customers with two options for a different type of grab:
orange peel grab or clamshell grab. Orange peel grab stands for more range of alternative fuels, aiding
great ϐlexibility.
Please visit our web for more & latest details of our offerings: www.ats-group.com
Reach us at: contact@ats-group.com wm@ats-group.com; ats.india@ats-group.com

Fig. 10.13 Automated bridge crane with hydraulic grab

C. Protection from spread of odour of waste/AFR

Odour, irrespective of its nature and attribute, brings huge discomfort to the
operating employees and surrounding residential communities. This is required
to be monitored and controlled.
220 10 Co-processing of Wastes as AFRs in Cement Kilns

Monitoring odour is to measure the concentration of volatile organic

compounds (VOC) which can be done using a handheld or store-mounted
device.
The most appropriate method of controlling odour from waste storage,
handling, and processing facilities is to exhaust the odour causing VOCs from
the concerned location into the hot zone of the kiln. When the same is not
feasible, then the following are the different options which can be employed
for odour control.
(i) Thermal or catalytic destruction of the VOCs;
(ii) Microbial treatment;
(iii) Fragrance spray;
(iv) Adsorption of the odour causing VOCs in activated carbon or other
similar adsorbents;
(v) Absorption of the VOCs into suitable liquid streams;
(vi) Absorption of odour causing VOCs on zeolite-coated mesh. In this
system, the mesh is installed in the store and waste processing facilities
in the airflow direction.
A detailed description of the above-mentioned odour control processes is
provided in Chap. 12, Sect. 12.2.6.
Figure 10.14 illustrates features of VOC absorbing mesh supplied by M/s
Hiraoka that mitigate the odour issues in the waste storage handling and
processing facilities

TM
Deodoratex is a mesh that needs to be
hung in the direction of the odor flow in
waste storage and waste processing sheds.
It drastically reduces the odor nuisance by
absorbing various kinds of odors
chemically in an effective manner. After
the capacity of the mesh is exhausted, it
simply needs to be washed with water and
reused. It is a proven solution to deal with
the odors emanating from hazardous and
non-hazardous Industrial wastes and wastes
from Municipal & agricultural sectors.
DeodoratexTM has been installed at 26
installations worldwide and more than 10
installations in India. The total area of the DeodoratexTM installed in India is 2750 Sq. M. The
oldest operating installation globally is 4 years old and in India it is 2.5 years. DeodoratexTM
facilitates odor free environment for the benefit of operating workforce & the surrounding
community.
www.hiroaka.in info@hiraoka.in

Fig. 10.14 Features Deodoratex Mesh for odour control

10.11 Co-processing Technology 221

D. Storage of incompatible materials

Incompatible materials, if they come in contact with each other, may cause
fires and explosions. Hence, they need to be stored away from each other. Since
waste materials may have contaminations of different kinds and they may be
received from different sources, it is better to store them material-wise and
source-wise separately using barricading walls (first in first out principle helps
to handle wastes safely).
The general arrangement of storage is depicted in Fig. 10.14. As shown in
this figure, different materials are stored in different compartments, and these
compartments are separated by concrete walls or walls made out of concrete
blocks. It can be observed from Fig. 10.15 that separate entry and exit points
are provided in the inbound and outbound areas.
E. Electrical installations
Electrical installations in the storage and processing shed must be compat-
ible with the material being stored/handled/processed inside. Many materials
would be requiring different kinds of approved electrical fittings and fixtures
depending upon the flash point of the materials stored/handled. These fittings
are designed to comply with the designed classification of chemicals from a
hazard point of view. This classification is provided in Table 10.3. All the chem-
icals falling in these categories are called flammable chemicals. Those having
flash points >93 ° C are termed as combustible chemicals.

Material 2 Material 3
AFR 1 AFR 2 Pre-Processing Area Material 1

Outbound
Material Incoming Material
Storage Storage Area

Material 5 Material 6
AFR 3 AFR 4 Material 4

Fig. 10.15 Storage of incompatible materials

Table 10.3 Classification of

Category Criteria
Chemicals from a hazard
point of view 1 Flash point < 23 ° C and initial boiling point < 35 ° C
2 Flash point < 23 ° C and initial boiling point > 35 ° C
3 Flash point > 23 ° C and < 60 ° C
4 Flash point > 60 ° C and < 93 ° C
222 10 Co-processing of Wastes as AFRs in Cement Kilns

While handling the materials falling in the above categories, specific

electrical fittings and fixtures are required to be installed.
F. Fire Fighting Systems
Fires are often caused at the storage sites and processing areas due to the nature
of the waste/AFR materials. It is important, therefore, to set up an appropriate
firefighting system to deal with such eventualities. In fighting fires, the following
are the important aspects that need to be addressed appropriately in the design
of the fire firefighting system.
1. Installation of a windsock in the plant at a visible location to detect the
wind direction.
2. Installation of the fire detection and control system to deal with the fires.
3. Installation of the alarms and hooter systems to bring awareness of the
plant personnel on the emergency situation.
4. Training of the plant personnel on the operation of the installed firefighting
system.
As per IS 2190 (2010), there are four classes of fires.
a. Class A fires
Fires involving solid combustible materials of organic nature such as
wood, paper, rubber, and plastics where the cooling effect of water
is essential for their extinction. Water, foam, ABC dry power, and
halocarbons are the most suited fire extinguishing agents for this
class of fires.
b. Class B fires
Fires involving flammable liquids or liquefiable solids or the like
where a blanketing effect is essential. Foam, dry powder, clean agent,
and carbon dioxide are the most suited fire extinguishing agents for
this class of fires.
c. Class C fires
Fires involving flammable gases under pressure including liquefied
gases, where it is necessary to inhibit the burning gas at a fast rate
with inert gas, powder, or vaporizing liquid for extinguishment. Dry
powder, clean agent, and carbon dioxide are the most suited fire
extinguishing agents for this class of fires.
d. Class D fires
Fires involving combustible metals, such as magnesium, aluminium,
zinc, sodium, and potassium when the burring metals are reactive
to water and water-containing agents and in certain cases carbon
dioxide, halogenated hydrocarbons, and ordinary dry powders. These
fires require special media and techniques to extinguish.
10.11 Co-processing Technology 223

The fire extinguishing system could be portable or automatic. In a portable system,

fire extinguishing is achieved by spraying the fire extinguishing media manually on
the fire.
The automatic fire extinguishing system works on triggers or signals received
from different sensory devices such as thermal expansion detectors, heat sensitive
insulation, photoelectric detectors, ionization and radiation sensors, and Ultra Violet
and Infrared detectors. Soon as a trigger is received to the automatic system from
such sensors, the relevant fire extinguishing media is sprayed automatically on the
fire.
At smaller TSR operations, the portable systems are okay to deal with the fires
but once the TSR starts increasing, it is safer to implement the automatic systems.
It is essential that the installed firefighting system meets the prevailing statutory
requirements: A Fire Fighting system to be designed and installed as per NFPA/NBC
guidelines.

10.11.4 Pre-Processing of the AFR Material

Materials that need to be used in the cement kiln as a resource must meet very stringent
quality considerations to achieve smooth operation of the kiln process as well as
to achieve the desired quality of the product whereas, wastes do not have quality
consideration. This requires the wastes to be pre-processed to convert them into
AFR materials having desired quality considerations. Pre-processing of wastes into
AFRs is carried out in a properly designed pre-processing facility. Various aspects
related to the pre-processing facility are illustrated in Chap. 11.

10.11.5 Feeding the AFR Material into Kiln

for Co-processing

The AFR is fed in the kiln through the following four feed points as illustrated in
Table 10.4.
Out of these four points, mid kiln is relevant in old technology plants only that
have long wet or long dry kilns without preheater or pre-calciners. Globally, there
are not many plants now that operate on this old technology. The case is similar to
the separate lined calciners. They are also not very popular in modern-day cement
plants. Hence, the first three points are common in modern technology dry process
cement plants. All these points are located at a higher altitude and away from the
waste/AFR storage location. Hence, to feed the waste/AFR materials into the kiln,
separate and appropriate systems need to be built. These are different for solid AFRs
and liquid AFRs.
224 10 Co-processing of Wastes as AFRs in Cement Kilns

Table 10.4 Feed points in the kiln and the suitable materials
S. No. Feed point Suitable materials Examples
1 Main Burner Liquids, fine powders, Waste solvents, aqueous
finely shredded waste liquids, spent carbon,
two-dimensional materials finely shredded plastic
waste, impregnated sludges
with sawdust, etc.
2 Pre-calciner Coarse solids < 75 mm, Shredded plastic waste,
(In-line) liquids, fine powders, etc. processed RDF from MSW,
waste solvents, aqueous
waste liquids, spent carbon,
tyre chips, processed AFRs,
solid AFR chunks, etc.
Pre-calciner (Separate Line) Liquids, fine powders, < Waste solvents, aqueous
20 mm coarse solids waste liquids, spent carbon,
shredded plastic waste,
processed RDF from MSW,
etc.
3 Kiln Inlet Lumpy materials, sludges Whole tyres, bagged
materials, oil sludge, etc.
4 Mid Kiln Lumpy materials, sludges Whole tyres, bagged
materials, oil sludge,
distillation residues,
greases, paint waste, soap,
etc.

These are discussed in the next sections.

1. Weighment and Transportation of AFRs to the Calciner or Main burner floor
The system required to transport Solid, Liquid, and Sludge AFR would be requiring
different designs. These are described below.
A. Feeding of Liquid AFRs in the calciner:
AFR pumped to the calciner floor using an appropriate pumping system is fed
into the calciner using a pipe and nozzle assembly. The weighment is carried out
by using a suitable flow meter or load-cell-based weight measurement system.
The atomization of the liquid is achieved by pumping air into it if the same is
acceptable. Else, high-pressure nozzles are made use of for atomization. It is
advisable to co-process waste/AFRs having less than 1.5% Chlorine content in
the calciner. from the Dioxane and Furan emission consideration.
B. Feeding liquid AFR in the main burner
For liquid firing in the main burner, the modern burners already have a separate
channel for firing liquid AFRs. Through this hole, a pipe having a properly
designed spray nozzle is inserted into the burner. Metered quantity of liquid is
pumped in the kiln using the feed-pump through this nozzle which gets atomized
and burnt in the hot gases. Feeding through the main burner is mandated for
waste/AFR streams having a chloride content of more than 1.5%.
10.11 Co-processing Technology 225

C. Solid AFRs
There are various ways in which the waste/AFR materials are transported to
the burner or calciner floor.
i. Use of passenger lift [for properly packed waste only]
In most of the plants, a passenger lift is available to travel to the higher
floors in the cement plant. This lift travels to the burner platform floor,
calciner platform floor, and other relevant floors. In the initial phases—
when the waste/AFR quantum is very small, say <1%—this option may
be exercised. Here, the waste/AFR material that is stored in the storage
shed is manually filled in bags or containers using shovels or payloaders.
The weight in the bags or containers is measured and noted.
These bags or containers are then transported using a suitable vehicle to
the entry point of the passenger lift. These are then put into the passenger
lift and taken up to the burner platform floor or the calciner floor as per
the requirement. Later, the material in the lift is taken out and placed at a
suitable location on the burner or calciner floor for co-processing.
ii. Use of a winch-based preliminary system
This option is suitable when the volume of waste/AFR material is small—
say <2–3% TSR. In this option, weighed quantity of waste/AFR material
is filled in small bins or buckets of say 0.5–2 m3 volume using manual
operation or mechanical equipment. These buckets are then shifted from
the storage area to the kiln area using a suitable vehicle. Subsequently,
these buckets are pulled up to the main burner or calciner floor using
a winch mechanism. The material in the bin is emptied on the burner
or calciner floor for co-processing purposes, and the empty bin is sent
down for filling the next lot. This winch-based system has lesser manual
intervention than the one based on the passenger lift option.
iii. Using a pneumatic conveying system
This system is suitable for conveying AFRs that are fine powders such as
rice husk, sawdust and other powder wastes. In this system, the waste gets
transported through pipes using air as the conveying media. Compressed
air is used for this purpose.
The AFR material is fed into a hopper using a suitable device which is
equipped with an extraction device such as a rotary air lock (RAL) valve.
The RAL feeds the material in a venture arrangement installed in a pipe
line that is carrying the conveying air. The AFR material received in the
venture then gets conveyed to the burner or calciner floor pneumatically.
iv. Use of a conveyor-based standard system
This option is suitable when the volume of waste/AFR material is large—
anywhere from 3% to any higher TSR value. In this option, the waste/AFR
material is conveyed to the burner or calciner floor using a long belt
conveyor. The long belt conveyor is installed near the waste/AFR material
storage site and on the other end reaching the burner or calciner floor.
226 10 Co-processing of Wastes as AFRs in Cement Kilns

The waste/AFR material located in the storage area is fed into a suitable
material extraction system such as a walking floor and extractor. Then
this material from this extraction devise gets weighed in a weigh feeder
and then is dropped onto the long belt conveyor using different systems
such as bridge/grab crane, chain belt conveyor, and short belt conveyor.
The long belt conveyor transports the waste/AFR volume to the
burner/calciner floor and drops onto another belt conveyor which is a
small one and is called a sacrificial belt conveyor. Usually, the angle of
the long belt conveyor is maintained at ~13°.
A. Liquid AFRs
The most common scheme for liquid waste/AFR is the use of liquid pumps. The
liquid waste/AFR materials that are stored in tanks located in the storage area
are pumped at a defined rate using different types of pumps. These pump types
depend upon the liquid characteristics. The pumps that are used for pumping
are diaphragm pumps, slurry pumps, centrifugal pumps, gear pumps, etc.
For achieving this pumping, piping—with appropriate valves—is laid out from
the storage tank to the burner entry point. Depending upon the situation, a
coarse and fine filtration arrangement is also implemented to facilitate smooth
pumping operation. The material of construction of the pipes, valves, fittings,
and tanks depends upon the corrosion characteristics of the waste/AFR material
to be handled in them. The MOC can be of different kinds such as carbon steel,
stainless steel, rubber lined carbon steel, teflon lines carbon steel, PVDF lined
carbon steel, and different kinds of plastics.
B. Sludge AFRs
Sludge AFRs are very viscous in nature. They are usually impregnated with
suitable materials and then transported to the calciner floor using the schemes
mentioned in section A above.
It is also possible to pump these sludge AFRs directly to the calciner floor
using a pump which is similar in construction to the one used for pumping the
concrete mix. The material piping is suitably routed to the calciner feed point
with a minimum number of bends to reduce the pressure drop.
III. Feeding arrangement of AFRs in Calciner, main-burner, and Kiln Inlet
IV. Feeding Solid AFRs in calciner and kiln inlet
The solid material conveyed to the calciner floor is then fed onto a short belt
conveyor named as a sacrificial belt. The material from the sacrificial belt is
then dropped into a double flap valve or a rotary valve or screw conveyor-
based feeding device which is coupled with a shut gate. The feeding device
and shut gate assembly are mounted on the chute leading into the calciner.
Figure 10.16 provides the views of the double flap valve, rotary valve, screw
conveyor, and shut-off gate.
i. Double Flap Valve with a shut gate
This system consists of a hopper below which a double flap valve (DFV)
is attached. These two flap valves open and close alternatively thereby
10.11 Co-processing Technology 227

Fig. 10.16 Feeding devices

for solid AFRs

Double Flap Valve Sha less Screw Conveyor

Rotary Air Lock Valve Shut Off Gate

retaining material for a while before dropping it down. Below the DFV
is a shut gate that normally remains open. It gets closed wherever the
temperature or the pressure in the nearby duct area increases above a
defined setpoint value. The material is first dropped on a sacrificial belt
conveyor. This belt conveyor is called a sacrificial belt conveyor because
this small conveyor only is foreseen to catch fire and restrict the damage
to a small level.
V. Rotary Airlock system
The rotor assembly in a rotary airlock valve consists of a set of blades welded
to a rotary shaft. A six-vane rotor has six metal blades attached to the shaft;
an eight-vane rotor has eight. A valve with more vanes tends to have greater
sealing ability than one with less ones. The material fed in the vane at one end
gets moved with the rotor and when it reaches the other end, it gets dropped.
VI. Screw conveyor-based system
In this system, a screw conveyor is utilized to feed the material from a hopper
into the calciner. This screw is normally a shaftless screw. In this arrangement,
the material from the sacrificial belt drops in the hopper of the screw conveyor
from where the rotating screw below the hopper conveys the material inside
the calciner.
VII. Shut Gate system
The shut gate system is provided to cut off the AFR feed in case of an
emergency situation which causes hot gases present in the kiln with high
temperature to come out of the kiln system through the chute and cause fires.
These emergency situations would be positive pressure in the kiln system or
high temperature in the feed chute. This shut gate system is usually a pneu-
matically operated device. It consists of a plate that moves in a slot mounted
in the chute. This plate slides in the sliding slot due to the compressed air
228 10 Co-processing of Wastes as AFRs in Cement Kilns

system. In an emergency situation, the plate of the shut-off gate slides in the
slot due to the air pressure and closes. This makes the feeding system to get
completely closed.
Various commercial systems are available for achieving proper feeding of
the materials in the calciner. These are depicted in the next pages as in
Figs. 10.17, 10.18, and 10.19, respectively.
Figure 10.17 depicts the Doseahorse by Walter Materials Handling that is
typical equipment which helps to feed the solid material at a constant rate.
A double valve with a shut gate supplied by Walter Materials Handling is
depicted in Fig. 10.18 along with intricate details of the double valve for a
better understanding of the system.
Also, in Fig. 10.19 the picture and description of shaftless screw-based mate-
rial feeding system called Multiplex of Schenck Process is depicted for its
better understanding.
VIII. Feeding Sludge AFRs in the kiln inlet:
Generally, sludges are pumped in the kiln inlet or in the riser duct and a
concrete type pump is used for pumping purposes. The sludge is fed into the
hopper of the pump and the pump pushes the sludge through the pipe and
drops it into the kiln inlet or riser duct in which the feed pipe is inserted.
IX. Feeding lumpy AFR in the kiln Inlet
To facilitate the feeding of lumpy AFR into the kiln inlet, a double flap valve
and shut gate arrangement are implemented. The whole tyres or bagged
materials are then dropped into the kiln inlet through this double flap valve
and shut gate arrangement. The lumpy material is conveyed to the kiln inlet
floor using a winch arrangement or can be done through a belt conveyor.
X. Advancements in Pyro-systems for AFR co-processing
The modern burners have an additional channel for firing solid AFRs. Solid
AFRs are fed through this channel using air as the media. A typical design
of the modern-day burner by KHD PYROJET® is provided in Fig. 10.20.
The most imperative feature of such a burner is its short, intense, and stable
flame.
For co-processing difficult to combust materials with given limitations in
the existing kiln systems and also to co-process less pre-processed or un-
processed waste streams, new advanced pyro-systems are being designed
by various system suppliers. One such system is PYROROTOR® . With a
PYROROTOR® , an unmatched level of flexibility for alternative fuels paired
with a significant potential for cost reduction in combination with very low
or even un-processed secondary fuel with a maximum shift of calciner fuel to
this special design state-of-the-art rotary processor is reaped. This is depicted
as in Fig. 10.21.

Another feature is the KHD PYROCLON® Calciners with Combustion Chamber.

This comes as an integral part of KHD’s long duct type Pyroclon R calciner which is
well proven to process the coarser green fuels due to its design feature of higher gas
velocities inside the calciner making the system more selective than other equivalent
10.11 Co-processing Technology 229

DOSEAHORSE
Extraction & Dosing close to feeding
point in cement pre-heater
Since 1986, Walter Materials handling, a member
of ATS Group, has provided alternative fuels
technical solutions to the international cement
market with input material storage management,
dosing, handling systems, and introduction to
pyro-process for using alternative fuels (AF) such
as RDF, SRF, TDF (shredded tires), whole tires,
rice husk, wood pieces, etc. in the cement and
energy industry. Today Walter Materials handling
has a worldwide coverage with its three operation
centers and workshops located in France, Turkey,
and India.
Alternative fuels typically are not homogeneous in
size and caloriϐic values; therefore, it makes the
extraction and dosing of alternative fuels crucially
important for combustion stability. For better
regulation of kiln process, the dosing of Alternative fuels must be accurate enough with a precision
of less than ±1 % and with ϐlow rates till to 250 m3/h. Furthermore, the dosing machine should give
a fast reaction when setting up values; for example, the ϐlow rate changes. Also, it must be resilient
and rugged enough to handle various sizes of alternative fuels at once. The main features of the new
machine are aiming to be very ϐlexible to make extraction and dosing of different alternative fuels in
a wide range of grain sizes and density.
The integrated belt scale dosing technology and the four load cells below the frame make a double-
check for accurate ϐlow rate with precision. The other feature is an automatic up/down calibrator
system which ensures a smooth and homogenous extraction that makes dosing accuracy less than ±1
% sustainable. The new machine is very compact to extract and dose ϐine and coarse alternative fuels
with grain sizes up to 500 mm.
Within the ϐirst year of "Doseahorse" introduction in the market, after piloting the product, it has
revolutionized the cement makers' global customers' demand pattern, proving its technology worth
in alternative fuel dosing system. Walter material handling has successfully installed its new
equipment in different countries like Thailand, Germany, France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Ecuador, and
Korea.
Different types of implantations for various needs are designed and implemented at multiple
facilities in handling RDF, municipal waste, etc., like implementation in PHT of cement plant,
performance in pre-processing of waste, implementation on the ground for continuous dosing.
Please visit our web for more & latest details of our offerings: www.ats-group.com.
Reach us at: contact@ats-group.com wm@ats-group.com; ats.india@ats-group.com

Fig. 10.17 Doseahorse for feeding AFR uniformly

technologies available in the cement industry. This is depicted in Figs. 10.22 and
10.23.
The key features of this burner with AFR Swirl Nozzle for Alternate Fuels and
NOx reduction are retractable swirl element, no additional primary air necessary
for AFR nozzle, adjustable during operation, fracturing and mixing of the AF flow
230 10 Co-processing of Wastes as AFRs in Cement Kilns

ELECTRICAL DOUBLE VALVE AIRLOCK

WITH SAFETY SHUT OFF GATE
For safe, reliable, flexible feeding of alternative fuels into calciner
The Introduction of alternative fuels into the cement manufacturing
process is defined as co-processing. This introduction is challenged
by many factors of the cement manufacturing process. One is extreme
high temperature of the calciner about 1100 degree Celsius and the
second challenge is to seal the entry of ambient air entry into the
calciner, which is a loss of energy for the system. To solve the issue,
Walter materials of ATS-Group designed a unique mechanism called
double valve with electrical drives.

Electrical double valve airlock with pneumatic safety shut-off gate

designed by Walter materials of ATS-Group, emerged as the best
solution for feeding alternative fuels safely & efficiently. These
double valves now more than two decades working in many cement
plants globally. Happy end-users with many repeated customers are
the clear sign of the success of this equipment for the said process Arrangement of two valves
application. with safety gate

The opening closing of valves is realized by pendulum of a single

flap. An electrical motor ensures a very short cycle time, efficient
closing and opening. VFD regulates the acceleration and deceleration
of the valves, so that flaps open and close smoothly and rapidly.
Sensors are used to indicate each position of flap. Technical
advantage of electrical drive managed with quick operation over
pneumatic actuator is more than 50% reduction in cycle time. Such a
double valve system enables safe introduction of alternate solid fuel
of varied nature (Grain size 1 to 400 mm) into Calciner with short
cycle time and minimizing introduction of false air.

Regarding security, the double valve airlock offers three safety

levels. Level 1 and 2 are in case of power shut down, the mechanical Single valve internal construcƟon
flap closing is ensured with integrated counterweight. Level 3 – in
case of pressure drop from plant air tank placed on electro pneumatic cabinet ensured that safety
gate is closed. Excessively high temperature will be detected by sensors located between top
and bottom valves. Mechanical performance of double valve airlock is also due to right choice
of material. This new concept of double valve airlock is very compact and can be mounted
easily on the Calciner floor.
Please visit our web for more & latest details of our offerings: www.ats-group.com
Reach us at: contact@ats-group.com, wm@ats-group.com, ats.india@ats-group.com

Fig. 10.18 Electrical double valve airlock with safety shut-off gate
10.11 Co-processing Technology 231

MultiFlex NG - Flexible & Efficient Handling of Alternative Fuels for Cement

Cement producers face the challenge of how to lower their carbon footprint economically, as
well as improve their contributions towards sustainability by adopting alternative fuels.
However, to do so – they ideally need to be capable of productively and accurately handling
mixed fuels. Helping to address this issue, Schenck Process have engineered a dynamic feeder
especially for the cement industry – the MultiFlex NG Feeder. Alternative fuel materials used
in the production of cement, can come in a wide variety of thicknesses, shapes, coarseness and
types. Materials may vary from household waste, dried sewage sludge and derivative fuels,
through to organic waste and tyre chips.
Having a feeder that is capable of flexibly
adapting to process materials with these
variabilities, without causing unnecessary
maintenance and downtime, is difficult.
Schenck Process have therefore designed the
MultiFlex NG Feeder with a number of
features that makes processing mixed fuels -
efficient, precise, consistent and cost effective.

Initially to control the filling, an advanced

weighing system allows automatic calibration.
Continuous calibration of the combined weighing system has been engineered into the
MultiFlex Feeder, to yield long term accuracy of +/- 1%. This leads to less system wear from
varying materials, longer life performance and lower energy consumption. To ensure accurate
and proper filling of the screws, the material inlet of the screw trough is weighed; also enabling
control of speed. Material bridges in the hopper are detected and activating agitators maintain
correct feeding of the trough. This occurs only when necessary, for high energy efficiency and
system lifespan. The screw trough is weighed prior to material discharge, thereby controlling
the mass flow of material, relative to the speed of the conveying screws. Synchronising sensors
continuously adjust the phase of each conveying screw, to prevent material bundling when
feeding variable materials and to maintain a smooth flow. For small feedrates, single or double
screws, allow for a wide control range.

Other features of the MultiFlex NG include ATEX and reduced explosion design, as well as
robust construction for maximum wear protection. Ultimately, cement producers are under
more pressure than ever to ecologically improve their production processes. Using a variety of
alternative fuels to do so, demands both efficiency and stability. The flexible design of the
MultiFlex NG Feeder from Schenck Process, not only allows for high accuracy and consistent
feeding of many materials, but also increases the operational lifespan of the system. Supporting
the ethos of enabling a greener future, the MultiFlex since its launch of March 2021, has turned
approximately 2.6 million tonnes of plastic into energy. While, every hour it helps save the
environment from 500 tonnes of plastic. All these are ecological benefits that cement producers
can also reap from and pass on.

www.schenckprocess.com

Fig. 10.19 Description of multiplex

232 10 Co-processing of Wastes as AFRs in Cement Kilns

Fig. 10.20 KHD PYROJET

BURNER

Fig. 10.21 KHD

PYROJET®

shortly before entering the kiln (increasing the spraying angle), and improving the
mixture within the flame core and with required combustion air is the key design
highlight which makes the equipment suitable for processing of secondary fuel in
the rotary kiln.
KHD PYROROTOR® is a unique rotary reactor that uses tertiary air as combus-
tion air to process materials with inferior burning properties reliably as a secondary
fuel for cement production. Due to directly coupled direct drive, the combustion
reactor enables constant material movement. Combined with adjustable rpm and
long residence times, the PYROROTOR® enables complete burn-out of alternative
fuels such as low-processed RDF, coarsest waste matter, and even whole tyres.
KHD PYROCLON® Calciners with Combustion Chamber are apt for utiliza-
tion of coarse fuels with poor ignition and burning properties like coarse anthracite,
petcoke, and coarse secondary fuels or waste-derived fuels. The characteristic
features of the combustion chamber are the ignition and start of combustion in pure
air at high temperature (T > 1200 °C) maintaining the calciner retention time > 7
sec. Apart from high efficiency and flexibility, it offers lower demand on fuel quality
and preparation efforts.
10.11 Co-processing Technology 233

Fig. 10.22 KHD PYROCLON® calciners with combustion

10.11.6 Flow Schemes for Co-processing of AFRs

with Different Feeding Arrangements

Depending upon the nature of AFR material, the capacity of co-processing desired,
the space available to implement the system, and the budget available to implement
the system, there can be different flow schemes with which the co-processing can be
implemented. The following four flow schemes illustrate this concept for clarity.
Flow sheets of the following co-processing schemes are provided and discussed
below for clarity:
a. Flow scheme of co-processing Solid AFRs using a winch-based preliminary
system.
b. Flow scheme of co-processing Solid AFRs using conveyor-based standard
system.
c. Flow scheme of liquid AFR firing system into the main burner.
d. Flow scheme of Solid powder and shredded plastics firing in the main burner.
a. Flow scheme of co-processing Solid AFRs using winch-based preliminary
system
234 10 Co-processing of Wastes as AFRs in Cement Kilns

Fig. 10.23 KHD

PYROJET® calciners with
combustion

In this scheme, the solid AFR material received in the store is filled in the bucket
attached to the winch and is pulled up using a motor system. This material is then
dropped is a hopper that is mounted above the double flap valve. From the hopper,
the material gets fed into the calciner or kiln inlet through a chute. A shut gate is
installed between the chute and the flap valve to prevent the hot gases from coming
out of the system in case the pressure in the kiln system tends to become positive.
The flow sheet of this scheme is depicted in Fig. 10.24.
b. Flow scheme of co-processing solid AFRs using conveyor-based standard
system
In this scheme, the solid AFR material received in the store is conveyed to the
preheater floor using a conveyor. To achieve uniform flow feed, a walking floor and
a weigh feeder are used. The conveyed material is then fed into the kiln through the
flap valve and shut gate assembly. To protect the long conveyor from possible fires,
a sacrificial conveyor is used. This flow scheme is depicted in Fig. 10.25.
iii. Flow scheme of liquid AFR firing system into the main burner
In this scheme, the AFR material received in the store is conveyed to the preheater
floor using a conveyor. To achieve uniform flow feed, a walking floor and a weigh
feeder are used. The conveyed material is then fed into the kiln through the flap valve
and shut gate assembly. To protect the long conveyor from possible fires, a sacrificial
conveyor is used. This flow scheme is depicted in Fig. 10.26.
10.11 Co-processing Technology 235

Fig. 10.24 Typical flow sheet of a winch-based preliminary co-processing system

Fig. 10.25 Typical flow sheet of a conveyor-based standard system

236 10 Co-processing of Wastes as AFRs in Cement Kilns

Fig. 10.26 Typical flow sheet of a liquid firing in the main burner

iii. Flow scheme of fine solid AFR and shredded plastics firing in the main burner

In this scheme, the fine solid AFR and the shredded plastic material of <10 mm size
are received in the plant and conveyed to the burner platform using a winch system.
Subsequently, it is fed in a hopper, from where the rotary airlock drops the material
into a venturi device. This material is then blown into the main burner using air.
This flow scheme is depicted in Fig. 10.27.
The systems set up for the co-processing of AFRs need to be flexible and should
be able to handle and manage a variety of AFRs with the same system. A case study
of the Multiplex equipment of Schenck Process is described in Fig. 10.28.

Fig. 10.27 Typical flow sheet of a solid firing in the main burner
10.12 Other Relevant Considerations in Co-processing 237

Case Study : Process Enable Turnkey Systems in Alternative Fuels

To ecologically enhance the processes of cement production for a key client, Plzenska
Teplarenska, Schenck Process integrated and customized turnkey projects for two alternative
fuel feeding lines in a heat and power plant.

Customised for the plant; the line feeding wooden pellets for boilers, contains among others,
fuel reception units, for walking floor trailers which also serve as operation storage in a just-in-
time system. From the reception, the fuel is transported through screening of oversize lumps to
the boiler house by a tube conveyor. In the boiler house, an internal conveying and distribution
system is installed, transporting the fuel to weighed intermediate storage bins - distributing the
fuel to the mills of each boiler. Alternatively, the fuel may be fed directly to the burners through
the supplied pneumatic feeding systems.

A line for feeding coal sludge contains reception stations suitable for the rotation discharging
of standard containers, storage silo and tube conveyors transporting the material to the boiler
house. An internal transport and feeding system of the fuel to the boiler is also installed.
Concept of this line allows universal utilization and a large variety of fuels to be fed through
this line.

www.schenckprocess.com

Fig. 10.28 Case study on universal use of multiplex for different alternative fuels

10.12 Other Relevant Considerations in Co-processing

Co-processing attracts three specific considerations. The first one concern the regu-
latory requirements, the second one concerns the liability associated with the waste
materials, and the third one corresponds to the sustainability considerations.

10.12.1 Statutory Considerations

Wastes are legally controlled materials and they are governed by rules and regu-
lations. It is important to comply with them while undertaking activities related to
their transportation, handling, processing, etc. The wastes that are feasible to be
co-processed belong to Municipal, Agricultural, and Industrial sectors. The regula-
tory provisions pertaining to them are clearly defined in Hazardous and Other Waste
Management Rules, Plastic Waste Management Rules, and Solid Waste Management
Rules that are amended by the government from time to time. They are also governed
by various guidelines published by the Government in respect of the relevant wastes
from time to time.
238 10 Co-processing of Wastes as AFRs in Cement Kilns

10.12.2 Liability Considerations

Wastes carry liability with them and when wastes get transferred from one stake-
holder to another, the liability associated with them also gets transferred from one
to another. Wastes cause substantial damage to the environment; they also bring
about huge social and economical concerns due to their odour, toxicity, flamma-
bility, corrosivity, etc. It becomes important therefore that while undertaking co-
processing, these concerns are appropriately addressed. All precautions need to be
taken to ensure that environmental damage, societal impact, and financial losses are
avoided while managing wastes through co-processing. As the wastes have varying
physico-chemical characteristics, it is difficult to prepare their MSDS. However, it
is important to evaluate and compile the relevant Safety, Health, and Environment-
related parameters so as to ensure safety in co-processing. This requires the following
approach:
• Obtain the SOPs implemented in storage, handling, and processing of wastes from
the waste generators.
• Study the safe practices implemented by the waste generator at his end and compile
appropriate practices.
• Compile the literature information related to the health and safety aspects of
wastes.
• Discuss with the factory doctor associated with the waste generator on aspects
related to health impact.

10.12.3 Sustainability Considerations

Sustainable management of wastes is an important consideration from various

considerations such as resource efficiency, environmental degradation, conservation
of natural resources, and mitigating climate change impacts. For managing wastes
therefore waste management hierarchy is the guiding principle. Figure 10.29 depicts
the waste management hierarchy that needs to be considered for sustainabile waste
management.
In the waste management hierarchy, landfilling and incineration are the last options
to be pursued when all other options have failed to get implemented. Waste to Energy
is lower in the hierarchy because the material recovery is 0% and energy recovery is
< 25%.
It is important to note that recyclable materials and cattle feed materials are not
co-processed because recycling and cattle feed are higher in waste management
hierarchy than co-processing.
10.13 Challenges Faced in Co-processing of AFRs 239

Prevention / Reduction
Utilization Reuse
of Wastes

Recycling

100% Material Coprocessing 100% Energy

Recovery
Waste to Energy

Incineration
Waste
Disposal
Land filling

Fig. 10.29 Waste Management Hierarchy

10.13 Challenges Faced in Co-processing of AFRs

Compared to the conventional input materials, AFRs have substantially different

characteristics and hence many challenges are faced while co-processing them.

10.13.1 Specifications and Availability of the AFR Materials

The specifications of the conventional materials can be defined for ordering and
material can be received as per the same. Further, the properties of the material
are generally uniform from lot to lot. The number of input streams of conventional
materials required for cement manufacture are generally less than ten. Further, they
are available in large quantities as desired for cement manufacture. However, AFRs
would have to be accepted as per their available specifications; there is substantial
variation in their physico-chemical characteristics from lot to lot and generally, they
are available in small quantities only. To achieve the desired quantum requirement
of AFR in cement manufacture, a large number of waste streams—running into
hundreds—need to be utilized.

10.13.2 Increase in the Specific Thermal Energy

Consumption

There are several reasons for the increase in the specific thermal energy consumption
while co-processing AFRs. These include the following:
240 10 Co-processing of Wastes as AFRs in Cement Kilns

a. AFRs have higher ash and moisture content.

b. Their burnability is poor compared to conventional materials which requires
higher oxygen level to burn.
c. Fluctuating feed rates and variation in the AFR quality.
d. Circulation of some of the constituents in the kiln system.
e. False air ingress into the kiln through the new feeding ports.

10.13.3 Impact on the Emissions from the Kiln

Generally, the emissions from the cement kiln do not get influenced due to the co-
processing of AFRs if the general principle of monitoring inputs is implemented
properly. The impact on the emissions would be noticed when volatile heavy metals
are not appropriately controlled in the AFR and also if AFR containing volatiles is
fed through the raw material feed route.

10.13.4 Coating in the Preheater Section of the Kiln

Chlorine, alkali, and sulphur content in the AFR influence the coating tendency in
the preheater section, and this needs to be properly monitored in the hot meal and
controlled.

10.14 Conclusion

Co-processing is a very powerful technology tool to reduce the environmental pollu-

tion load, conserve natural resources, and reduce the GHG emissions. It needs to
be carried out in a manner that ensures monitoring and control of inputs, processes,
products, and emissions. Co-processing can be implemented for hazardous and non-
hazardous industrial wastes, POPs, agricultural wastes, and wastes derived out of
municipal activities. Pre-processing of these wastes as AFR is an essential require-
ment for successful and gainful co-processing without making major impacts on the
process parameters. There are appropriate feed points in the kiln which need to be
selected depending upon the nature of the AFR material. Occupational and Environ-
mental Safety is of prime consideration in the co-processing initiative. Co-processing
of AFRs may cause an impact on the kiln operation and emissions and to avoid or
reduce the same, monitoring and control on the AFRs needs to be put in place. AFR
co-processing also causes an increase in the specific thermal energy consumption of
the kiln and necessary measures need to be put in place to keep it to a minimum.
References 241

References

Guidelines on Co-processing of Waste Materials in Cement Production (2006) Published by GTZ &
Holcim Available at https://www.geocycle.com/sites/geocycle/files/atoms/files/co-processing_s
upporting_document_giz-holcim_guidelines_0.pdf
Technical guidelines on the environmentally sound co-processing of hazardous wastes in cement
kilns published by Basel Convention in 2011.
Updated general technical guidelines for the environmentally sound management of wastes
consisting of, containing or contaminated with persistent organic pollutants (POPs) published
by Basel Convention.
Guidelines for Pre-processing and Co-processing of hazardous and other wastes in cement plant as
per H&OW (M & TBM) rules, 2016 published by CPCB, GOI, July 2017.
Ulhas Parlikar et al. (2016). Effect of variation in the chemical constituents of wastes on the co-
processing performance of the cement kilns. Procedia Environmental Sciences,35, 506–512.
Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1878029616301244
Chapter 11
Pre-processing of Wastes into AFRs

11.1 Introduction

Pre-processing of wastes into AFRs is an important consideration in achieving

successful co-processing of AFRs. As a broad categorization, wastes are solids,
liquids, or sludges. They can also be in gaseous forms but the cases are very few.
Wastes, by their very definition, do not have any quality consideration. They gener-
ally have very large variations in physical and chemical characteristics. For example,
municipal solid waste (MSW) from one household is very different than that from
another household. The same from the same house will be varying on a day-to-day
basis. If dry waste is segregated from the MSW, then its composition also is different
from house to house and time to time. If the recyclable materials are separated from
the dry waste, the remaining non-recyclable material is a very good fuel material
having calorific value. This material due to heterogeneous nature will be having
different size, calorific value, ash content, moisture content, chloride content, etc.,
on a lot-to-lot basis. If this waste is fed into the cement kiln on an as-received
basis, for use as Alternative Fuel, it causes severe process disturbances as well
as impacts the quality of clinker being produced from the kiln. Hence, prior to
feeding the waste materials in the kiln, it needs to be processed to achieve uniform
physical and chemical characteristics. This processing of waste materials having
varying quality considerations into AFRs having uniform quality consideration is
called pre-processing.

11.2 Permitting

Pre-processing involves the receipt, storage, testing, handling, and processing of

wastes physically. The wastes include both hazardous and non-hazardous ones.
Although pre-processing does not involve any thermal treatment or chemical reac-
tions, there are possibilities of the release of effluents and emissions and as per the

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 243
S. K. Ghosh et al., Sustainable Management of Wastes Through Co-processing,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-6073-3_11
244 11 Pre-processing of Wastes into AFRs

local regulations, permission for implementing the pre-processing facility needs to

be taken and the prescribed norms need to be complied with. In most of the countries,
specific waste-wise permissions may also be required in respect of receiving, storing,
and pre-processing them.

11.3 Unit Operations in Pre-processing

The pre-processing involves different unit operations such as blending, shredding,

drying, impregnation, size separation, segregation, and bailing. In pre-processing,
mostly mechanical treatment is carried out. However, sometimes chemical treat-
ment processes such as neutralization, flocculation, and sedimentation are also
implemented.

11.3.1 Size Reduction or Shredding

Size reduction of different materials is achieved by using shredders. There are three
types of actions that facilitate shredding, namely Shearing, Tearing, and Fracturing.
Shearing involves the cutting of material with scissor-like tooling, tearing involves
pulling the material with great force, and fracturing involves breaking of the brittle
materials using impact. Some examples of materials that are commonly shredded
are tyres, metal cans and sheets, car wrecks, wood, plastics, leathers, papers, clothes,
industrial hazardous and non-hazardous wastes, municipal solid waste, refuse derived
fuel, etc.
An industrial shredder is a piece of heavy-duty equipment designed to shred
dense and light materials to prepare them for gainful utilization. It is a device that
transforms a waste material having non-uniform size configuration into a resource
having defined size configuration. A shredding device is used for materials such as
metals, plastics, aluminium, metal and cars, and wastes from municipal, nuclear, and
medical sectors. These waste materials can be hazardous and non-hazardous.
Figure 11.1 depicts the picture of a typical industrial shredder.
The shredding process consists of feeding the material into the hopper of the
shredder from the top using a feeding device or a conveyor. The fed material gets
grabbed by the blades and pulled in through their rotating action and causing shred-
ding operation by the blades. Many of the shredders also have a built-in screen to
allow only the material smaller than the size of the screen to get released from the
shredder and the higher size is sent back to the blades. The shredded material subse-
quently gets released from the shredder through different mechanisms such as gravity
and pneumatics.
Most of the industrial shredders are capable to handle metals that are present in the
feed material. These metals have good recycling value and hence are segregated from
the shredded mass using magnetic and eddy current separators. The feed material
11.3 Unit Operations in Pre-processing 245

Fig. 11.1 Typical industrial shredder

would also be containing inert material such as stones and grit which is having higher
specific gravity than the combustible material. The separation of this inert material
from the combustible material is achieved using pneumatic separation techniques.
Industrial shredders that do not have a screen built inside. It delivers shredded material
that does not have specific size configuration. If the size of the shredded material is a
required criterion, then the output from such shredders is sent to screening systems
that are mounted external to the shredder. The shredded material that passes through
the external screening equipment is collected as the desired material and the oversized
material from this screening device is fed back to the shredder through the hopper
using material handling equipment or conveyor system.
Industrial shredders come in many different design variations, sizes, and applica-
tions. The industrial shredder has many components. These are rotor, counter blades,
housing, motor, transmission system, power system, and electrical control system.
They can be a single shaft, twin shaft, or multi-shaft and may be driven by electric
power or hydraulic power. The blades of the shredder are of different designs and
materials to cater to the varying hardness of different waste materials. These shred-
ders are also classified as metal shredders, plastic shredders, tyre shredders, scrap
shredders, aluminium shredders, wood shredders, etc.
246 11 Pre-processing of Wastes into AFRs

Single ShaŌ Design Double ShaŌ Design

Three ShaŌ Design Four ShaŌ Design

Fig. 11.2 Different types of shredder designs

An industrial shredder can be equipped with different types of designs. Figure 11.2
depicts different types of shredder designs available for shredding purposes.
A. Single-Shaft Design
These shredders have one shaft with rotary blades, a hydraulic pusher plate, and a
screen underneath to filter materials to conform to the proper size. The single shaft
rotates at a low speed and shreds materials to one or two inches. They are used when
a consistent particle size is required and are ideal for shredding plastic materials.
B. Double-Shaft Design
The double shaft shredders have shearing blades mounted on two shafts that rotate
into each other at slow speeds to quietly shred large high-volume feedstock into
small pieces of one–five inches. The low speed prevents the creation of dust during
shredder operation. The main purpose of double-shaft shredders is to handle large
quantities of bulk volumes of materials.
11.3 Unit Operations in Pre-processing 247

Fig. 11.3 Industrial double-shaft shredder by Sanghavi Engineering Pvt. Ltd.

Description of a commercial double shaft shredder manufactured by M/s.

Sanghavi Engineering Pvt. Limited, India, is depicted in Fig 11.3.

C. Three-Shaft Design

In the three-shaft design shredder, blades of three shafts rotate at different speeds
to provide a continuous flow of feedstock. The size selection for shredded materials
is determined by the screen that the material has to pass through when leaving the
shredding chamber. If the material is not small enough, it is recirculated through the
machine until it is the proper size to pass through the screen.

D. Four-Shaft Design
A four-shaft shredder has four shearing rollers with four sets of shearing knife
rollers with different cutting shapes. The process of a four-shaft shredder allows for
pre-shredding and secondary shredding to happen simultaneously, which improves
production efficiency. Quad- or four-shaft shredders are used to shred materials that
need separation with uniform-sized particles.
Several manufacturers supply the shredding systems having different designs as
above.
248 11 Pre-processing of Wastes into AFRs

Fig. 11.4 Typical Hammer

Mill Design

E. Horizontal and Vertical Hammer mill

A hammer mill has a drum in which hammers are mounted. These hammers are fixed
to the central rotor and are free to swing. The rotor spins at high speed and reduces
the size of the fed material due to impact. The material is then expelled through
screens of a select size that is mounted on the drum.
Figure 11.4 shows a typical hammer mill in action.

F. Grinder

A grinding machine or grinder is an industrial power tool that uses an abrasive wheel
for cutting or removing the material. Two styles of grinders are tub and horizontal.
Tub grinders are top-loading and are designed to grind wide materials. Horizontal
grinders have a conveyor belt and do a smooth consistent grinding. Grinder’s shave,
chip, and grind small pieces from large objects using abrasives or compression that
flattens the material. Grinders break materials down to fragments that are a half-inch
or less.

G. Granulator

Granulators have an electric motor that turns a rotor having cutting blades attached
and enclosed in a chamber. They come in a wide variety of sizes and shapes. In the
chamber, the blades on the rotor shred the material and turn it into flakes or granules.
11.3 Unit Operations in Pre-processing 249

H. Other considerations in waste treatment or waste conditioning systems

The design of the waste treatment or waste conditioning systems needs to consider
several different aspects such as the following:
• Ingress of other types of materials such as metals, glass, and concrete in the waste
stream.
• The waste materials may have hazardous characteristics. They may be corrosive,
flammable, reactive, toxic, etc. The waste may have low flash point mearing
materials as well.
• The equipment needs to have proper consideration towards the ATEX require-
ments.
• Size reduction requirements for coarse and fine sizes. Shredding of plastic waste
or RDF to less than 50 mm size would be feasible with a slow-speed primary
shredder, whereas shredding the same to less than 30 mm may require high-speed
secondary shredder.
• Dust containment and removal system to avoid environmental pollution.
• Desired size fraction requires screening of the shredded mass and recycling the
oversize. This screening arrangement may be present in the shredder itself or may
require to be externally installed depending upon the design of the shredder.
• The portability of the shredder also could be an important consideration depending
upon the requirement. These can be truck-mounted as well.
The design of the treatment system needs to take into consideration the above-
mentioned aspects to have a smooth, trouble-free, and environmentally sound
operation (www.wasteconditioning.com).
Figure 11.5 provides a description of such a waste conditioning system designed
and supplied by Loesche GMBH. This system caters to the alternative fuel needs of
the cement and power industry as well as it facilitates the manufacture of high-quality
pellets for use in gasification plants producing diesel, methanol, or hydrogen.

11.3.2 Drying

Industrial dryers help in removing moisture present in different kinds of materials on

a large scale. Industrial dryers come in many different models depending upon the
type and quantity of material to be processed. The selection of the appropriate type
of dryer depends upon the factors such as the nature of the material to be dried, final
product quality requirements, volume of material to be dried, and available space for
installation.
The dryers are utilized to dry all three types of waste materials, viz., liquids,
solids, and sludges. The material to be dried includes aqueous waste streams, organic
liquids contaminated with moisture, plastics, combustible waste materials, industrial
hazardous and non-hazardous waste streams contaminated with moisture, municipal
solid waste, etc.
250 11 Pre-processing of Wastes into AFRs

Fig. 11.5 Waste Conditioning System offered by Loesche GMBH (www.loesche.com)

11.3 Unit Operations in Pre-processing 251

Drying requires various sources of energy. The thermal energy required for drying
is obtained from waste heat available in the plant or is generated using different fuel
sources. These fuel sources include fossil fuels such as coal, oil or gas, biomass other
alternative fuels, and solar energy.
The common types of industrial dryers utilized for the drying of various kinds of
liquid, solid, and sludges are fluidized bed dryers, rotary dryers, rolling bed dryers,
spray dryers, conduction dryers, convection dryers, etc. These are briefly described
below.
Figure 11.6 illustrates different kinds of dryers utilized for drying different kinds
of AFRs.
A. Fluidized Bed Dryers
A fluid bed dryer works on the principle of fluidization. In the fluidization drying
process, hot air or hot gas flow is flown through a perforated plate and introduced
through the bed of solid particulates that are supported onto the perforated plate. This
hot gas or hot air will move upwards through the spaces between the particles and as

Fluidized Bed Dryer Rotary Dryer

Rolling Bed Dryer Spray Dryer

Fig. 11.6 Different types of dryers utilized for drying AFRs

252 11 Pre-processing of Wastes into AFRs

the velocity of the gas is increased, the material gets fluidized after the drag forces
on the particles increase beyond the gravitational forces acting on the particles. The
particles at this gas-suspended stage get dried due to contact of hot gas with the wet
material.
The fluidized bed dryer can be a batch type or continuous type. Different waste
materials that can be dried in this type of dryer are industrial hazardous and non-
hazardous solids chunks and powders, wood and biomass, plastics, RDF, MSW,
etc.
B. Rotary Dryer
The rotary dryer works on the principle of heating the material that is rotating inside
the drum due to the rotation of the drum. The heating media utilized is hot gas or
hot air. This thermal energy utilized in the dryer can be waste heat or hot gas or air
generated using fossil fuels, alternative fuels, or regenerative heat sources such as
solar.
The rotary dryer is made up of a rotating drum, a drive mechanism, and a support
structure. The cylinder is inclined from the feed end to the discharge end. The material
to be dried enters the dryer and as the dryer rotates, is lifted by a series of flights
mounted on the inner wall of the dryer, and falls down. While the material is falling,
it comes in contact with the hot air and gets dried. Various materials that can be
dried using this dryer are industrial hazardous and non-hazardous solid chunks and
powders, wood and biomass, plastics, RDF, MSW, etc.
C. Rolling Bed Dryer
In a rolling bed dryer, the material is circulated and mixed by rotating paddles. The
drying air is supplied through a perforated plate. This dryer has combined features
of a fluidized bed and rotary dryer. These are often used for drying wood chips
and organic residues. These are used for drying biomass and recycling, and in the
manufacture of wood particle board, pellet, and biofuels.
D. Spray Dryers
Spray drying is a method of producing a dry powder from a liquid or slurry by
rapidly drying with a hot gas. The hot gas can be waste heat gas or heated air. If the
material to be dried has flammable content, then heated nitrogen also can be utilized.
Spray dryers use an atomizer or spray nozzle to spray the liquid or slurry. The most
common spray dryers are single effect ones. To overcome the dust and flow issues
of the powder, multiple effect spray dryers are utilized.
Industrial liquid waste streams, slurry waste streams, are generally dried in the
spray dryers.
E. Conduction Dryers
Conduction drying are contact dryers, and they are suitable for wet particles as
their thermal efficiency is higher. The evaporated water vapour or organic solvent is
extracted using vacuum. Vacuum operation is very useful in heat-sensitive granular
materials. Some of the important types of conduction dryers are the following:
11.3 Unit Operations in Pre-processing 253

(i) Hollow blade dryer;

(ii) Vacuum rake dryer;
(iii) Belt drier;
(iv) Drum scraper dryer;
(v) Double-cone rotary vacuum dryer.
The conduction dryers are used for pasty or heat-sensitive industrial
hazardous and non-hazardous materials.
F. Convection Dryer
The convection dryer consists of a moving perforated belt which is travelling inside
an enclosed casing. Material to be dried is dropped on this belt, and the hot gas
is passed through the belt and feed. The belt moves and a seal between the static
(stationary) and dynamic (moving) components contains the bed, preventing short-
circuiting of the carrier gas. The heat source, belt, drives, feeding mechanism, and
primary gas movers are installed in a frame, and the entire system is insulated.
Entry doors along the length and ends of the dryer provide access to the moving
components. Heat-sensitive industrial hazardous and non-hazardous materials can
be dried on the same.

11.3.3 Impregnation

In the impregnation process, the sludge or viscous material which is difficult to

transport using a pump or conveying equipment due to its sticky nature is made to
mix with dry organic or inorganic materials so that it loses its sticky nature and
becomes flowable.
Figure 11.7 depicts the impregnation process of the hydrocarbon sludge. In this
operation, sludge from drums is dropped into a pit containing dry powder. The
contents in the pit are thoroughly mixed using a mechanical device.
Depending upon the volume of material and the economics of the operation,
impregnation operation can also be implemented in a completely automated manner
through remote control.
The impregnation of sludges or pastes with dry materials can be carried out by
mixing these materials on the floor or in a pit. The mixing can be performed manu-
ally using different equipment such as a spade, payloader, and arm handler. After
achieving the desired level of mixing of the pasty material and the dry impregnation
material, this mixture is sent through other equipment such as extruder, blender, and
sieving to achieve AFR having uniform physico-chemical characteristics.
Sludges from the oil industry, tank bottom sludges, ETP sludges from chemical
industries, out of specification or out of date paints, oils, chocolates, juices and
other similar materials, distillation residue, failed batches of sticky materials, etc. are
impregnated using different impregnation materials such as sawdust, rice and other
husks, dry inorganic materials such as limestone powder, coal powder, raw meal of
cement process, ESP or baghouse dust, and other inorganic powdery materials.
254 11 Pre-processing of Wastes into AFRs

Fig. 11.7 Drums with hydrocarbon sludge are emptied in a mixing pit

11.3.4 Bailing

Bailing is an operation to densify the loose material to reduce its storage footprint
and transportation cost. A bailer converts loose material into blocks of different
geometry. Various kinds of manual, semi-automatic and automatic bailing machines
called bailers are available in the marketplace. The automatic bailing machines may
be driven electrically or hydraulically. Bailing machines are used for creating compact
bundles of materials such as paper, plastics, cardboards, tyres, metals, agro-waste,
processed waste, RDF, and dry MSW. Figure 11.8 shows a typical bailing machine.

11.3.5 Segregation

Segregation is a very important operation in segregating constituents present in MSW,

RDF, mix plastic waste, mix paper waste, e-waste, C&D waste, and other kinds
of wastes. A new approach which is gaining popularity is to engage robots in the
segregation process where robots can be programmed to segregate waste materials
based on the shape, weight, colour, appearance, text, logo, photo, etc., defining the
products.
Segregation of wastes into different constituents can be implemented in a manual
or automatic mode. These segregation processes are depicted in Figs. 11.9 and 11.10.
11.3 Unit Operations in Pre-processing 255

Fig. 11.8 Typical bailing machine

Fig. 11.9 Manual Sorting Process

A. Manual Segregation Process:

In manual segregation, the waste is segregated into different fractions by involving
manpower. To facilitate efficiency in this process, generally, a sorting conveyor is
implemented on which the material moves and during this movement, the waste of
different kinds is picked up by the engaged personnel.
256 11 Pre-processing of Wastes into AFRs

Fig. 11.10 Automatic sorting machine

B. Automatic segregation Process:

Automatic waste segregation machine makes use of a variety of sorting means to
separate organic matter, plastics, metal, bricks and stones, and other substances out
from the mixed waste to the maximum, to improve the reusing and recycling of
waste. At the same time, the separated waste materials can be further re-processed
into useful resources. So, the main purpose of the automatic waste sorter is reduction
processing and turning waste into treasure.
Various technologies get employed in the automatic segregation process by
utilizing different physical properties such as density, colour, shape, size, nature
of material, conductivity, and others.

11.3.6 Blending

Blending refers to the mixing of ingredients to achieve the desired property to the
mix. As elaborated in the introduction of this chapter, waste does not have any
quality consideration. It properly varies from source to source, time to time, lot
to lot, etc. When wastes must be utilized as resources, they need to have uniform
quality. To achieve uniform physical–chemical characteristics in the waste, it needs
to be processed by various pre-processing operations defined above. In addition
to implementing the above operations, for waste to have uniform characteristics,
necessary ingredient needs to be incorporated in the same. This objective is achieved
through blending.
Whether wastes are liquids, solids, or sludges, blending operation is very much
relevant for converting them into AFRs. Blending operation is carried out to
modify the calorific value, ash content, moisture content, chlorine content, and other
parameters of the wastes to the desired uniform level.
11.3 Unit Operations in Pre-processing 257

Blending operation is carried out in different modes. For example, in liquid

streams, blending is carried out in agitated tanks, for solids it is carried out in the
shredding operation, and in sludges it is carried out during the impregnation process.
To ensure uniformity in the processed waste stream, at least one lot is prepared and
kept ready for use and the other lots remain in preparation mode.
Various waste streams that are processed using blending are aqueous liquid
streams, organic liquid streams, RDF, plastic wastes, industrial hazardous wastes,
industrial non-hazardous wastes, agro-wastes, etc., and also a mix of all of these
different kinds of wastes.

11.4 Waste Acceptance Criteria

The following criteria need to be respected while accepting the waste streams for
pre-processing or co-processing:
a. They should not influence the cement quality in terms of setting times or the
early strength. (AFRs having phosphate levels higher than the prescribed limits.)
b. Their use in cement should not lead to leaching of the heavy metals from the
concrete. (AFRs having more heavy metals than clinker capacity to handle them.
Many countries prescribe the limits of different heavy metals in the AFR.)
c. They should not impact the emissions or cause damage to the environment.
(Materials containing Hg, hexavalent chromium, etc.)
d. They are safe to handle and process in the given facility. (AFRs having lower
flash point than the flash point for which the facility is designed.)
e. They do not impact the cement production process. (AFRs having a higher level
of chlorine, alkalis, or sulphur than the process can handle.)

11.5 Salient Features of the AFR Pre-processing Facility

The typical pre-processing platform suitable for the solids consists of the following
important features.

11.5.1 Entry Gate

The entry gate is provided to ensure that the material entering the pre-processing
facility is meeting the required statutory, commercial, environmental, safety, and
administrative protocols. These need to be checked before accepting the waste/AFR
inside the plant.
258 11 Pre-processing of Wastes into AFRs

Table 11.1 Parameters for testing AFRs

S. No. Parameter Remarks
1 Physical State Size
Solid Viscosity
Liquid Viscosity
Sludge
2 Proximate Analysis Moisture, Ash, Volatiles, Fixed Carbon
3 Ultimate Analysis Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Sulphur
Ash Composition CaO, SiO2, Al2O3, Fe2O3, K2O, Na2O, MgO, P2O5, etc.
Net Calorific Value (NCV) Kcal/kg, MJ/Kg
Density Kg/m3
Halogens Chlorine, Bromine, Fluorine
Flash Point Deg. C
Heavy Metals Sb, As, PB, CO, Cr, Cu, Mn, Ni, V, Cd, Hg, Tl, Zn, Be

11.5.2 Weigh Bridge

Weigh bridge is desired to ascertain the weight of the incoming and outgoing material.

11.5.3 Laboratory

The laboratory is implemented to evaluate the quality of the incoming wastes, inter-
mediately processed materials, and fully processed AFRs. The instruments and equip-
ment required for the assessment of the materials depend upon the nature of the
incoming material, intermediately processed material, and fully processed AFRs.
The various parameters that need to be analysed are provided in Table 11.1.
Also, when AFRs/waste streams are received at the plant, their acceptance based
on fingerprint analysis or detailed analysis also is required to be carried out.
It is also important to find out the solvents in which they are miscible such as oil,
solvents, and water. Based on the properties of the AFRs and the prescribed limits
of the relevant constituents, it is desired that their minimum, maximum, and average
feasibility of co-processing are estimated and kept ready.

11.5.4 Storage Shed

Storage shed for appropriate storage of incoming material, intermediately processed

material, and fully processed AFRs.
11.5 Salient Features of the AFR Pre-processing Facility 259

11.5.5 Pre-processing Plant and Machinery

Pre-processing plant and machinery consists of different plants and machinery

designed and implemented to process the defined waste streams into AFR. It also
contains the equipment required to handle, move, and transport the waste materials,
intermediate materials as well as the processed AFRs. The design of the entire plant
and machinery for pre-processing would depend upon the physico-chemical nature
of the waste material (LafargeHolcim & GIZ, 2020).
A. Solid Wastes
The plant and machinery required for pre-processing of solid wastes consists of
a properly sized shredder. For removing ferrous metals a magnetic separator and
for non-ferrous metals, an eddy current separator are used. The inert materials are
removed by implementing the pneumatic separation facility, and oversized materials
are removed by screening through an appropriate screening arrangement. Oversized
material is sent for recycling back to the shredder.
The solid waste streams can also be utilized for impregnation purposes depending
upon their characteristics. Sawdust, rice husk, other biomasses, spend carbon, paper
waste, cloth waste, etc. are examples of the same.

B. Liquid Wastes

The plant and machinery for pre-processing of liquids consists of an agitated tank
with a screening arrangement of the coarse and fine particles. Before feeding the
new liquid stream in the tank, a compatibility test is carried to check whether a new
volume is compatible to mix in the existing liquid stream present in the agitated tank.

C. Wastes Sludges

The plant and machinery for pre-processing of sludges consists of a floor or pit-based
impregnation arrangement. The mixing of the sludge with dry material is made using
an appropriate tool and then is passed through suitable mixing equipment.
Sludge wastes can also be mixed with liquid wastes to reduce their viscosity and
fed as liquid AFRs by pumping them using suitable pumps.
Sludge wastes can also be pumped directly into the kiln inlet or riser duct using
a concrete-type pump.
Pre-processing facilities facilitate the conversion of different quality wastes into
uniform quality material that can be fed smoothly in the kiln system. Therefore,
these facilities must be able to accept wastes in different packaging types and handle
different kinds of wastes having varying properties. The facilities should be able to
convert different wastes into AFRs that can be fed through the available feed points.
It is important to ensure that the facility is designed in such a way that it can expand
its capacity smoothly in the future.
260 11 Pre-processing of Wastes into AFRs

11.5.6 Environmental and Safety Provisions

As wastes are handled in the pre-processing facility, several environmental and safety
precautions need to be considered depending upon the nature of the material. They
are deliberated below.
A. Environmental Provisions
Volatile organic carbon emissions, floor seepage of hazardous or non-hazardous
waste streams, and odour are the three important environmental considerations that
need to be addressed while designing the facility.

B. VOC emissions

To deal with the VOC emissions, these may be exhausted from the facility, and
then they are either thermally destroyed or catalytically destroyed or adsorbed on a
suitable adsorbing media such as activated carbon. If the pre-processing facility is
installed within the cement plant, then these exhaust gases can be diverted into the
kiln.

C. Floor spillages of the waste streams

They need to be managed by having an impervious floor in the facility so as to avoid

its seepage in the soil and groundwater. The impervious floor can be achieved by
installing a geopolymer membrane below the concrete flooring. Further, the facility
needs to have a proper drainage system to divert the seepages into a containment
tank for subsequent treatment through a suitable technology.

D. Odour Control
Most of the waste materials have an undesired odour which causes substantial concern
to the employees and the surrounding community. The VOC emission control may
reduce the intensity of the odour but to improve the situation further, there are two
more technology options. The first one is the use of fragrance spray in the premises
and the second is the use of adsorbing sheets installed in the direction of the wind so
that the VOC emissions are adsorbed onto these sheets.

E. Safety Provisions

Exposure to toxic materials, runaway reactions due to incompatible materials, fire

and explosion due to various reasons such as flammability of the materials, low
flash point-bearing materials, inappropriate design of the machinery and electrical
facilities from ATEX considerations, etc. To deal with this situation, the following
considerations need to be considered.
11.6 Other Pre-processing Options 261

F. Equipment design

The equipment needs to be certified to the prevailing ATEX conditions in the facility.

G. Exposure to toxic materials

Proper exposure protection needs to be ensured using appropriately selected personal

protective equipment (PPEs).

H. Runaway reactions due to incompatible materials

The compatibility study of the different materials needs to be properly

studied/understood and the incompatible materials need to be stored away from
each other to avoid their contact. The storage of the material needs to be properly
designed in the pre-processing facility accordingly.

I. Electrical system design

The design of the electrical infrastructure in the pre-processing facility must meet the
compliance requirements depending upon the hazard characteristics of the materials
handled in the facility.

J. Fire prevention and control

The facility needs to be equipped with appropriate fire prevention and control arrange-
ments to deal with the fire in case it unfortunately occurs. The design of the same
must comply with the local statutory requirements. If relevant, to deal with the
contaminated used firewater, the same needs to be collected in a pond for subsequent
evaluation and treatment. One of the most appropriate options for managing the
floor spillages and contaminated firewater is to dispose of it in cement kiln through
co-processing.

11.6 Other Pre-processing Options

Instead of pre-processing the waste streams in a pre-processing facility using various

unit operations mentioned above, it may be feasible to implement options of treating
the waste streams in external combustors, pyrolysis units, and gasifiers. In these
operations, the waste gets combusted into this treatment equipment and the hot gases
then enter the kiln. These treatment facilities are reasonably fine for lump fuels. They
help to control the chlorine and ash content—present in waste streams—getting into
the kiln and causing problems.
262 11 Pre-processing of Wastes into AFRs

11.7 Production of Alternative Fuels by Pre-processing

and Supply to Cement Plants

For successful pre-processing, it is important to have the analysis of the physico-

chemical characteristics of all the waste streams available in the stores. The cement
kiln requires AFR to have certain desired characteristics. AFR having such desired
characteristics is produced by utilizing a mix of these waste streams in defined
proportions and utilizing different waste treatment technologies that are illustrated
above.
While arriving at the desired proportion mix, the solid, sludge, and liquid AFRs
need to be properly configured and they need to be pre-processed accordingly and
blended to arrive at the final AFR mix that meets the acceptable AFR quality as
desired by the cement kiln. For this, therefore, the solid, sludge, and liquid AFRs
need to be suitably pre-processed by utilizing different technologies as defined above.
11.7.1 Many of the waste management companies pre-process hazardous and non-
hazardous wastes into alternative fuels and supply them to cement indus-
tries. Pre-processing of wastes into alternative fuels is practiced successfully
in many different countries and large-scale production of alternative fuels is
carried out. The alternative fuels are produced in both liquid and solid states
and co-processed by cement plants. In India also, this trend has started and
a few of the waste management companies are converting wastes into AFRs
and providing the same to cement kilns for co-processing.
11.7.2 Figure 11.11 provides a typical demonstration of the AFRs being supplied
by Green Gene Enviro Protection & Infrastructure Ltd. (GEPIL), India,
which is a large supplier of pre-processed AFRs (www.gepil.in).
Figure 11.12 provides details of another supplier of pre-processed alterna-
tive fuels—BEIL Infrastructure Ltd. from India who are also the suppliers of
pre-processed AFRs in India.

11.8 Pre-processing of Different Kinds of Wastes into AFRs

The following flow sheets and deliberations provide inputs on the design and imple-
mentation of the pre-processing systems for solid wastes, liquid wastes, and waste
sludges.
11.8 Pre-processing of Different Kinds of Wastes into AFRs 263

Fig. 11.11 Supply of Pre-processed Alternative Fuels by GGEPIL, India

11.8.1 Pre-processing of Solid Wastes

Pre-processing of solid wastes is carried out by implementing unit operations such

as blending, segregation, shredding, and drying. A typical flow sheet of this system
is provided in Fig. 11.10.
Pre-processing of solid wastes consists of the following steps:
• The first step is to test the inbound material received from the market and accept
it for storing in the storage shed based on the results of the evaluation.
• Different materials having different physico-chemical properties are stored
separately.
• The composition of the batch mix of different solid waste streams available in
the stores to achieve the desired uniform characteristics of the AFR, based on the
characteristics of the individual streams, is determined.
• Then the shredding operation is started, and the waste materials are fed in the
hopper of the shredder as per the batch mix composition using a payloader.
• The output of the shredder then is conveyed to a wind sifter. While this conveying
is in progress, the metal detector and the eddy current separator remove the ferrous
and non-ferrous metal fractions from the shredded material.
264 11 Pre-processing of Wastes into AFRs

Fig. 11.12 Supply of pre-processed Alternative Fuels by BEIL, India (www.beil.co.in)

• Subsequently, the wind separator segregates heavy fraction such as stones and
grit from the light combustible material.
• The light combustible material is then screened on a police screen to segregate
the desired size fraction and the oversize fraction.
• Desired size fraction of the shredded material is then stored in the form of a heap.
From this heap, prepared AFR material is sampled and tested to confirm that the
desired characteristics are met.
• In case the same are not met, then the necessary corrective materials are added to
this AFR material in the heap and blended properly using the payloader. Subse-
quently, the ready AFR material is shifted to the outbound storage area for sending
for co-processing.
• The oversize fraction from the police screen is sent back to the shredder using the
oversize return conveyor.

Pre-processing of Liquid Wastes

Pre-processing liquid wastes are carried out by implementing unit operations of
blending. A typical flow sheet of the same is provided in Fig. 11.13.
Figure 11.14 depicts the pre-processing aspects related to liquid wastes.
The following are the various steps involved in the pre-processing of the liquid
wastes.
11.8 Pre-processing of Different Kinds of Wastes into AFRs 265

Fig. 11.13 Typical flow sheet for the pre-processing of solid wastes

• Liquid pre-processing facility consists of installation of different storage tanks

with appropriate unloading pumps as shown in Fig. 11.15. For storing the waste,
which is in the form of a slurry, an agitated tank is provided.
• The required safety systems are provided on the respective tanks depending upon
the physico-chemical characteristics of the waste streams.
• Whenever a new tanker of liquid waste is received, its nature and characteristics
are evaluated by carrying out the relevant laboratory tests.
• Based on the characteristics, the tank to which this tanker has to be unloaded is
decided.
• Once the tank to move the new material is finalized, a sample of the material from
that tank is taken and a compatibility test of the new material received in the plant
266 11 Pre-processing of Wastes into AFRs

Fig. 11.14 Typical flow sheet for the pre-processing of liquid wastes
11.8 Pre-processing of Different Kinds of Wastes into AFRs 267

Fig. 11.15 Container arrangement for sludges

along with the old material present in the tank is carried out using the defined
procedure.
• After it is confirmed that the material to be added to the tank is compatible with
the one stored in the tank, then the new received material is unloaded in that tank
using the unloading pump.
• In case the waste is in the form of a slurry, then the same is stored in an agitated
tank.
• When the liquid streams are required to be co-processed, depending upon their
compatibility, two or more waste streams from different tanks can be mixed in
line and sent to the calciner or main burner for co-processing.

11.8.2 Pre-processing of Sludges

The following are the various steps involved in the pre-processing of the sludges.
The sludge waste is transported in drums or different kinds of containers as shown
in Fig 11.15.
Pre-processing sludges is carried out by implementing unit operations of
impregnation, blending, etc. A typical flow sheet is provided in Fig 11.16.
• Sludge pre-processing facility consists of installation for mixing of the sludge with
a dry powdery material such as sawdust, rice husk, other biomasses, limestone
powder, raw meal, and ESP or baghouse dust.
• After receipt of this sludge at the plant, it is tested for the required properties and
is then shifted to the stores.
• The sludge present in drums or the containers is then dropped in a pit or a sludge
mixer.
• Required quantity of compatible dry powder is then dropped in the pit or the
mixer. These dry powders can be sawdust, rice husk, and other biomass powders
that can be procured from the market. These can also be limestone powder,
raw meal powder or ESP/baghouse dust, etc., which is available in the cement
manufacturing plant.
• The sludge and dry powder are thoroughly mixed to make the sludge non-sticky
and hence flowable. This process is called impregnation.
• The impregnated sludge prepared as above is then tested for its characteristics
and sent to a storage shed.
268 11 Pre-processing of Wastes into AFRs

Fig. 11.16 Typical flow sheet for Pre-processing of Pasty Wastes

The pre-processing facility is designed as per the specification of the waste mate-
rials to be handled, stored, and pre-processed. These are designed and supplied by
different pre-processing system suppliers.
Figure 11.17 provides a view of the pre-processing facility supplied by Sanghavi
Engineering Pvt. Limited, India.

11.9 Management of Drums and Other Packaging Types

The various packaging in which AFRs will get received in the pre-processing
facility/co-processing facility would be dependent upon the type of AFR. These
are listed in Table 11.2.
The wastes/AFRs being brought in these packaging could be hazardous or non-
hazardous in nature. In the case of plastic or cloth-type packaging, irrespective of the
contamination with hazardous or non-hazardous material, the same can be shredded
to an acceptable size and sent to the cement kiln for co-processing.
The metal drums that contained non-hazardous material can be vacuum emptied
and reused for storing similar materials or can be sent to the scrap dealer.
In case the contamination is hazardous in nature, then the same needs to be sent
to an authorized drum treatment facility as such or after pressing them hydraulically.
11.10 Conclusion 269

Fig. 11.17 Pre-processing facility by M/s Sanghavi Engineering Pvt. Ltd., India

Table 11.2 Types of packaging of waste/AFR materials

Solid Plastic or cloth bags of different sizes, loose, etc.
Liquid Plastic cans of different sizes, plastic drums of 200 lit capacity, metal drums of 200 lit
capacity, 1000 lit intermediate bulk container, truck-based tankers
Sludge Plastic drums 200 lit, metal drums 200 lit, sludge containers

11.10 Conclusion

Pre-processing of wastes into AFRs is an important consideration in achieving

successful co-processing of AFRs. Wastes, by their very definition, do not have
any quality consideration. They have lot to lot variation in their physical and chem-
ical characteristics. If such wastes are fed into the kiln in the same manner as they
are available, they cause disturbance in the kiln process impacting product quality
as well as performance parameters of the kiln. Hence, wastes need to be processed
to achieve uniform physical and chemical characteristics. This processing involves
several unit operations depending upon the nature of wastes. These unit opera-
tions include blending, shredding, drying, impregnation, size separation, segregation,
bailing, etc. This chapter has evaluated various aspects associated with pre-processing
of wastes into AFRs.
270 11 Pre-processing of Wastes into AFRs

References

LafargeHolcim & GIZ. (2020). Guidelines on Pre and Co-processing of waste in cement production.
www.gepil.in
www.beil.co.in
www.loesche.com
www.wasteconditioning.com
Chapter 12
Operational Considerations
in Co-processing

12.1 Introduction

Cement kiln co-processing operation is required to respect and deal with various
concerns that are encountered while undertaking co-processing. These concerns
are related to various aspects such as sustainability, legal, environmental, tech-
nical, quality, health and safety, transparency in communication, etc. These concerns
need to be addressed through appropriate operational assessments, procedures, and
practices. The same are discussed in detail below.

12.2 Operational Guidelines for Co-processing

Following are the various operational considerations that need to be taken into
account while undertaking co-processing in cement kilns.

12.2.1 Sustainability

It is important that co-processing respects the waste management hierarchy and

it should not hamper the waste reduction efforts. Hence, waste should not be co-
processed if ecologically and economically better ways of treatment are available.

12.2.2 Legal Aspects

Co-processing shall be carried out in line with the legally binding manner so as to
assure a high level of environmental protection. It is important, therefore, to identify

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 271
S. K. Ghosh et al., Sustainable Management of Wastes Through Co-processing,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-6073-3_12
272 12 Operational Considerations in Co-processing

all relevant laws, regulations, standards, and company policies relating to safety,
health, environment, and quality control. Appropriate equipment and/or management
procedures need to be put in place to ensure complete compliance with them. All
employees and contractors need to be made aware of the relevant laws, regulations,
and standards, and also made to understand their responsibilities under them.

12.2.3 Acceptance Process of Wastes and AFRs

Operators should develop appropriate acceptance procedures for wastes and AFRs.
This must include the following:
• Quality assessment of the waste materials and AFRs available from agencies with
due consideration to the chlorine, sulphur and alkali content, phosphate content,
water content, heat value, ash content, heavy metals content, volatile content, etc.,
along with an assessment of their impact on clinker and cement quality.
• Waste safety assessment with data sheets documenting the chemical and physical
properties, health, safety and environmental considerations to be followed during
sourcing, transportation, handling, storage, pre-processing, and co-processing.
Understanding of the PPE.

12.2.4 Manpower

Adequate number of manpower and skills are required for safe and successful co-
processing operation. An appropriate process needs to be in place for their training
and retraining.

12.2.5 Operation and Management

Appropriate manuals and SOPs for the operations and management of the pre and
co-processing facility. Different kinds of wastes and AFRs needs to be properly
documented and put in practice. The linkages related to co-processing operations
and kiln start up, shut down, upsets, etc., are properly documented and put in place.

12.2.6 Emergency Management

Use of wastes and AFRs may raise many emergency situations. To deal with these
situations, it is important to keep ready an Emergency Management Plan and a
well-trained response team.
12.2 Operational Guidelines for Co-processing 273

12.2.7 External Communications

Co-processing of waste and AFRs require that a strong Stake Holder Engagement
Plan is put in place to ensure that the community is aligned and engaged to co-
processing and it happens in a smooth manner.

12.2.8 Design Considerations

The design of equipment, systems, and facility has to be compatible with the material
characteristics so that the desired level of success is achieved in co-processing the
same without any untoward impact on the environment. It is also important to keep
their documentation revised and up-to-date.

12.2.9 Material Receipt and Storage

Following are the important aspects that need to be ensured while receiving and
storing the waste and AFR materials:
i. All the materials are received based on the permits granted by the relevant
authorities.
ii. All the received materials are properly evaluated for their physico-chemical
characteristics.
iii. The storage of material should ensure that incompatible materials are kept
separately and securely.
iv. The storage facility is adequately designed to deal with the spillage, fire, dust,
odour, and other similar risks that are encountered due to the storage of waste
and AFR materials.
v. The responsible personnel is properly trained to deal with the above defined
risk factors and also the emergency situations.

12.2.10 Material Handling and Feeding Systems

The material handling & feeding systems have to be compatible with the physico-
chemical characteristics of the waste and AFR materials. While designing these
systems, it is important to consider all the risks such as fugitive emissions, odour,
health and safety issues, etc. The personnel handling these systems need to be trained
properly in all the relevant aspects of the materials and also the equipment. They
should also be trained in dealing with the emergency processes.
274 12 Operational Considerations in Co-processing

12.2.11 Material of Non-Compliant Deliveries

There should be a written procedure to deal with the material that is non-compliant
with the agreed specifications and is also shared with the suppliers. Where ever
relevant, the communication with respect to rejection of non-compliant material
needs to be sent across to the relevant authority. In case required, there has to be a
procedure in place to send it for alternative treatment option in case it is not feasible
to return the same back to the waste generator.

12.2.12 Quality Control

A proper procedure must be defined for ensuring quality control of all the materials
received, pre-processed or produced at the facility. This procedure includes detailed
instructions pertaining to the following:
• Sampling & analysis,
• frequency of sampling,
• laboratory protocols and standards,
• Analysis, calibration procedures, and maintenance,
• recording and reporting protocols.
An adequately designed laboratory facility must be in place with the required
infrastructure and testing equipment. It should be operated by adequately trained
personnel.

12.2.13 Process Control for AFRs

AFRs need to have a constant quality and feed rate so as to ensure smooth kiln
operation as well as good product quality. It is important, therefore, to monitor inputs,
processes, products, and emissions, so that proper operation of the kiln is maintained.
The kiln emissions need to be monitored online. Many countries including India have
mandated the installation of Continuous Emission Monitoring System (CEMS) on
the kiln stacks and hooking them to the server of the pollution control boards. It is
also important to ensure that proper controls are exercised to achieve good control
over the kiln process. AFRs are not to be co-processed during start up, shut down,
when the temperature in the kiln is not at the operating levels, and when the emission
monitoring system is not operating. The kiln operators need to be trained to operate
kilns while co-processing of AFRs in a gradual manner.
12.2 Operational Guidelines for Co-processing 275

12.2.14 Management of the Co-processing Activity

The facility must have written procedures and instructions for unloading, handling,
storage of the materials at the site. All the personnel must be adequately trained in their
respective trades and skills. The facility is operated in such a manner that there are no
concerns pertaining to HSE and Quality of the products. The routes for the entry and
exit vehicles are properly defined, appropriate signages are placed around the facility
and also near the stored materials. The selection of feed point for co-processing of
waste material or AFRs needs to be done based on the nature of the material and also as
per the statutory mandates if any. Materials having chlorine content > 1% are desired
to be co-processed through the main burner to avoid the formation of toxic compounds
such as Dioxins/Furans. Safety, process, fire, emergency, and all statutory audits are
conducted regularly at the facility to ensure preparedness. Security monitoring at the
facility is also an important consideration so as to ensure avoidance of unnecessary
trespassing of outside people. Appropriate communication with the community on
the ongoing co-processing operations at the plant is also an important consideration
that needs to be carried out through well-designed communication plan. Engagement
with the community in the waste and AFR activity is an important way to align it
towards co-processing. Procurement of non-cattle feed biomass, plastic & other non-
recyclable combustible waste materials from the community in a business mode is a
very powerful tool to build a strong bond with the stakeholders.

12.3 Technical Considerations for Successful Co-processing

The chemistry of the wastes and AFR materials is different in some respects than the
conventional natural materials. For example, wastes will have higher quantities of
Sulphur, chlorine, phosphorous, heavy metals, minor elements, alkalis, other oxides,
etc. Also, their physical characteristics are totally different than the conventional
materials. Hence, we tend to observe new and different issues while co-processing
the AFRs. It is important, therefore, to take cognizance of the physico-chemical
characteristics of waste and AFR materials. Accordingly, it is required to design the
co-processing operation and monitor and control relevant parameters to the desired
levels to achieve successful co-processing. These aspects are illustrated below.

12.3.1 Raw Mix Design

Raw mix design is a critical step in the manufacture of Cement. To achieve the
desired quality of cement, it is necessary to have appropriate proportioning of the
raw materials used in the cement process. For the raw material proportioning to be
276 12 Operational Considerations in Co-processing

appropriate, their accurate chemical analysis is very critical. While carrying out the
raw mix design, the ash analysis of the fossil fuel is also considered appropriately.
When AFR is utilized to substitute the fossil fuel or fossil raw material, its ash
analysis is also very important—especially when the proportion of AFR utilization
(TSR%) is high and increasing. Generally, AFR is prepared by pre-processing many
different waste streams. Hence, the design of AFR mix needs to be carried out by
using a detailed analysis of the different waste streams being part of the AFR mix.
Subsequently, the detailed analysis of the AFR is utilized in designing the raw mix
in cement manufacture.
For achieving the desired quality cement and also a stable process operation, a
certain raw mix formulation is designed and implemented. It is important to note that
the same raw mix design needs to be achieved even after incorporating AFR in the
fuel mix. Hence, this step needs to be added to the routine raw mix design process
and followed.

12.3.2 Alkalis, SO3 , and Chloride Balance

Alkalis, chlorine, and sulphur reduce kiln efficiency in the cement industry. Their
compounds like alkali chlorides, alkali sulphates, calcium sulphates, etc., are ther-
mally unstable at high temperatures and they get vaporized or decomposed. These
volatilized compounds condense back in the preheater system and return with the
solids to high-temperature zones. The continuous volatilization–condensation reac-
tions cause cycling and also create coatings of these compounds. The stability of the
kiln process gets reduced in the process and causes kiln stoppages. To avoid such
consequences, it is important to monitor the alkalis, chlorine, and sulphur levels in
the hot meal sample on a frequent basis. This frequency of monitoring depends upon
the extent of impact imparted by these constituents on the cement manufacturing
process.
There are two different criteria with which the impact of alkalis, chlorine, and
sulphur can be evaluated. The first one is the concentration of chlorine and SO3 in
the hot meal and the other is measuring the alkali sulphur balance in the hot meal.
i. A/S Ratio:
The following equation is used to evaluate the alkali/sulphur (A/S) ratio (CII, 2010).

{(K2 O/94) + (Na2 O/62) − (Cl/71)}

A/S = .
S03/80

It is desired to control the same between 0.8 and 1.2. A/S values above or below
this range require a high level of operating controls.
Alkali chlorides are far more volatile than alkali sulphates and recirculate within
the kiln. Hence, in the hot meal sample, K2 O or Na2 O tied up with the chlorides
are not considered in the A/S ratio calculation. The hot meal A/S ratio predicts the
12.3 Technical Considerations for Successful Co-processing 277

likelihood of alkali or sulphur related build-ups in the kiln inlet. A high A/S ratio
indicates the portion of the alkalis which do not combine with SO3 and recirculate in
the kiln. This provides increased potential for the formation of rings and preheater
build-ups. A sudden decrease in the A/S ratio indicates a lack of oxygen in the kiln
end causing sulphur build-ups.
If alkalis are very high and are not balanced by sulphur, they will continue to recir-
culate within the kiln/preheater system, this increases the possibility of the formation
of kiln rings and preheater build-ups. The same impact is seen when sulphur is high
and is not balanced by alkalis. Excess sulphur in the hot meal can also form sulpho-
spurrite (2(CaO) SiO2 CaS04 ). It forms exceedingly hard and dense build-ups. Clinker
quality would also suffer because sulphur which is not combined with alkalis forms
a solid solution with the silicate minerals. These results increase the C2S content and
decrease in C3S content in the clinker, thereby reducing the cement strength.
ii. Chlorine & SO3 Concentration:
Figure 12.1 graphically illustrates the methodology of assessing the impact on the
kiln process by evaluating the concentration of chlorine and SO3 in the hot meal
(Montes de Oca & Forinton, 2010).
It is desired to control the concentration of chlorine and SO3 in the hot meal in the
ranges provided in Fig. 12.1 to ensure that the coating issues are avoided. Chloride
will combine with all of the alkalis present in the kiln forming alkali chlorides if the
same is very high in concentration. It will, therefore, keep recirculating in the kiln
with increased possibilities of build-ups in the preheater. The remaining chloride
will form CaCl2 by combining with CaO. CaCl2 has a very low melting point (770–
780°C). This makes the hot meal very “sticky” at these temperature levels. This
sticky material, therefore, increases the possibility of build-ups at the higher end of
the preheater. Chlorides also form eutectic mixtures when they react with sulphates

Fig. 12.1 Guideline for identifying the critical concentration of Chlorine and SO3
278 12 Operational Considerations in Co-processing

of potassium, sodium, calcium, and magnesium. These eutectic mixtures have lower
melting points than that of the pure compounds. This further increases the likely
hood of rings and build-up formations.
It is important to understand that it is possible to deal with the values of A/S
ratio that are substantially higher or lower than those mentioned above and also the
Chlorine and SO3 concentration that are way higher than those depicted in Fig. 12.1
as safe to operate. For operating kiln in these conditions, various other techniques
are employed which include incorporation of meal curtain, installation of mechan-
ical hammers to dislodge the coating, employing advanced features of kiln process
control, etc.

12.3.3 Chlorine Limits in Clinker

The control of chlorine content in clinker is an important parameter to achieve smooth

operation of the kiln for clinker manufacture. In the earlier days, these limits were
getting defined based on the presence of chlorine content in the raw material. The
conventional norm for chlorine limit in clinker is 300 g/T of Clinker. Hence, it is
important to monitor the Chlorine coming from RM, conventional fuel, and also AFR,
so that the chlorine in the kiln system is controlled at the set limit. Hence, monitoring
of the same in these materials on a regular basis is an important requirement. The
monitoring of chlorine in the hot meal also is critical as mentioned in the earlier
section above.
It should be noted that the kiln can be run at higher chlorine contents than the
limit of 300 gm/T cl. However, as mentioned in the earlier section, additional and
specific measures are required to be implemented to mitigate the impact of higher
chlorine content on the kiln process.
Figure 12.2 provides a case study of dealing with higher levels of Chlorine and SO3
(Lowes & de Souza, 2017). When the chlorine quantum rises beyond the acceptable
limits, then a chlorine by-pass needs to be installed to remove the chlorine from the
system. The chlorine by-pass consists of removing a part of the gases.

12.3.4 Fuel Mix Design

Several waste materials are used in the kiln to manufacture the clinker. The chemical
characteristics of all these waste materials are substantially different from one another
as well as may contain constituents at levels that may not be acceptable in the process.
Further, AFR, which is prepared by pre-processing all different kinds of waste mate-
rials, must meet certain input standards so as to achieve desired quality clinker.
Hence, the AFR chemistry must be compatible with the chemistry of the raw mate-
rials and the conventional fossil fuel that is used in the plant. The various parameters
associated with the acceptance criteria of the AFR include calorific value, moisture
12.3 Technical Considerations for Successful Co-processing 279

Fig. 12.2 Operations with additional quantum of Chlorine and SO3

content, ash content, chloride content, phosphorous content, Sulphur content, ash
constituents, heavy metals, etc. It is desired, therefore, that the AFR mix is designed
appropriately by taking into consideration various available waste materials into an
appropriate AFR mix having desired properties. Subsequently, the design of the Fuel
mix is carried out by taking into consideration the properties of the AFR.

12.3.5 Burner Momentum

Experience has shown that the burner’s firing wastes and AFRs require higher
momentum than the burner firing normal fossil fuels. It describes the efficiency
of the burner to mix the hot secondary air at about 100 °C with the cold (ambient)
primary air. The primary air is added to the process at high pressure and velocity
(150–250 m/s). There are two kinds of momentum—radial and axial. The burner
momentum is a sum of both. Burner momentum is measured as N/MW. It is calculated
using the following equation:

(M) × (V ) kg m 1 N
Momentum (I) = = ,
H sec sec M W MW

where M is the Primary air mass flow rate (kg/sec), V is the velocity of air at the
burner tip (m / sec) and H is the thermal energy input (MW).
The burner momentum is required to be optimized to an appropriate value
to fire AFRs depending upon their burnability characteristics. Typically, a burner
momentum of 6–8 N/MW may be good enough for the pulverized coal and the same
would be in the range of 9–12 N/MW for some of the AFRs such as plastic waste,
Dried Sewage Sludge, other pre-processed AFRs, etc.
280 12 Operational Considerations in Co-processing

12.3.6 Odour Control

We encounter many issues while handling, pre-processing, and co-processing Wastes

and AFRs. One of the major issues is odour and it needs to be managed appropriately
because it is a big irritation concern to different stakeholders such as employees,
community, plant visitors, etc. Major factors relevant to odour nuisance are the
following:
• Offensiveness,
• Duration of exposure,
• Frequency of odour occurrence,
• Tolerance and expectation of the receptor.
In many cases, the community tends to forcefully stop the plant activities from
which the odour is emanating. Hence, appropriate intervention is required to control
the odour.
There are different technologies that can be implemented for odour control
(CPCB, 2008).

A. Odour Control from Area Sources

For large area sources following methods can be used to reduce odour complaints:
i. Avoiding development of community close to the site and development of green
belt in the in-between zone
ii. Use of atomizers that can spray ultra-fine particles of water or fragrances or
chemicals along the boundary lines of the area to suppress odours.

B. Odour Control from Point Sources

The point source odour causing gas stream can be treated using different technologies
such as mist formation, thermal oxidation, catalytic oxidation, biofiltration, adsorp-
tion, wet scrubbing, chemical treatment, masking, condensation, etc. In the context
of pre-processing of wastes into AFRs and co-processing of waste /AFRs, some of
them are more appropriate and are discussed below.
i. Pre-processing facility located far away from cement plant:
Following technologies can be implemented in pre-processing facilities:
Misting Systems:
High-pressure fog systems can be installed by adding nozzle rings on the
pipework that is installed along the inside periphery of the pre-processing
facility. Appropriate odour control blends are added to the water supply system
and then pressurized into a fine fog. The released fog along with the odour
control blend neutralizes the odour in the facility. It is important to ensure that
the fog does not produce wetness on equipment, people, or the floor.
Catalytic or Thermal Oxidation:
The gases from the pre-processing facility can be exhausted using properly
designed ducts and fans and these gases are then sent through an oxidation
12.3 Technical Considerations for Successful Co-processing 281

system that is catalytic of thermal so that the odour causing gases are completely
combusted, thereby treating the odour issue.
Adsorption on Activated Carbon:
The gases from the pre-processing facility exhausted using ducts and fan are sent
through an activated carbon-based adsorption system wherein odour causing
gases are picked up and clean air is released. The activated carbon adsorbed
with odour causing chemicals can then be taken out and sent for co-processing.
Absorption on Zeolite based Mesh:
Mesh that has a coating of zeolites have the capability of absorbing the odour
causing chemicals. This mesh can be installed inside the pre-processing facility
in the direction of the wind. The mesh picks up the odour causing compounds
and reduces the odour issue faced in the facility. After certain time, when their
absorption capability reduces, this mesh can then be washed with a spray of
water. This water needs to be sent for the effluent treatment or can be co-
processed inside the kiln. (Please refer Chap. 10 for more details).
ii. Pre-processing or co-processing facilities located within the cement plant:
The odour control technologies of misting system, catalytic or thermal oxida-
tion, and the technologies of adsorption on activated carbon or zeolite-based
mesh mentioned in the earlier section can be implemented at locations where
pre-processing or co-processing facility is set up within the cement plant.
Further, another very powerful technology option available in this case is the use
of the high temperature available in the kiln system to combust the odour-causing
compounds. For this, the exhausted gases from the pre-processing and/or co-
processing facility are sent into the hot gas zone of the kiln system where the
odour compounds present in it get fully combusted and mitigate the odour issue.

12.3.7 Occupational Health Hazards and Safety Aspects

Waste materials may include both hazardous and non-hazardous materials derived
from Municipal, Industrial and Agricultural sectors. AFR pre-processing and co-
processing facility handles hundreds of tonnes of many chemicals. They may come
at different frequencies, in different packaging sizes, etc. Further, these wastes do
not have properly designed Materials Safety Data Sheets (MSDS). AFR is derived
from wastes, and hence its every receipt must be assessed based on a standard format
for each of the supplies of materials from each of the new and existing vendors.
The safe management of waste/AFR has to be embedded into the system right at
the initial stage and health and safety aspects need to be designed into the system at
the planning stage itself. Following are some of the important considerations:
A. Safety information on the waste/AFR materials

i. Collate relevant safety information by interacting with the waste generator.

ii. Interact with the doctor affiliated to the waste generating agency for any
additional relevant information.
282 12 Operational Considerations in Co-processing

iii. Obtain a broad idea about the manufacturing process in which waste is
generated along with major raw materials utilized.
iv. Try to gather safety-related information about the waste stream, raw materials,
and manufacturing process from the literature sources.
v. Obtain information on the safe practices and PPEs employed by the waste
generating agency.
vi. Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) is generally not available for the
AFR/waste streams. It is very useful to utilize AFR/Waste profile sheet provided
in Annexure 13 of Guidelines published by GIZ/LafargeHolcim to collate the
safety data of each of the waste streams (LH-GIZ, 2020).

B. Implementing pre-processing and co-processing facility

i. While designing equipment, system and facility take into consideration the
waste/AFR-related safety data sheet.
ii. Procure equipment and systems meeting the required safety standards of the
wastes/AFRs to be handled/processed in them.
iii. Install proper Fire detection and control system, Electrical and Instrumentation
system, and spill control mechanism.
iv. Ensure that the floor is made impervious with the proper concreting arrange-
ment and with geopolymer if hazardous and other chemicals are going to be
handled in the facility.
v. Ensure that all statutory and safety provisions are made while implementing
the systems and facility.

C. Operation and management of the facility

i. Carry out a proper risk assessment of handling, storage, and processing of the
waste/AFR material in the facility by conducting HAZOP.
ii. Use appropriate PPEs while operating the facility.
iii. Train all the manpower at the facility in the safety monitoring and control
system.
iv. Ensure that fire safety drills are conducted regularly in the facility.
v. Implement regular fire safety audits.
vi. Prepare and maintain up-to-date the Emergency Response Plan.

D. Aspects related to health and Safety of the operating personnel

The personnel operating in the pre-processing and co-processing facilities need to be

made fully aware of the health and safety aspects related to the wastes and they also
need to be trained on mitigating concerns associated with them. The data compiled
in the AFR/waste profile sheet referred to in the heading “A” above can facilitate this
process to desired satisfaction level.
All the personnel operating in the pre-processing and co-processing facilities
need to be tested for their fitness for the job as per the applicable statutory guidelines
defined by the applicable authorities. This evaluation requires medical investigation
12.3 Technical Considerations for Successful Co-processing 283

of the operating personnel including some of the specifically mandated pathological

tests. In India, currently, the same is required to be carried out every six months.
Care is required to be taken to ensure that the contamination of wastes to the clothes
of the workers is safely contained and treated. For this, a washing arrangement needs
to be set up at the facility and the wash water is required to be sent to the effluent
treatment facility.
It is also important that the food and other eatables of the workers are not contam-
inated with wastes. For this, by design, segregation of the workplace and canteen is
ensured and proper hygiene practices mandated.

12.4 Conclusions

Pre-processing and co-processing of wastes raises many operational issues, and

they need to be tackled well to be successfully able to achieve the desired level
of AFR utilization in cement clinker manufacture. These include concerns related
to sustainability, statutory, quality variation in wastes, manpower and their skills,
process emergencies, stakeholder engagement, design considerations, receipt and
storage of AFRs, handling and feeding systems, receipt of non-compliant materials,
quality control, process control, various technical considerations, etc. These concerns
need to be mitigated and it can be seen from the above deliberations that there
are appropriate technology and other options available to successfully implement
co-processing successfully, smoothly, and safely.

References

CII-Godrej GBC. (2010). Cement Formulae Handbook published by CII-Sohrabji Godrej Green
Business Centre.
CPCB. (2008). Guidelines on odour pollution & control published by CPCB, May 2008. Retrieved
from http://www.espair.co.in/download/odor/cpcb-guideline-odor-management.pdf
LafargeHolcim/GIZ. (2020). Guidelines on Pre & Co-processing of wastes in Cement production,
Annexure 13, pp. 119–122.
Lowes, T., & de Souza, J. B. (2017). Preventing Build-ups and rings. International Cement Review,
78–83.
Montes de Oca, P., & Forinton, J. (2010). Preheater Blockages Event: Ficem-APCAC Technical
Conference, Montego Bay, Jamaica. Retrieved September 08 2010, https://www.ficem.org/mul
timedia/2010/tecnico10/19_Jonathan_Forinton_ATEC.pdf
 Part VI
Co-processing: Business Models, Case
Studies, Global Scenario, Growth
and Advocacy
Chapter 13
Case Studies and Business Models in Pre
and Co-processing

13.1 Introduction

Utilization of different kinds of wastes as Alternative Fuels and Raw Materials (AFR)
is implemented successfully by many cement plants in many different countries. This
practice is in operation for more than the last four decades. In almost all the cement
plants, it is practiced as a business initiative. The major business principle employed
by the cement plants while undertaking co-processing is that the use of wastes as
AFRs must reduce their cost of production. This reduction in the production cost of
clinker is the driver of this waste management business initiative. The production
cost can be reduced by reducing the variable cost of production. There are different
business models that get employed while implementing co-processing in cement kilns
based on several appropriate parameters. It was very interesting to note that for many
years, some of the plants in Europe had a negative variable cost of production. The
various economic considerations put forward in the following sections will illustrate
the salient features of the AFR business models in detail.

13.2 Economic Parameters Utilized in Co-processing

Business

For ensuring a sustainable business model, the project feasibility needs to be looked
into. There are a number of parameters that need to be assessed to develop effective
and sustainable business models. This section will discuss the economic parameters.
Such as: Production Cost of Clinker manufacture which is broken down into several
related parameters, Transport costs, Gate/Tipping Fee, Price of AFR, Savings from
the use of AFR, Cost of the Pre-processing facility, and Cost of the Co-processing
facility. These parameters will be described in the following subsections.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 287
S. K. Ghosh et al., Sustainable Management of Wastes Through Co-processing,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-6073-3_13
288 13 Case Studies and Business Models in Pre and Co-processing

13.2.1 Production Cost of Clinker Manufacture

This cost is the sum of variable cost and the fixed costs incurred in the production of
clinker.
A. Variable cost of Clinker Production:

Variable costs are linked to the volume of production and varies accordingly. Lower
the production volume lower are the variable costs and vice versa. In clinker produc-
tion, these refer to the costs of raw materials, fuels, electricity utilized, and transport
cost incurred for sending the material to the market etc.
B. Fixed costs in Clinker Production:

Fixed costs are independent of the volume of production and remain the same irre-
spective of the volume of production. In clinker production, these refer to the costs
of manpower, rent, interest, depreciation, advertisement, other overheads, etc.
III. Raw material Costs:

These relate to the procurement price of raw materials such as Limestone, Iron ore,
Bauxite, Clays, etc. These are procured based on the price per tonne of the relevant
constituent. For example, if the Iron content in Iron ore is 60%, then while determining
the price of iron ore, this 60% iron content is taken into consideration.
IV. Fuel costs:

Fuel costs are related to the energy content present in the fuel. For example, if the
calorific value of one fuel is 5000 Kcal/Kg and the same is priced at USD 70/T, then
the fuel having a lower Calorific value than 5000 Kcal/Kg will get sold at lower price
and fuel having a calorific value higher than 5000 Kcal/Kg will attract higher price.
E. Electricity costs:

These relate to the cost of electricity utilized in clinker production. For example, if 25
KWh of electricity is utilized for the production of 1 T of clinker, then the electricity
cost will be the purchase cost of 25 KWh of electricity.

13.2.2 Transport Costs

These relate to the distance of travel, waiting time, loading–unloading times, etc. For
example, if the transport distance is 100 km, then the transport cost will be accounted
based on 100 km of travel of the vehicle, waiting time and the time & effort required
to load, unload, etc. The costing for the transport gets worked out on USD/T/Km
basis taking into consideration all the costs as mentioned.
13.2 Economic Parameters Utilized in Co-processing Business 289

13.2.3 Gate/Tipping Fee

Gate fee or Tipping fee is the amount waste generator pays to the agency that manages
its waste as per the acceptable norm. This is a service fee charged by the waste
management agency to the waste generator. This is represented as USD/T of the
waste.

13.2.4 Price of AFR

It is the amount that the agency that owns the AFR, charges to the agency that wants
to purchase it. It is represented in USD/T of AFR. If it is an Alternative Fuel, it will
get linked to the calorific value and if it is an alternative raw material, then it gets
linked to the specific raw material content in the AFR.

13.2.5 Savings from Use of AFR

It is the savings benefit that the cement plant will be deriving by replacing natural
fuels and raw materials with AFR. It is represented as USD/T or USD/1000 kcal.

13.2.6 Cost of the Pre-processing Facility

The cost of the fully constructed pre-processing facility includes the costs of land,
civil and structural works, process equipment and machinery, laboratory, mate-
rial handling equipment, firefighting, and environmental control facilities, etc. It
is represented in USD.

13.2.7 Cost of the Co-processing Facility

The cost of the fully constructed co-processing facility includes the costs of land,
civil and structural works, process equipment and machinery, laboratory, mate-
rial handling equipment, firefighting, and environmental control facilities, etc. It
is represented in USD.
290 13 Case Studies and Business Models in Pre and Co-processing

13.3 Principles of AFR Business

The AFR Business consists of the following considerations.

Waste materials do not have any defined quality or market acceptability. Hence,
they do not get sold in the marketplace. They need to be disposed or sustainably
managed as per the direction given under the rules. Both options require money to
be spent.
Following are typical examples of some of such wastes:
• ETP sludges from chemical or other industries.
• Distillation residues from chemical and other industries.
• Date expired medicines, pesticides, banned products, etc.
• Date expired FMCG products, Chocolates, Juices, food items, seeds, etc.
These wastes used to be sent for landfill or incineration earlier for disposal and now
they are sent to cement kiln for co-processing for managing them in a sustainable
manner. Before sending them for co-processing, they need to be processed into
resources which are called as AFRs. This operation is called as pre-processing of
wastes into AFRs.
Some waste streams have uniform quality such as Rice husk and other biomasses
and they can be utilized as resources (AFR) as such in cement kilns. They do not need
any specific processing. Wastes of this kind attract price in the market for utilization.
The difference between wastes and resources is clearly visible in Fig. 13.1.
1.Resource
Co-processing of AFRs in cement kiln requires setting up of appropriate facilities
for pre-processing and co-processing which calls for investment and operational

T guqwteg

Fig. 13.1 Illustration of wastes and resource

13.3 Principles of AFR Business 291

cost. Hence, AFR co-processing must be based on an appropriate business model

that provides a decent investment return to the cement plant.

13.4 Concepts Related to Costs, Prices and Viability of Use

of AFRs

Waste is a liability, and hence its impact on environment, safety requirements, and
economy of use needs to be evaluated. To assess the impact on the environment and
safety aspects, the cost implications associated with the required protection measures
need to be analyzed. To understand the impact on the economy of use, the likely
monetary benefit that they will bring to the cement plant needs to be evaluated.
Following are the various concepts related to price cost, and viability of the use
of AFRs:

13.4.1 Cost of Natural Raw Material

These costs are the used costs of the raw materials in the cement manufacture.

13.4.2 Cost of Natural Fuel

These costs are the fired cost of the natural fuel in the cement manufacture.

13.4.3 Operation and Management Cost

This includes the cost towards electricity, manpower, diesel for material handling
equipment, safety and environment control, testing and quality control, maintenance
costs of equipment and facility, including interest and depreciation, etc.
292 13 Case Studies and Business Models in Pre and Co-processing

A. Pre-processing cost:

This cost pertains to the operation and management of pre-processing of wastes into
AFRs. In case this pre-processing is carried out in the cement plant, then the relevant
cost towards this activity also needs to be accounted for in the viability assessment
of the use of AFRs in the cement plant.
B. Co-processing Cost:

This cost pertains to the operation and management of co-processing facility through
which the AFRs are fed into the cement kiln via calciner or kiln inlet or main burner
or mid kiln option.

13.4.4 Resource Replacement Cost

AFR may replace fuel or raw material and hence it is called as Alternative Fuel
(AF) or Alternative Raw material (AR). The contribution that AF or AR will make
in the cement plant economics depends upon the resource replacement cost. As an
example, in cement manufacture, AFR may replace coal or AFR may replace raw
material. This replacement cost needs to be calculated suitably.
Typical costing examples of co-processing AFR as replacement of coal and
replacement of Iron ore are illustrated in Tables 13.1 and 13.2, respectively. The
cost of the fuel is always represented as USD per 1000 kcal or USD Per Kilo Joules
and the cost of raw material as USD Per Tonne.
I. AFR replacing Coal

In Table 13.1, a typical example of estimating the maximum price of AFR at which
it can substitute coal is explained.

Table 13.1 Typical example—AFR replacing coal

S. No Parameter Value
1 As fired cost of Coal USD 0.014 per 1000 kcal
2 Maximum payment that cement plant can make for AFR USD 0.014 per 1000 kcal
3 NCV of AFR 3000 (Kcal / Kg)
4 Maximum price that cement plant can pay for the ready to USD 42 / T
fire AFRs
The actual payment that the cement plant would be making for the Alternative Fuels will be lower
than this number. This is because it has to take into account the operational cost of co-processing,
interest, and depreciation charges of the facility, impact of moisture, ash and burnability of the AFR
on production, etc.
13.4 Concepts Related to Costs, Prices, and Viability of Use of AFRs 293

Table 13.2 Typical example—AFR replacing Iron ore

S. No Parameter Value
1 Iron content in Iron ore 60%
2 As used cost of Iron ore USD 14 / T Iron ore
3 Cost of Iron (=14 / 0.6) USD 23.2 / T Iron
4 Iron content in AFR 75%
5 Maximum price feasible for AFR (=23.2*0.75) USD 17.4 / T AFR
In the case of Alternative Raw materials also, the actual payment that the cement plant would be
lower than this number

II. AFR replacing Iron Ore

In Table 13.2, a typical example of estimating the maximum price of AFR is explained
at which it can substitute existing natural Iron source.

III. Treatment cost of hazardous or non-hazardous wastes by landfill or incineration

options

Management of Industrial hazardous and non-hazardous wastes needs to be carried

out as per the processes defined in the rules and regulations. Prior to the hazardous and
other waste management Rules, 2016, in India, the prescribed options were landfill
and incineration. In the HOWM Rules, 2016 notified by Government of India, co-
processing was incorporated as an option for the management of hazardous and
non-hazardous wastes.
The cost incurred by the waste generator for the management of waste through
the alternative treatment option of landfill or incineration is an important parameter
for defining the costs related to the co-processing option. The waste generator would
be more inclined to opt for co-processing if the cost of co-processing is cheaper than
the other alternative options of landfill and incineration options.
This cost concept is illustrated for the incineration and landfill options in
Tables 13.3 and 13.4, respectively.
IV. Delivered cost of biomass/agro-waste at the cement plant

The biomass is generated in the grain processing or food processing plants and the
agro-waste gets generated during farming or agricultural activities. Biomass such as
rice husk, Bagasse, sawdust, etc., is fairly uniform in quality and can be fed without
any additional processing, and hence its price comparison tends to happen in the
marketplace with that of the fossil fuel. There would be some cost implications on
account of moisture content, requirement of shredding, etc., which will have to be
considered by the cement plant.
Table 13.5 illustrates the price of Biomass that gets assessed as acceptable at the
cement plant.
294 13 Case Studies and Business Models in Pre and Co-processing

Table 13.3 Typical example—Treatment cost for the option of Incineration

S. No Parameter Value
1 Name of the waste requiring incineration option (CV = > Distillation Residue
2500 kcal /Kg)
2 Existing treatment option for disposal Incineration
3 Existing treatment cost of disposal USD 208 / T waste
Hence, if the co-processing cost is lower than USD 208/T of Distillation Residue, then the waste
generator would be having an incentive to opt for co-processing

Table 13.4 Typical example—Treatment cost for the option of landfill

S. No Parameter Value
1 Waste generated by Industry (CV = < 2500 Cal / gm) ETP Sludge
2 Existing treatment option for disposal Secured Landfill
3 Secured Landfill cost USD 42 / T of waste
Hence, if the co-processing cost is lower than USD 42/T of ETP sludge, then the waste generator
would be having an incentive to opt for co-processing. Co-processing of the waste helps the waste
generator to achieve zero-landfill status. This also acts as an incentive for the waste generator

Table 13.5 Typical example—Sourcing of Biomass

S. No Parameter Value
1 Cost of coal (From Table 13.1) USD 0.014/1000 kcal
2 Maximum payment that cement plant can make for receiving USD 0.014/1000 kcal
Biomass at its plant
3 Net Calorific Value of Biomass 3000 kcal/kg
4 Maximum acceptable Price of Biomass delivered at cement USD 42/T Biomass
plant
The actual price paid by the cement plant would be lower and depend upon the cost implications
on account of shredding required, moisture removal, etc

V. Delivered cost of SCF/RDF at the cement plant

SCF is an un-processed Segregated Combustible Fraction derived out of dry MSW. It

has no uniform quality or size fraction. Its uniform Net Calorific Value (NCV) would
be < 2000 kcal/Kg. RDF is a processed AFR. It is derived out of a dry combustible
fraction of MSW meeting uniform quality and standard size acceptable by the cement
plant. Generally, RDF has NCV of less than 4500 kcal/Kg. SCF does not have any size
specifications. RDF has a size specification of < 75 mm or < 50 mm or < 30 mm, etc.
13.4 Concepts Related to Costs, Prices, and Viability of Use of AFRs 295

Table 13.6 Typical example—Sourcing of SCF / RDF

S. Parameter Value
No
1 Cost of coal (From Table 13.1) USD 0.014/1000 kcal
Maximum price that cement plant will make for receiving SCF or USD 0.014/1000 kcal
RDF at its plant (From Table 13.5)
2 Maximum average NCV of SCF 2000 kcal/Kg
4 Maximum price at which SCF would be sourced by cement plant USD 28/T SCFa
5 Max NCV of processed RDF 4500 kcal/kg
6 Maximum price at which RDF would be sourced by cement plant USD 62.5/T RDFb
a The price of SCF workable to cement plant would be in the range of 25% to 40% of this price. This

reduction level in price depends upon the cost that the cement plant will have to incur to improve its
quality to the desired level and also the impact that moisture, ash, Chlorine content, and burnability
of SCF will have on the clinker process and production.
b The price of RDF would be about 50% to 70% of this cost. This reduction level in price depends

upon the cost that the cement plant will have to incur to improve its quality to the desired level
and also the impact that moisture, ash, Chlorine content, and burnability of RDF will have on the
clinker process and production.

Typically, smaller size (say shredded to < 30 mm) SCF or RDF attract higher price
than the larger size materials depending upon their NCV.
Table 13.6 illustrates the typical maximum pricing of SCF/RDF at which it will
get received at the cement plant.
VI. Viability of using AFR in the cement plant

AFR is utilized in the cement plant for replacing the fossil Raw materials and Fuels
that are extracted from nature by mining. These include fuels such as coal, lignite,
oil, gas, etc., and raw materials such as limestone, iron ore, bauxite, clay, etc. While
the use of AFRs will be replacing the natural materials, the same will be workable
only when the cost of AFR is lesser than that of natural materials. Further, to process
wastes into AFR and feed AFR into the cement kiln, additional infrastructure is
required at the cement plant which will be requiring capital expenditure to install it
and operating expenditure to run it.
The saving that the cement plant will be making by using AFR at the plant will
have to provide adequate returns on the investment made by the cement plant. If these
returns are acceptable to the cement plant, then the use of the AFR is considered as
viable and the business model is considered as acceptable. Each organization will
have its own methodology and parameters for this kind of evaluation and acceptance.
The basic parameters in such viability calculations are the price of the materials,
the cost of operations and the investments made, and payback period or return on
investment are the guiding factors. Usually, a payback period of less than 5 years
is considered as a viable proposition. Of course, there could be some additional
considerations that cement plant will have to take into consideration depending upon
the government mandates or organizational policies.
296 13 Case Studies and Business Models in Pre and Co-processing

The various costs/prices considered in the analysis in this chapter are typically
Indian and prevailing as of 2021.

13.5 Business Models with Pre-processing

and Co-processing

Co-processing requires feeding the AFR materials in the cement kiln through
calciner, kiln inlet, or main burner. Depending upon the capacity of co-processing,
an elementary manual system or a standard mechanized system is implemented.
Generally, the manual arrangement is ok for co-processing <2 TPH of AFR, and
a mechanized system would be required for capacity >2 TPD. The pre-processing
facility is generally required when the desired TSR% is >3% depending upon the
quality variation in the waste streams.
Following Six types of facilities are considered for illustrating the different
business models:
1. Elementary Co-processing Facility for Solid AFRs,
2. Elementary Pre-processing & Co-processing Facility for Solid AFRs,
3. Mechanized co-processing Facility for solid AFRs,
4. Mechanized Pre-processing Facility for Solid AFRs,
5. Co-processing facility for liquid AFRs,
6. Co-processing of Alternative Raw material through Raw meal.
The different business models are described below. In the analysis of the business
model assessment, viability based on the price of materials and costs of operation
is considered for illustration purposes. Detailed evaluations can be made by the
organizations based on the prevailing organizational practices and governmental
statutes.

13.5.1 Business Model—Elementary Co-processing Facility

for Solid AFRs

The co-processing facility consists of a covered shed to store the received processed
AFR and a payloader to handle and transport it. This processed AFR is then conveyed
up to the calciner floor using a winch-based system having a capacity of about 2 TPH.
The AFR is fed into the calciner using a double flap valve and shut gate assembly.
A laboratory facility is created to analyze the properties of the received AFR. Basic
firefighting facility is also considered as implemented.
The typical costs of such a facility along with the various items present in it are
provided in Table 13.7.
13.5 Business Models with Pre-processing and Co-processing 297

Table 13.7 Typical cost of an elementary co-processing facility

S. No Item Capacity Cost in USD
1 Double flap valve & shut gate 200 M3/Hr 2,80,000
2 Pay loader ~5 TPH 42,000
3 Storage shed <300 M2 70,000
4 Winch based conveyor ~2 TPH 42,000
5 E&I & Firefighting As required 70,000
6 Laboratory As required 70,000
7 Structural work As required 42,000
Total 6,16,000

I. Example—Co-processing of Biomass:

Biomasses are excellent alternative fuels for co-processing in cement kilns. Being
reasonably uniform in quality, safe to use, and easy to procure, these AFRs are utilized
by many agencies that utilize fossil fuels such as cement plants, power plants, brick
kilns, steam boilers, etc.
These materials, being in demand, get sold at a decent price in the marketplace.
Cement plants can directly feed them in the kiln through calciner. They can also be
co-processed through the main burner if they are shredded finer in size. The price of
these materials is close to that of the fossil fuel and the viability of their use depends
upon the availability in the surrounding region because the transportation cost has to
be reasonably less so as to make the delivered price acceptable at the cement plant.
Biomasses are carbon neutral, and hence are very useful in reducing the carbon
footprint of the cement plant. The best option for the cement plant is to create a
cooperative society of the farmers located within a reasonable distance of the plant
and obtain the biomass produced by them at a price workable for both.
II. Business Model of co-processing:

Figure 13.2 depicts the business model of co-processing of biomass.

III. Salient Features of the Business Model:

Biomass

Co-processing Cement Plant

Fig. 13.2 Business model for Co-processing of Biomass/Agro-wastes

298 13 Case Studies and Business Models in Pre and Co-processing

Table 13.8 Salient Features of business model for co-processing of Biomass

S. No Parameter Value
1 Investment in co-processing facility (Table 13.7) USD 616,000
2 Cost of coal (From Table 13.1) USD 0.014 / 1000 kcal
3 Negotiated price of biomass (Assumed) USD 27 / T
5 Co-processing cost (Typical) USD 0.28 / T
6 Total cost USD 29.9 / T
8 NCV of Biomass 3000 kcal / Kg
4 Total cost of biomass co-processing USD 0.01 / 1000 kcal
7 Savings benefit of using biomass (0.014–0.01) USD 0.004 / 1000 kcal
9 Biomass used per day 40 TPD
10 Biomass used per year (300 day / year) 12,000 Tons per year
11 Total energy from biomass 36,000,000,000 kcal
12 Savings benefit derived by using Biomass USD 142,800 per year
13 Payback Period of investment 4.31 years

Table 13.8 provides the salient features of this business model with typical values
for the co-processing of biomass using the elementary co-processing facility.

13.5.2 Business Model—Elementary Pre-processing

and Co-processing Facility for Solid AFRs

This pre-processing facility consists of a shredder installed in a storage shed. This

shed stores the incoming and processed AFR. A pay loader is used for handling
and transport of incoming and processed materials. A laboratory facility is created
to prepare the solid sample & to evaluate its basic properties. A basic firefighting
facility is also considered as installed in the facility.
The typical costs of the various items in such a facility are provided in Table 13.9

I. Example—Co-processing of RDF prepared from SCF:

The Segregated Combustible Fraction (SCF) from MSW is available from the
following sources:
i. Integrated MSW management sites of the towns and cities.
ii. Dry waste segregation taking place at the MRFs set up in the towns and cities.
iii. Dump-yard remediation activities are being implemented in the towns and
cities.
These different sources are depicted in Fig. 13.3.
It is desired that the SCF generating cities and towns are in the close vicinity of
the cement plant so as to receive the same at a reasonably lesser cost.
13.5 Business Models with Pre-processing and Co-processing 299

Table 13.9 Typical cost of an Elementary Pre-processing and Co-processing facility

S. No Item Capacity Cost in USD
1 Double flap valve & shut gate 200 M3/Hr 280,000
2 Shredder (Indian) ~5 TPH 84,000
3 Pay loader / forklift ~5 TPH 42,000
4 Storage shed <300 M2 70,000
5 Winch based conveyor ~2 TPH 42,000
6 E&I & Firefighting As required 98,000
7 Laboratory As required 98,000
8 Structural work As required 42,000
9 Total 756,000

Segregation Plant Inert

Segregated
Combustible
Fraction

Dry
MSW
D
Sorting

Compost /
Wet Biogas
MSW W

Fig. 13.3 SCF generation in towns and cities

As SCF is a mix of many materials, it does not have desired uniform characteristics
for use as Alternative Fuel in the cement plant. SCF is, therefore, required to be pre-
processed in a pre-processing facility into RDF before sending the same to the kiln
for co-processing. In the pre-processing facility, the material is blended to achieve
desired quality consideration and is shredded then to the desired size fraction. The
pre-processing of SCF to RDF of desired quality can be set up by a third-party agency
or the same can be done by a cement plant as well.
II. Business Model of Elementary Pre-processing and co-processing:

The business model for use of SCF/RDF in cement kilns is depicted in Fig. 13.4.
300 13 Case Studies and Business Models in Pre and Co-processing

SCF from MSW

Pre-processing Third Party / Cement

RDF for co-

processing

Co-processing Cement Plant

Fig. 13.4 Business model for Co-processing of SCF / RDF from MSW

III. Salient Features of the Business Model:

Table 13.10 provides the salient features of this business model with typical values
for the co-processing of RDF prepared from SCF in a facility having pre-processing
and co-processing facilities.

Table 13.10 Salient features of the business model for pre-processing SCF/Co-processing of RDF
S. No Parameter Value
1 Investment in pre & co-processing facility (Table 13.9) USD 756,000
2 Cost of coal (From Table 13.1) USD 0.014 / 1000 kcal
3 Negotiated price of SCF (Assumed) USD 10.5 / T SCF
4 Yield of RDF from SCF 60%
5 Price of SCF in terms of RDF (=10.5 / 0.6) USD 17.5 / T RDF
6 Pre-processing cost USD 4.2 / T RDF
7 Co-processing cost (Typical) USD 2.8 / T RDF
8 Total cost USD 24.5 / T RDF
9 NCV of RDF 3000 kcal / Kg
10 Total cost of RDF co-processing USD 0.008 / 1000 kcal
11 Savings benefit of using RDF (0.014–0.008) USD 0.006 / 1000 kcal
12 RDF used per day 30 TPD
13 RDF used per year (300 day / year) 9000 Tons per year
14 Total energy from RDF 27,000,000,000 kcal
15 Savings benefit derived by using RDF USD 162,000 per year
16 Payback Period of investment 4.8 years
13.5 Business Models with Pre-processing and Co-processing 301

13.5.3 Business Model—Mechanized Co-processing Facility

The mechanized co-processing facility consists of the shed to store the received
pre-processed AFR and a payloader to handle and transport it. This pre-processed
AFR is then conveyed up to the calciner floor using a long belt conveyor. Dosing
to the conveyor is done by using walking floor and weigh feeder. The system has
an operating capacity of about > 20 TPH. The AFR is fed into the calciner using a
double flap valve and shut gate valve. A laboratory facility is created to analyze the
properties of the received AFRs in detail. An appropriate firefighting facility is also
implemented.
The typical costs of the various items in such a facility are provided in Table
13.11.

I. Example—Co-processing of a Mix of different kinds of Solid Processed AFRs:

It is possible to obtain the pre-processed AFRs of different kinds and blend them at
the cement plant and co-process them. These include pre-processed hazardous solid
wastes, pre-processed non-hazardous solid wastes, tyre chips, RDF meeting desired
physico-chemical characteristics, and biomass.
The industrial hazardous wastes consist of distillation residue, ETP sludges,
failed batches, chemical sludges, used catalysts, etc. Industrial non-hazardous wastes
consist of expired FMCG, food and beverage products, date expired seeds, ETP from
water treatment plants, etc. These materials need to be disposed of by incineration or
landfill options which cost a reasonable money. If co-processing is feasible at prices
cheaper than the same, then it is a win–win solution for both wastes generating
industry and the cement plants.
Here the cement plant gets paid for the service extended by him for managing
the waste sustainably in the cement kiln. This service fee depends upon several

Table 13.11 Typical cost of a Mechanized Co-processing facility

S. No Item Capacity Cost in USD
1 Double flap valve & shut gate 200 M3/Hr 280,000
2 Pay loader (2 nos) >20 TPH 105,000
3 Storage shed <2000 M2 420,000
4 Long belt conveyor (>250 M) >20 TPH 350,000
5 Walking floor >20 TPH 280,000
6 Weigh Feeder >20 TPH 28,000
7 Short belt conveyor (<8 M) >20 TPH 7,000
5 E&I & firefighting As required 140,000
6 Laboratory As required 98,000
7 Structural work As required 210,000
Total 1,918,000
302 13 Case Studies and Business Models in Pre and Co-processing

factors such as the constituents present in the waste material, its storage, handling
and processing complexity, etc. But for the business model to work, it needs to be
lower than the existing cost of disposal incurred by the waste generator. These waste
streams are pre-processed into uniform materials by the waste management agencies
or the same can be done by the cement plant as well.
The tyre chips are available in many countries derived out of used tyres. They
may be available in the country or may be imported. The cost depends upon several
factors. In some countries, the tyre chips get paid or delivered free at the cement
plant, and in some other countries they may be available for a price like any other
waste materials.
The SCF is generally available from the material recovery facilities or integrated
MSW management facilities or dump yard remedying processes. These need to be
properly segregated by removing the inert and recyclable materials and then treated
by shredding and blending process to achieve RDF having desired size and fuel
properties. This processing of SCF into RDF can be done by third parties or the
cement plant. The price of RDF depends upon the price of coal at the cement plant.
Biomass can be obtained from the grain or food processing industries or from
agricultural activity. This needs to be shredded to a certain acceptable size before
using it in the cement plant. This processing can be done by a third-party agency or
can be done by the cement plant. The price of the shredded biomass depends upon
the cost of coal at the cement plant.
In this business model, the pre-processing of hazardous wastes, Non-hazardous
wastes, shredding of tyres, Processing of SCF into RDF is carried out by third parties
and delivered at the cement plants. This is then blended in the cement plant in a
certain ratio and sent to the calciner for co-processing using walking floor and long
belt conveyor.

II. Business Model of Mechanized Co-processing Facility:

The business model co-processing mix of processed AFRs is depicted in Fig. 13.5.

III. Salient Features of the Business Model:

Table 13.12 provides the salient features of the business model of the mechanized
co-processing facility in which a mix of different AFRs pre-processed by different
agencies is co-processed.
Table 13.13 provides the calculation of the average NCV and price of the AFR
mix consisting of different waste streams.
Table 13.14 provides the salient features of this business model with typical values
for the co-processing of AFR mix.
13.5 Business Models with Pre-processing and Co-processing 303

SCF from
Biomass MSW Used
Tires
Non-Hazardous Hazardous
industrial Wastes industrial Wastes

Pre- Pre- Pre- Pre-

Third processing processing processing processing
Party
Agencies

AFRs
Cement
Co-processing Plant

Fig. 13.5 Business model for Co-processing of Mix of processed AFRs

Table 13.12 Data pertaining to constituents in AFR mix

S. No Parameter Value
1 Negotiated price of RDF (Assumed) USD 29.4 / T RDF
2 NCV of RDF 3000 kcal / Kg
3 Quantity of RDF co-processed 80 TPD
4 Negotiated price of Biomass (Assumed) USD 33.6 / T Biomass
5 NCV of Biomass 3000 kcal / Kg
6 Quantity of Biomass co-processed 60 TPD
7 Price of tyres chips (Assumed) USD 84 / T Tyre Chips
8 NCV of Tyre chips 7500 kcal / Kg
9 Quantity of Tyre chips co-processed 20 TPD
10 Negotiated Price of Processed Non- hazardous waste (-ve) 7 / T NHW
11 NCV of NHW 2000 kcal / Kg
12 Quantity of NHW co-processed 30 TPD
13 Negotiated Price of Processed hazardous waste (-ve) 14 / T NHW
14 NCV of HW 4000 kcal / Kg
15 Quantity of HW co-processed 10 TPD
16 Average price of blended AFR USD 28.49 / T AFR
17 Average NCV of AFR 3350 kcal / Kg
18 Total AFR co-processed 200 TPD
304 13 Case Studies and Business Models in Pre and Co-processing

Table 13.13 Calculation of weighted average Price and NCV of AFR mix
AFR TPD % Mix NCV Wtd. Av. USD/T Wtd. Av.
(%) NCV Price
RDF 80 40.0 3000 1200 29.4 11.76
Biomass 60 30.0 3000 900 33.6 10.08
Tyre Chips 20 10.0 7500 750 84 8.4
Processed NHW 30 15.0 2000 300 −7 −1.05
Processed HW 10 5.0 4000 200 −14 −0.7
Total 200 100.0 Average 3350 Average 28.49
NCV Price

Table 13.14 Salient Features of the business model for Co-processing of AFR Mix
S. No Parameter Value
1 Investment in co-processing facility (Table 13.11) USD 1,918,000
2 Cost of coal (From Table 13.1) USD 0.014 / 1000 kcal
3 Negotiated price of AFR Mix (From Table 13.16) USD 28.49 / T
5 Co-processing cost (Typical) USD 4.2 / T
6 Total cost USD 32.69 / T
8 NCV of AFR Mix 3350 kcal / Kg
4 Total cost of AFR Mix co-processing USD 0.0.0098 / 1000 kcal
7 Savings benefit of using AFR mix (0.014–0,0098) USD 0.0042 / 1000 kcal
9 AFR Mix used per day 200 TPD
10 AFR Mix used per year (300 day / year) 60,000 Tons per year
11 Total energy from AFR Mix 201,00,00,00,000 kcal
12 Savings benefit derived by using AFR Mix USD 852,600 per year
13 Payback Period of investment 2.25 years

13.5.4 Business Model—Mechanized Pre-processing

and Co-processing Facility

The mechanized pre-processing facility consists of a heavy-duty shredder installed

in a storage shed. It also has pits to impregnate hazardous pasty wastes. The impreg-
nation is carried out by blending the same with materials like sawdust. This shed
stores the incoming waste materials and the processed AFR. A payloader is used for
handling and transport of incoming and processed materials. The mechanized co-
processing facility consists of conveying the pre-processed AFR up to the calciner
floor using a long belt conveyor. Dosing to the conveyor is done by using walking
floor and weigh feeder. The system has an operating capacity of > 20 TPH. The
processed AFR is fed into the calciner using a double flap valve and shut gate valve.
A laboratory facility is created to analyze the properties of the received wastes and the
13.5 Business Models with Pre-processing and Co-processing 305

processed AFRs in detail. An appropriate firefighting facility is also implemented.

The typical costs of the various items in such a facility are provided in Table 13.15.

Table 13.15 Typical cost of a Mechanized Pre-processing and Co-processing facility

S. No Item Capacity Cost in USD
1 Shredder (European) >20 TPH 840,000
2 Pay loader (2 nos) >20 TPH 105,000
3 Storage shed <2000 M2 420,000
4 Double flap valve & shut gate 200 M3/Hr 280,000
5 Long belt conveyor (>250 M) >20 TPH 350,000
6 Walking floor >20 TPH 280,000
7 Weigh Feeder >20 TPH 28,000
8 Short belt conveyor (<8 M) >20 TPH 7,000
9 E&I & Firefighting As required 350,000
10 Laboratory As required 210,000
11 Structural Work As required 210,000
12 Total 3,080,000

Table 13.16 Data pertaining to constituents in the waste mix

S. No Parameter Value
1 Negotiated price of Pasty waste (Assumed) -USD 42 / T
2 NCV of Pasty waste 5000 kcal / Kg
3 Quantity of pasty waste used 40 TPD
4 Negotiated price of Saw dust (Assumed) USD 63 / T
5 NCV of saw dust 3000 kcal / Kg
6 Quantity of saw dust used 40 TPD
7 Price of Incinerable waste (Assumed) -USD 42 / T
8 NCV of Tyre chips 2600 kcal / Kg
9 Quantity of Incinerable cost used 40 TPD
10 Negotiated Price of landfillable waste 1 (Gate Fee) (-ve) 14 / T
11 NCV of landfill waste 1 500 kcal / Kg
12 Quantity of landfilled waste 1 used 40 TPD
13 Negotiated Price of landfillable waste 2 (Gate Fee) (-ve) 14 / T
14 NCV of landfillable waste 2 800 kcal / Kg
15 Quantity of landfillable waste 2 used (Gate Fee) 40 TPD
16 Average price of AFR Mix (-ve) USD 9.8 / T AFR
17 Average NCV of AFR Mix 2380 kcal / Kg
18 Total AFR co-processed 200 TPD
306 13 Case Studies and Business Models in Pre and Co-processing

I. Example—Pre-processing of hazardous Incinerable and landfillable Mix of

Solid wastes into AFRs and Co-processing the same.

In this example, one kind of incinerable solid waste, one kind of incinerable pasty
waste, and two kinds of landfillable hazardous wastes are considered as an example.
The pasty waste is impregnated into a free-flowing solid powder by mixing it with
sawdust. This impregnated solid waste is then fed into a shredder along with the
other incinerable solid waste and the two landfillable solid wastes. The shredded and
processed solid AFR is then fed into the walking floor using pay loader. Walking
floor feeds the same into the long belt conveyor in a metered manner using weigh
feeder. This metered quantum of AFR then gets conveyed to the pre-calciner floor
using a long belt conveyor. The processed AFR is then fed into the calciner using a
short belt conveyor, double flap valve assembly.

II. Business Model of Mechanized Pre-processing and Co-processing Facility:

The business model of this case is provided in Fig. 13.6.

III. Salient Features of the Business Model:

Table 13.16 provides the salient features of the business model of the mechanized
pre and co-processing facility in which a mix of incinerable and landfillable wastes
is co-processed.

Hazardous industrial Hazardous Industrial

Wastes for Incineration Waste for landfill

TSDF

Incineratio Landfill

Wastes for Third Party / Cement

pre-processing

Pre-processing

AFR Mix

Cement Plant
Co-processing

Fig. 13.6 Business model for Co-processing of Hazardous industrial wastes

13.5 Business Models with Pre-processing and Co-processing 307

Table 13.17 provides the calculation of the average NCV and price of the AFR
mix consisting of incinerable and landfillable waste streams.
Table 13.18 provides the salient features of this business model with typical values
for pre and co-processing of AFR mix of different incinerable and landfillable waste
streams.

Table 13.17 Calculation of weighted average Price and NCV of AFR mix
AFR TPD % Mix (%) NCV Wtd Av. USD/T Wtd Av. Price
NCV
Pasty waste 40 20.0 5000 1000 −42 −8.4
Saw dust 40 20.0 3000 600 63 12.6
Incinerable 40 20.0 2600 520 −42 −8.4
solid
Landfillable 40 20.0 500 100 −14 −2.8
solid 1
Landfillable 40 20.0 800 160 −14 −2.8
solid 2
Total 200 100.0 Average 2380 Average −9.8
NCV Price

Table 13.18 Salient features of the business model for Co-processing of AFR Mix
S. No Parameter Value
1 Investment in pre and co-processing facility (Table 13.15) USD 3,080,000
2 Cost of coal (From Table 13.1) USD 0.014 / 1000 kcal
3 Negotiated price of AFR Mix (From Table 13.16) -USD 9.8 / T
5 Pre-processing & Co-processing cost (Typical) USD 7.0 / T
6 Total cost -USD 2.8 / T
8 NCV of AFR Mix 2380 kcal / Kg
4 Total cost of AFR Mix co-processing -USD 0.00118 / 1000 kcal
7 Savings benefit of using AFR (0.014- (-0.0018) USD 0.01518 / 1000 kcal
9 AFR Mix used per day 200 TPD
10 AFR Mix used per year (300 day / year) 60,000 Tons per year
11 Total energy from AFR Mix 142,80,00,00,000 kcal
12 Savings benefit derived by using AFR mix USD 2,167,200 per year
13 Payback Period of investment 1.42 years
308 13 Case Studies and Business Models in Pre and Co-processing

13.5.5 Co-processing Facility for Liquid AFRs

In this facility, liquid AFR is received in tankers and stored in a tank. The facility has
unloading pumps, storage tank, and AFR feeding pumps and pipelines with required
filters and valves, etc. The feeding of AFR to the calciner happens with a pipeline and
nozzle. The facility has a basic quality control facility as well as firefighting facility.
The typical costs of the various items in such a facility are provided in Table
13.19.
The investment made in the pre-processing and co-processing facilities is required
to be paid back based on the revenue earned by the cement plant using Alternative
Fuels and Raw materials. This revenue amount includes the savings derived out of
the replacement of the natural resources with AFRs and the net revenue earned as the
co-processing fees for managing the industrial hazardous and non-hazardous wastes.

I. Example—Processed liquid AFR from third-party agency.

In the industry, different kinds of liquid hazardous wastes get generated. These
include organic wastes that have high calorific value and aqueous waste which
have high moisture content. The industries that generate these waste streams include
chemical industries, pharmaceutical industries, petrochemical industries, etc. Both
these streams can be co-processed in the cement kiln. These liquid waste streams
may contain highly toxic substances and it is important that they are properly pre-
qualified through laboratory evaluations. These waste streams being incinerable are
very expensive to dispose of, and hence they are generally provided for managing in
a sustainable manner with a gate fee.
Liquid waste co-processing requires a separate feeding system and depending
upon the chemical nature of the material, they may be fired in the main burner or the
calciner.
The feeding system consists of unloading pumps, storage tank, filters to remove
coarse and fine impurities, feeding pumps, piping and nozzle to fire through the main
burner or calciner. These facilities may require flameproof installations and higher
level of fire protection system if the flashpoints of these waste streams are lower than
38 °C. The fire protection system also needs to be more robust for waste streams
having flashpoints up to 60 °C. In this business model case study, the facility design
is considered for flashpoint more than 60 °C.

Table 13.19 Typical cost of a Liquid Co-processing facility

S. No Item Capacity Cost in USD
1 Liquid co-processing system consisting of 40 M3 storage 2 TPH 280,000
tank, filters, unloading pumps, feeding pumps, piping and
nozzle
2 Laboratory and firefighting As required 70,000
Total 350,000
13.5 Business Models with Pre-processing and Co-processing 309

II. Business model for co-processing of Liquid AFRs

Figure 13.7 depicts the business model for co-processing of liquid hazardous wastes
from industries. These liquid waste streams get received from the industries directly
or through a pre-processing agency.

III. Salient features of the business model

Table 13.20 provides the salient features of the business model.

Liquid Hazardous Industrial Waste

AFR for co-

processing

Co-processing Cement Plant

Fig. 13.7 Business model for Co-processing of industrial Liquid hazardous wastes

Table 13.20 Salient features of the business model of Co-processing of liquid AFR
S. No Parameter Value
1 Investment in co-processing facility (Table 13.19) USD 350,000
2 Cost of coal (From Table 13.1) USD 0.014 / 1000 kcal
3 Negotiated price of liquid AFR (Assumed) -USD 14 / T
5 Co-processing cost (Typical) USD 4.2 / T
6 Total cost -USD 9.8 / T
8 NCV of liquid AFR 1000 kcal / Kg
4 Total cost of liquid AFR co-processing -USD 0.0098 / 1000 kcal
7 Savings benefit of using Liquid waste (0.014 + 0.0098) USD 0.0238 / 1000 kcal
9 Liquid waste used per day 40 TPD
10 Liquid Waste used per year (300 day / year) 12,000 Tons per year
11 Total energy from Liquid waste 12,000,000,000 kcal
12 Savings benefit derived by using Liquid waste USD 285,600 per year
13 Payback Period of investment 1.23 years
310 13 Case Studies and Business Models in Pre and Co-processing

13.5.6 Co-processing of Alternative Raw Materials Through

Raw Meal

There are several waste materials that can be utilized to replace the natural raw
materials such as lime sludge from paper industry, red mud from aluminium industry,
mill scale from rolling mills, ETP sludge from water treatment plants, etc. As these
waste streams do not contain any organic constituents, they can be co-processed in
the kiln by feeding them along with the raw materials. They are waste material and
hence it is cheaper also and therefore promoting appropriate business case.
These materials along with other raw materials get pulverized to the desired extent
in the existing raw mill, become part of the raw meal, and get consumed in the cement
manufacturing process. For undertaking the co-processing of these materials, the
existing infrastructure is good enough. Hence, they add value directly to the bottom
line of the industry.

I. Example—Co-processing of mill scale

There are many industrial waste streams that can be utilized as raw materials in
cement manufacture. Examples are lime sludge from paper mill, mill scale from
rolling mills, red mud from Aluminium industry, ETP sludge from water treat-
ment plant, steel slag from alloy steel industry, iron sludge from chemical industry,
phosphate sludge from automobile industry, etc.
These materials can be directly co-processed in the kiln through the raw material
or the calciner route. The raw material route is acceptable only when there are no
volatile organics present in them. Volatile organics tend to get volatilized at the
preheater top when they encounter high temperature of > 350 ° C and cause VOC
emissions which are not acceptable.
In the business model of co-processing such industrial wastes, the main driver is
the natural raw material of cement manufacture that it will be replacing. The main
natural raw materials that the cement industry considers replacing are lime, iron
oxide, aluminium oxide, and silica, which are utilized in large quantities. As the
feeding of these materials is generally done through the existing raw meal route,
there is no specific capital investment required. There would be some handling cost
but it would be nullified because of the replacement of the natural material.
Mill scale is a waste that is generated in the steel rolling mills. This has high iron
content in the range of 80 to 95%. This can be easily utilized by cement plants
as a replacement for iron ore or laterite which is normally used by the cement
industry. Further, this material can be fed into the kiln along with the raw materials
by proportioning it appropriately in the raw mix design.

II. Business model for co-processing of raw materials

Figure 13.8 depicts the business model related to use AFR as an alternative raw
material.
13.5 Business Models with Pre-processing and Co-processing 311

Industrial waste
as raw material

Co-processing Cement Plant

Fig. 13.8 Business model for Co-processing of industrial waste as Raw material

Table 13.21 Salient features of the business model of use of industrial waste as raw material
S. No Parameter Value
1 Investment in co-processing facility USD 0
2 Price of laterite used in the cement plant USD 8.4 / T
3 Iron content in laterite 40%
5 Cost of Iron from laterite (=8.4/0.4) USD 21 / T
6 Negotiated price of mill scale USD 11.2 / T
8 Iron content in mill scale 88%
4 Cost of Iron from mill scale (=11.2 / 0.88) USD 12.73 / T
7 Savings benefit of using mill scale (21–12.73) USD 8.27 / T Iron
9 Iron used in cement plant 200 TPD
10 Iron used per year (300 day / year) 60,000 Tons per year
11 Total savings using mill scale / year (=60,000*8.27) USD 496,200 per year

III. Salient features of the business model

The salient features of this business model are illustrated in Table 13.21.

13.6 Conclusion

It can be concluded from this chapter that by considering the appropriate parameters
associated with the use of AFRs, the different business models can be success-
fully implemented. The cement plant co-processing operating in business mode
from almost the 1980s and the same has survived for more than four decades with
successful results in spite of various business challenges. It can be observed from
the case studies and business models that industrial hazardous and non-hazardous
312 13 Case Studies and Business Models in Pre and Co-processing

waste that comes with gate fee provides better viability considerations. It is impor-
tant, therefore, to include some amount of these materials in the AFR mix. Apart
from the economic viability, co-processing also helps in reducing GHG emissions,
conserving natural resources, and creating a vibrant circular economy. The govern-
ment of India and various governments of many other countries have appreciated the
co-processing business models and have recognized it as a preferred option for the
management of different waste materials.

Reference

Guidelines on pre-processing and co-processing of wastes in cement production, GIZ, Lafarge-

Holcim & University of applied sciences and arts (2020). Northwestern Switzerland
Chapter 14
Global Status of Co-processing

14.1 Introduction

Cement manufacturing is a highly resource intensive process and utilizes a large

quantum of fossil materials in its manufacture. It emits a large quantum of CO2
during its process due to calcination of limestone, which is a raw material, and
also due to firing of fossil fuels. Cement industry, therefore, has a large carbon
footprint accounting for about 7% of the CO2 released globally. It has therefore
planned for cutting CO2 emissions by 24% below the current levels by 2050 (Cement
technology roadmap) (IEA, 2018). To be sustainable and remain so, the cement
industry is undertaking several initiatives globally to reduce its carbon footprint. Co-
processing is one of the important pillars in achieving the desired reduction in the
carbon footprint.
The requirement of cement has been always rising all over the world for past
several years. Its growth is linked to the GDP of the specific country. There are several
factors that influence the cement demand. Peak per capita cement consumption comes
as countries transition from rural to urban societies, and as urban infrastructure is
progressively built. As countries modernize and urbanize, their cement consump-
tion has historically increased from around 100 kg/capita in rural populations, to a
peak of around 1500 kg/capita/yr. The long-term average for developed countries
that sporadically build new infrastructure but mostly just renovate, of around 500
kg/capita/yr.
Generally, the more is the cement demand in a particular country, the more is the
feasibility of improving co-processing volumes in that specific country. Figure 14.1
provides an overview of the development of the per capita consumption of cement
country-wise of many countries.
Global Cement and Concrete Association (GCCA) represents about 30% of the
total cement production of the world. It is guiding the implementation of sustain-
ability initiatives of cement and concrete manufacturing industries worldwide. It
also monitors and documents the relevant information related to the sustainability
initiatives of the cement and concrete sector.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 313
S. K. Ghosh et al., Sustainable Management of Wastes Through Co-processing,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-6073-3_14
314 14 Global Status of Co-processing

Fig. 14.1 Development of per capita cement demand (kg/capita) with increasing wealth (GDP in
US$/capita) (Global Cement Magazine, May 2019).

It has created a database called “Getting Numbers Right” (GNR) containing vital
data pertaining to the cement industry represented in GCCA. This includes data
pertaining to cement production, CO2 emissions, Power production and Consump-
tion, Heat production and Consumption, and Mineral Components. This data does
not represent the total cement industry of the world but represents a sizable portion
of the same to provide a representative view of the sustainable growth pursued by
the cement industry. This database is up to date till 2018. This data also contains the
status on co-processing undertaken by the member companies which is utilized for
undertaking the necessary assessment in this chapter.

14.2 Status of Co-processing in Cement Industry

in Different Countries

To evaluate the global status of co-processing, the data available in the GNR database
of GCCA is utilized (GCCA, 2019). This assessment is carried out with the objective
of understanding the key success factors in implementing co-processing.

14.2.1 Country Average TSR% of Different Countries

The country average TSR% of cement industries of different countries are tabulated
in Fig. 14.2. It can be observed from Fig. 14.2 that the data represents countries spread
across the continents. These include several counties from Europe, Brazil from South
14.2 Status of Co-processing in Cement Industry in Different Countries 315

TSR%
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Fig. 14.2 Country average TSR% of cement industries

America, Thailand, Philippines, India from Asia, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria
from the Middle East and North Africa, and Canada and USA. It should be noted
that co-processing is implemented by cement companies from other geographical
locations also such as China, several countries in the Middle east, Australia, New
Zealand, South American countries, Japan, Asia and Southeast Asia, etc.
The data in Fig. 14.2 demonstrates that several countries in Europe lead the AFR
drive in the world. Austria has the highest TSR% and India has the lowest TSR%
among the countries representing the GCCA member companies. This graph also
indicates that Austria has far less capacity available in the kilns to manage additional
waste and India has substantially more capacity available to manage additional waste.

14.2.2 Volume of Alternative Fuels Co-processed by Different

Countries

To review the global status of co-processing, another angle is considered wherein

the volume of Alternative Fuels co-processed by countries is evaluated. Based on
this assessment, the volume of AF utilized by cement plants in different countries in
2018 is tabulated in Fig. 14.3. It can be observed from Fig. 14.3 that Germany stands
out with the highest volume of AF utilization and Canada has consumed the lowest
volume. India occupies 5th position in terms of AF utilization and Austria occupies
11th position.
316 14 Global Status of Co-processing

AF Tons
4000000
3500000
3000000
2500000
2000000
1500000
1000000
500000
0

Fig. 14.3 Volume of AF utilized by cement plants

14.2.3 Additional Evaluations on the Global Status

of Co-processing

Following additional evaluations are carried out from the data available in the GNR:
A. Biomass utilization in terms of TSR%,
B. Biomass utilization in terms of Volume of AF co-processed,
C. Utilization of other AF in terms of TSR%,
D. Utilization of other AF in terms of Volume co-processed.
The analysis of the results from this assessment indicates to us the following:
a. The Czech Republic leads the case of highest percent substitution of fossil fuels
with Biomass and India trails with the lowest percent utilization.
b. In terms of volume utilization of Biomass, Germany tops the list and Italy
occupies the lowest position.
c. Utilization of other AFs in terms of TSR% is led by Austria and the lowest
utilization rate is that of Philippines.
d. Co-processing of the maximum volume of other AF is carried out by Germany
and the lowest volume of AF is co-processed by Philippines.
The analysis results of the evaluations as above are tabulated in Figs. 14.4, 14.5,
14.6, and 14.7, respectively.
14.2 Status of Co-processing in Cement Industry in Different Countries 317

Biomass Utilization TSR%

25
20
15
10
5
0

Fig. 14.4 Biomass utilization TSR%

Biomass Utilization as AF Tons

900000
800000
700000
600000
500000
400000
300000
200000
100000
0

Fig. 14.5 Biomass utilization AF tonnes

Other AF utilisation TSR%

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Fig. 14.6 AF utilization as TSR% in cement industry

318 14 Global Status of Co-processing

Other AF utilization as AF Tons

30,00,000

25,00,000

20,00,000

15,00,000

10,00,000

5,00,000

Fig. 14.7 Biomass utilization AF tonnes

14.3 Country Specific Status on Co-processing

Having reviewed the co-processing data of the cement plants in different countries
worldwide, it would be interesting to review the same figures of the cement industry
in specific countries to review how co-processing has progressed in these coun-
tries over a period of time. For illustration purpose, Austria, USA, Brazil, India,
Egypt, and Poland located in different parts of the world are considered for eval-
uation whose average TSR% data of the cement plants are demonstrated through
Figs. 14.8,14.9,14.10, 14.11, 14.12 and 14.13, respectively.
Following observations are made from the above figures:
a. The TSR of the cement plants in all countries have grown on a yearly basis.
b. The rate of growth of TSR in some countries is significantly higher than the
others.
c. The rate of growth of TSR% varies from country to country. It depends upon
the legislation, availability of the waste materials in the market place, and drive
towards sustainability.
d. The TSR% also depends upon the economics of the utilization of AFRs in the
cement kilns.
14.4 Conclusion 319

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
1,985 1,990 1,995 2,000 2,005 2,010 2,015 2,020

Fig. 14.8 TSR% growth trend-Austria

18%
16%
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
1,985 1,990 1,995 2,000 2,005 2,010 2,015 2,020

Fig. 14.9 TSR% growth trend-USA

14.4 Conclusion

It is understood from the deliberations in this chapter that co-processing is practiced

successfully by the cement industry in many countries globally. Different countries
have substantially different growth rates in achieving TSR%. The drive for imple-
menting co-processing depends upon the local conditions. There are quite a few coun-
tries that have achieved an average TSR% figure of more than 70%. This indicates
that the countries, that are currently operating at low TSR%, have substantial capa-
bility available in them to play a major role in facilitating sustainable management
of wastes.
320 14 Global Status of Co-processing

4.0%

3.5%

3.0%

2.5%

2.0%

1.5%

1.0%

0.5%

0.0%
1,985 1,990 1,995 2,000 2,005 2,010 2,015 2,020

Fig. 14.10 TSR% growth trend-India

14%

12%

10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%
1,985 1,990 1,995 2,000 2,005 2,010 2,015 2,020

Fig. 14.11 TSR% growth trend-Egypt

14.4 Conclusion 321

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
1,985 1,990 1,995 2,000 2,005 2,010 2,015 2,020

Fig. 14.12 TSR% growth trend-Brazil

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
1,985 1,990 1,995 2,000 2,005 2,010 2,015 2,020

Fig. 14.13 TSR% growth trend-Poland

References

IEA. Cement technology roadmap plots path to cutting CO2 emissions 24% by 2050 - News (2018)
GCCA, GNR data base 2019. available at https://gccassociation.org/gnr/. Global Cement Magazine,
May 2019
Chapter 15
Journey of the Growth of Co-processing
in India

15.1 Introduction

Considering increasing waste production on the one hand and the resource demands
of the cement process on the other hand, cement companies started in 1979 to look
at waste as a source of raw material and energy (WBCSD, 2014). The Indian cement
industry was aware of the success achieved by the cement industries in some of
the developed countries in utilizing wastes as alternative fuels. However, it was not
able to initiate tangible actions until 2005 because of the lack of sufficient technical
knowledge and because of the lack of facilitating regulatory framework to implement
the same. A few of the plants during that time were utilizing biomass as AFRs.
Currently, many cement plants in India are implementing co-processing as a
sustainability initiative in a business mode. An assessment carried out by GCCA
under cement sustainability initiative indicated that the amount of waste material
co-processed as Alternative Fuel in 2018 by its member cement companies based in
India was more than 0.7 million TPA. This had resulted in a Thermal Energy Substi-
tution rate of ~ 4%. The quantum of waste material co-processed as alternative raw
material by the same companies in India was not assessed by GCCA but would be
certainly adding to the volume co-processed in the country. While traversing this
journey, the cement industry had to overcome several challenges and go through a
learning curve.
These learnings and challenges were in the following areas:
1. Building awareness of the stakeholders on the concept of co-processing,
2. Implementation of appropriate regulatory provisions favouring co-processing,
3. Capability development of the cement industry on the technological aspects of
co-processing,
4. Capacity development of the authorities on the regulatory provisions required
for facilitating sustainable co-processing,
5. Development of the waste market for implementing co-processing in a sustained
manner, and
6. Achieving desired regulatory framework that promotes co-processing.
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 323
S. K. Ghosh et al., Sustainable Management of Wastes Through Co-processing,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-6073-3_15
324 15 Journey of the Growth of Co-processing in India

To achieve the desired success in the above-defined areas, stakeholder engagement

and policy advocacy are two important tools. Considerable efforts were put in by
several agencies in India in implementing these tools. The concepts of stakeholder
engagement and policy advocacy are properly defined in the next sections, and then
the journey traversed by the Indian cement industry in respect of achieving the desired
objective is documented in this chapter.

15.2 Stakeholder Engagement and Policy Advocacy

Effective stakeholder engagements are vital to achieving smooth and trouble-

free operations in AFR co-processing. Many stakeholders are important such as
cement plant executives, authorities, the community, waste generators, and waste
management agencies.
Appropriate advocacy is essential to ensure that the right practices that facil-
itate positive impacts on the environment and stakeholders prevail and sustain.
The important stakeholders that need to be addressed in the advocacy initiatives
are governmental authorities, NGOs, activists, industry associations, environmental
testing agencies, etc.

15.2.1 Stakeholder Engagement

Stakeholder engagement involves designing a proper communication plan based

on the critical assessment of the current situation. This engagement plan involves
continual interaction with the stakeholders with appropriately designed messages
and communications. These messages and communications play an important role
in clarifying the perceptions and mindsets of the stakeholders so that the concerns
are clarified and mitigated. These interactions are required to be carried out through
well-designed engagement processes.
The design of an appropriate engagement plan consists of the following activities.
A. Critical Assessment of the current situation
Most of the cement plants will be having community engagement activities
under corporate social responsibility (CSR). Corporate social responsibility
(CSR) refers to strategies that companies put into action as part of corporate
governance that is designed to ensure that the company’s operations are ethical
and beneficial for society. The initiatives under CSRA generally address the
issues of the society related to the environment, human rights, philanthropic
and economical aspects.
While implementing CSR initiatives, it is important to learn about the concerns
that stakeholders have in respect of co-processing. This learning can be carried
15.2 Stakeholder Engagement and Policy Advocacy 325

out in-house or through the engagement of a third-party agency that is qual-

ified in implementing such assessments. This assessment should help under-
stand the mindsets and perceptions of the stakeholders, map them properly into
appropriate categories, and project their impacts on various fronts.
B. Designing engagement plan
Stakeholder engagement needs to be designed while ensuring that trust prevails
with the stakeholders. For trust to prevail, it is desired that complete trans-
parency is maintained with the stakeholders by providing them the required data
and information with complete openness. The process needs to be designed for
continual engagement by sharing with them the long-term objectives and future
plans. A clear communication plan also needs to be put in place to bring clarity
into the roles and responsibilities of the executives involved in implementing
stakeholder engagements.
C. Implementing engagement plans
The engagement plans can be implemented through various options such as
meetings, regular mail communications, FAQs, standard presentations, consis-
tent messages, brochures, case study illustrations, conferences, community
advisory panels, and site visits, etc.
All messages and communications need to be put on a continuous improvement
process. For this, an appropriate communication improvement process needs to be
put in place so that the messages go through the desired refinement as shown in
Fig. 15.1.
The following are the important tips on implementing stakeholder engagement
and dialogues effectively.
1. Understand the subject matter thoroughly so that the same can be communicated
to the stakeholder and the desired objective can be accomplished.
2. Stakeholder views are important and need to be listened to attentively.
3. Do not bring complexity in the communication. It is always better to commu-
nicate in a simple language.

Fig. 15.1 Communication

improvement process Roll out

Refine Evaluate

Identify Gaps
326 15 Journey of the Growth of Co-processing in India

4. Irrespective of the results of the interaction, always ensure that at the end the
door is still open for another interaction later on when needed.
5. It is always good to express your gratitude to the stakeholder.
An objective-driven approach is desired in implementing the stakeholder engage-
ment so that the engagement process becomes effective. Further, it would be good
to build tangible partnerships with the stakeholders to improve effectiveness in the
engagements.
The following are the typical examples of stakeholder engagements for co-
processing.
a. Formation of the cooperative federation of the farming community for the
management of their non-cattle feed crop residue.
b. Collaboration with local administration for achieving a clean and healthy living
place.
c. Plastic waste segregation and management through community collaboration.
d. Formation of the Community Advisory Panels to address the stakeholder
concerns.

15.2.2 Policy Advocacy

Co-processing deals with wastes that are controlled through legal processes. As
wastes need to be managed in a sustainable manner and co-processing facilitates
the same, it is desired that the legal processes are fully aligned with the objectives
of co-processing. To achieve this objective, robust advocacy efforts are desired to
be implemented. Successful advocacy requires meticulous planning, desired stake-
holder engagement, and commitments towards collaborative effort. In the policy
advocacy initiatives, the following activities are involved.
A. Assessment of the existing policy framework
Advocacy is carried out to implement desired changes in the regular frame-
work of the country. It is therefore desired that the existing policy framework
is reviewed properly to understand the implications of the proposed changes
on environmental issues, ease of operation, health and safety, legal and social
considerations, etc. Towards this, preparing position papers on the relevant
topic helps a lot. This position paper becomes very handy to the authorities
when they take up the cause of working on the concerned areas. It is also very
important to understand the perceptions and mindsets that the stakeholders are
carrying with them so that they can be addressed through different method-
ologies such as documented FAQs, query-clarification dialogues, illustrative
messages, practical demonstrations, and illustrations on the benefits of the
proposed changes.
15.2 Stakeholder Engagement and Policy Advocacy 327

Priority 3 Priority 2 Priority 1

I Stakeholders Stakeholders Stakeholder
N
F
L
U Priority 4 Priority 2 Priority 2
E Stakeholders Stakeholders Stakeholder
N
C
E Priority 5 Priority 4 Priority 3
Stakeholders Stakeholder Stakeholders

INTEREST

Fig. 15.2 Mapping of stakeholders

B. Mapping of Stakeholders
Implementation of advocacy requires a well-documented advocacy plan, effec-
tive stakeholder engagement, impactful messages, and appropriate communi-
cation strategy with effective messages. For achieving desired success in advo-
cacy, it is desired that all the stakeholders are properly identified and mapped
in a two-by-two matrix with their interest in the advocacy objective as one axis
and their influencing capability as another axis as shown in Fig. 15.2.

As shown in the diagram, the stakeholders are required to be motivated to

become priority 1 stakeholders and shift to the top-right corner so that they
become ambassadors of the advocacy implementation process. This transformation to
priority 1 stakeholders is possible through the stakeholder dialogue and engagement
processes. The engagement can be through a one-to-one dialogue and/or through a
multi-stakeholder deliberation process.

C. Communication with the Stakeholders

When a one-to-one approach is carried out, it is desired to communicate with the
stakeholder the shortcoming in the existing policy framework and share alter-
nate solutions to deal with them. It is also desired to share with him appropriate
messages that are designed in the form of brochures or leaflets or hand-outs
so that the message remains with him for a long period. One person obviously
cannot bring about the required modification in the policy framework, but he
becomes an important ambassador to voice out the suggested modifications to
the relevant stakeholders.
328 15 Journey of the Growth of Co-processing in India

When multistakeholder deliberations are desired, it is better to carry them out through
an industry association. Several methodologies can be implemented such as the
following:
1. Stakeholder dialogues
2. Round table conference
3. Stakeholder conference
4. Forum of dedicated stakeholders
5. Stakeholder missions for learning and demonstrations
6. Expert committees
7. Social media campaigns
8. Communications through Print and Digital media
9. Personalized letters specifically addressed to the relevant authority,
10. Etc.
The various issues that need to be addressed through advocacy are the following:
a. Utilization of maximum quantum of AFRs
b. Free movement of AFRs across borders
c. Polluter pays principle
d. Respect of waste management hierarchy
e. Avoidance of dilution
f. Emission standards
Several efforts were implemented by various agencies towards stakeholder
engagement and advocacy to boost the co-processing initiative. With these efforts,
desired objectives were achieved by the cement industry. To elaborate this journey
appropriately, it is divided into two different time periods—2003–2008 and 2008–
2020.

15.3 Journey—2003–2008

Co-processing is defined as a technology of utilizing wastes as resources in different

resource intensive industries (RII). Although wastes can be utilized in some resource-
intensive industries such as cement, power, steel, lime, glass, and refractories, the
use of wastes in cement manufacture dominates the RII sector. The specific physico-
chemical features of the cement manufacturing process allow this to happen at very
high scales. This option of managing wastes from Municipal, Industrial, and Agri-
culture sectors as alternative fuels and raw materials in the manufacture of cement
has been in practice globally since the 1980s, and many cement plants worldwide
are exercising this option at different scales of operation.
A need was felt in India in 2003 to promote the utilization of hazardous
combustible waste having a higher calorific value in cement kiln as fuel (CPCB,
2004). This need was to promote utilization of hazardous combustible waste having
a higher calorific value in cement kiln as fuel. In the earlier times, the operation
15.3 Journey—2003–2008 329

of using wastes as alternative fuels in cement kiln used to be called co-incineration.

Later, it was corrected to co-processing. It was considered that this will not only solve
the disposal problem associated with hazardous waste but also conserve natural fuel
resources.
There were, however, stakeholder concerns about the possibility of emissions
of toxic metals, volatile organic carbon compounds, and other toxic gases, while
undertaking co-processing of wastes in cement kilns. There was also concern about
the possibility of a negative impact on the quality of cement. Therefore, there was a
need to evaluate the sanctity of this stakeholder concern by conducting the trial. In
such a trial, the measurements of the identified emission parameters are carried out
in three stages.
1. Before initiating co-processing of AFR (Pre-trial),
2. During co-processing of AFR (During Trial), and
3. After co-processing of AFR (Post Trial)
During this trial, various identified emission parameters are measured by sampling
the kiln exhaust gas as per the defined procedure. The testing of quality parameters
of the clinker and cement produced as per the desired quality considerations is a
part of each stage. CPCB in India has prepared a step-wise approach to evaluate
the same through trials to be carried out in cement plants as per a well-designed
trial procedure with an emission monitoring protocol (CPCB, 2004). This CPCB’s
emission monitoring protocol for the demonstration trial is provided in Table 15.1.

Table 15.1 Emission monitoring schedule during a trial run of co-incineration of hazardous waste
in cement kiln
S. No. Parameter Frequency Monitoring agency
1 Particulates 4 samples/day External Lab/CPCB
2 SO2 4 samples/day External Lab/CPCB
3 HCL 4 samples/day External Lab/CPCB
4 CO 4 samples/day External Lab/CPCB
5 NOx 4 samples/day External Lab/CPCB
6 TOC 1 sample/day External Lab/CPCB
7 HF 4 samples/day External Lab
8 Hydrocarbons 2 samples/day (of four hours External Lab
each)
9 Opacity Continuous Cement plant
10 VOC 2 samples/day External Lab
11 PAH 2 samples/day External Lab
12 Heavy Metals (Cd, Th, Hg, Sb, 1 sample/day External Lab
As, Pb, Cr, Co, Cu, Mn, V, Zn,
Sn, Se)
13 Dioxin and furans 1 sample/day GTZ, Delhi
330 15 Journey of the Growth of Co-processing in India

Table 15.2 Co-incineration trials (21-day duration) conducted by different cement companies in
India
S. No. Waste material Name of cement plant
1 Chemical industry ETP Sludge M/s Rajashree Cement, Gulbarga, Karnataka, a
unit of Grasim Industries Group (Now Ultratech
Cement Ltd.)
2 Refinery sludge M/s Grasim Cement, Reddipalayam, Tamil
Nadu (Now Ultratech Cement Ltd.)
3 Paint sludge -do-
4 Used tyre chips -do-
5 CETP sludge M/s J K Laxmi Cement, Sirohi, Rajasthan
6 TDI Tar M/s Ambuja Cement Ltd., Kodinar, Gujarat

This monitoring was suggested during the trial that consisted of three phases of one
week each: (1) Pre-trial, (2) During Trial, and (3) Post trial.
With this trial protocol, the following trials were carried out by CPCB and the
cement plants as listed in Table 15.2 after receiving necessary permissions from the
respective State Pollution Control Boards.
The results of these trials had been very encouraging in concluding that co-
processing of these different waste streams did not influence the emissions from the
cement kiln or the quality of the cement product in any significant manner (CPCB,
2006). During the period 2003–2006, this process of utilization of wastes as alter-
native fuels in cement kilns was referred to as co-incineration. However, in the
subsequent deliberations, it was appropriately referred to as co-processing because
of the following considerations:
1. Cement kilns do not incinerate waste materials but utilize them as input
resources.
2. Waste materials not only get utilized as alternative fuels but also get utilized as
alternative raw materials. They are therefore referred to as alternative fuels and
raw materials (AFRs).
All these trials demonstrated that there was no major impact on the emissions from
cement plants. Subsequently, it was decided that the permission for co-processing
as a waste stream would be granted to a cement plant only after it carries out the
21-day demonstration trial of that waste stream as per the defined protocol. The cost
of implementing such a trial was observed as prohibitively expensive and hence there
was hesitation in the cement industry to undertake the co-processing initiative.
In 2005, Holcim (Switzerland) took over “The Associated Cement Ltd. (ACC)”
and “Ambuja Cement Ltd. (Ambuja)”. Holcim, having co-processing of AFRs as one
of the important business pillars, introduced the co-processing concept and provided
the technological inputs to ACC and Ambuja to initiate it in the respective organiza-
tions. Subsequently, ACC and Ambuja formally initiated the co-processing activities
in 2006 in India under the brand name “geocycle”.
15.3 Journey—2003–2008 331

The major effort required in India at that time was to bring appropriate awareness
of the stakeholders on the concept of co-processing and promote it in a manner
that will facilitate the smooth implementation of co-processing in the Indian cement
industries.
From 2006 to 2007, ACC, Ambuja, and Holcim carried out several stakeholder
meets in different states in India in association with GTZ (then GIZ), CPCB, and
respective SPCBs. The objective of these meets was (a) to bring appropriate aware-
ness of the stakeholders on the concept of co-processing; (b) to deliberate the advan-
tages, challenges, and concerns related to co-processing, and (c) prepare appropriate
recommendations for formalizing co-processing in the country as per the best prac-
tices being implemented globally. Figure 15.3 provides a photo of such a stakeholder
meet organized in Chandigarh, Northern India in 2008.
Considering the relevance of including the provision of co-processing technology
in the proposed revision in the Hazardous Waste Management Rules 2008 (HWM
Rules 2008), the recommendations from all these stakeholder meets were submitted
to the then authorities of Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), Government
of India, CPCB, and respective SPCB. Although the provisions of co-processing
technology did not get included in the revised HWM Rules 2008, the new Rule 11
got included in the HWM Rules 2008. This rule mentioned that “The utilization
of hazardous wastes as a supplementary resource or for energy recovery, or after
processing shall be carried out by the units only after obtaining approval from the

Fig. 15.3 Stakeholder meet organized in Chandigarh 2008

332 15 Journey of the Growth of Co-processing in India

Central Pollution Control Board” (HWM Rules 2008). This rule opened the opportu-
nity for implementing co-processing of wastes as alternative fuels and raw materials
in cement manufacture.

15.4 Journey 2008–2020

Considerable efforts were put in the country to promote and implement co-processing
for achieving sustainable management of wastes from Industrial, Municipal, and
Agricultural sectors. The impetus to utilize a larger quantum of AFR in the Indian
cement industry started with the identification of AFR as one of the important levers
for CO2 reduction in the low carbon technology road map prepared by the Indian
cement industry.
These efforts include the following considerations:
(a) Technology Demonstration for environmentally friendly management of
wastes.
(b) Stakeholder Awareness and advocacy on the features of co-processing tech-
nology for including co-processing in the Indian policy framework.
(c) Notification of the Rules, Guidelines, Emission standards, and monitoring
protocol.
(d) Status on co-processing in India.

15.4.1 Demonstration of Co-processing Technology

for the Sustainable Management of Wastes

Rule 11 of HWM Rules 2008 required cement plants to demonstrate that the cement
kiln co-processing technology is environmentally safe for managing hazardous and
non-hazardous wastes. The major hurdle was the high cost associated with imple-
menting the trial as per the 21-day monitoring protocol. CPCB reviewed this 21-day
protocol by evaluating the results of the trials conducted on different waste materials
in different cement plants and then modified the 21-day monitoring protocol to 5-day
monitoring protocol. This new monitoring included 1-day pre-trial, 3 days during
co-processing, and 1-day post trial.
This new protocol was reasonably affordable to the cement plants and also to the
industries generating wastes. Hence, about 88 co-processing trials were conducted
by different cement companies from 2008 to 2016. These trials were carried out on
different kinds of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes.
Table 15.3 lists out the number of trials implemented by different companies in
their plants spread across the country.
CPCB analysed the results of the monitored data of these trials and confirmed that
co-processing is not influencing the emissions from the cement kiln in any adverse
manner while co-processing the wastes. CPCB then approved these waste streams
15.4 Journey 2008–2020 333

Table 15.3 Co-processing

S. No. Cement industry Number of trials
trials (5-day duration)
conducted by different 1 ACC Limited 33
cement plants in India 2 Ambuja Cement Ltd. 20
3 Ultratech Ltd. 20
4 Lafarge India Pvt. Ltd. 7
5 Shree Cement Ltd. 4
6 Sanghi Cement Ltd. 1
7 My Home Cement Ltd. 1
8 J K Lakshmi Cement Ltd. 1
9 Zuari Cement Ltd. 1

and allowed their co-processing in cement plants after obtaining necessary permit
from relevant SPCBs (CPCB, 2016).
One of the major achievements in promoting co-processing in the country was
the successful co-processing trial of plastic waste that was conducted in March 2008
in ACC Kymore Cement Works. This was carried out in association with Indian
Centre for Plastics in Environment (ICPE) and under the supervision of CPCB and
MPPCB. This trial was carried out with a mix of different plastic waste materials
(ICPE, 2008). Because plastic is a problem material and co-processing offered a
positive and sustainable solution for its sustainable management, both CPCB and
SPCBs started extending positive support to the cause of co-processing and a large
number of cement plants started co-processing plastic waste by receiving it from
ULBs.
The operating process for the trial-based permitting process is depicted in
Fig. 15.4.
The timeline from obtaining permit based on this process used to be 1–2 years.
Implementing more trials used to provide better opportunity to receive the permit
for the waste stream first. The waste materials utilized in these trials consisted of
hazardous and non-hazardous wastes from industrial and municipal sectors. Evalu-
ations of the results of these trials have demonstrated that the wastes get managed in
an ecologically sustaining and environmentally friendly manner.
Generally, wastes tend to have large variation in their chemical constituents, and
there used to be many stakeholder concerns on the capability of the cement kiln to
deal with such variation.
To address this concern, the constituent levels present in the waste streams
approved for co-processing were evaluated. For this, the chemical constituents
present in the approved waste streams were tabulated from the data available from
22 trials, and their minimum and maximum values were compiled. These values are
tabulated in Table 15.4.
The results of this analysis concluded that the cement kilns are capable of dealing
successfully with such large variation in the chemical constituents present in wastes.
It also concluded that rather than the concentration, it is the absolute quantum getting
334 15 Journey of the Growth of Co-processing in India

Identify the Obtain the

Waste Stream Trial

No Carry out
Is it approved Yes the Trial
by CPCB

Yes Is Waste
approved by

Obtain the permit from N

SPCB and proceed with
co-processing Reject

Fig. 15.4 Operating framework of the trial-based permitting system

into the kiln that is more important to be monitored (Ulhas Parlikar, 2016). Apart
from the co-processing trials implemented in India to demonstrate the successful
management of different hazardous and non-hazardous waste materials, a trial for the
demonstration of the disposal of complex material such as ozone depleting substance
(ODS) was also implemented.
Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and the ozone depleting substances (ODS)
are two highly complex and difficult to dispose materials. While demonstrating the
disposal of such materials, ensuring satisfactory destruction and removal efficiency
(DRE) is must. This trial was conducted with the involvement of MoEF, CPCB,
MPPCB, GPCB, academicians, etc., in the Kymore Cement Works of ACC Ltd. For
emission monitoring, the international agencies were involved.
The trial was successfully implemented with the DRE of > 99.9999% and
the overall environmental performance in compliance with Indian regulation and
international best practice (Karstensen, 2014).
Figure 15.5 depicts the banner on the facility set up for co-processing CFCs in
Kymore plant.
The results of many of the trials implemented in India have been analysed in detail
by several agencies in detail, and the assessments have been published in the various
national and international scientific journals. A detailed list of these publications has
been provided in the references section.
AFR usage in the Indian cement industry in 2008 was almost negligible which
improved to about 4% by 2016. Less than 10 cement plants were co-processing AFRs
in 2008 which increased to about 60 plants by 2016.
15.4 Journey 2008–2020 335

Table 15.4 Range of

Parameter Units Min Max
chemical constituent variation
present in the waste materials Moisture % 0.60 67.40
approved for co-processing Ash % 0.96 98.70
VM % 0.30 94.90
FC % 0.10 45.70
Carbon % 0.40 75.60
Hydrogen % 0.20 9.10
Nitrogen % 0.00 15.50
Sulphur % 0.10 22.00
Oxygen % 0.00 76.30
GCV Kcal/Kg 80.00 7960.00
NCV Kcal/Kg 114.80 6042.00
Mineral matter % 3.50 34.50
Chloride as Cl mg/Kg 0.00 14,200.00
Fluoride as F mg/Kg 0.00 20.10
Cadmium mg/Kg 0.10 27.60
Chromium mg/Kg 0.20 36,229.70
Copper mg/Kg 1.00 8,848.60
Cobalt mg/Kg 0.10 176.40
Manganese mg/Kg 0.10 7,800.00
Nickel mg/Kg 0.10 9,300.00
Lead mg/Kg 0.10 633.30
Zinc mg/Kg 1.00 22,000.00
Arsenic mg/Kg 0.10 8.10
Mercury mg/Kg 0.10 3.80
Selenium mg/Kg 0.00 8.20
Antimony mg/Kg 0.10 9.40
Vanadium mg/Kg 1.00 82,400.00
Thallium mg/Kg 0.10 1.00
Tin mg/Kg 0.00 145.60
VOC mg/Kg 4.20 207.00
SVOC mg/Kg BDL 0.20
PCB mg/Kg 0.00 0.50
PCP Mg/Kg BDL 1.40
TOC % 0.00 66.00
336 15 Journey of the Growth of Co-processing in India

Fig. 15.5 Banner on the Facility set up for co-processing of CFCs in ACC Kymore Cement Works
along with authors Dr. Kare Helge Karstensen and Mr. Ulhas V. Parlikar

15.4.2 Stakeholder Awareness and Advocacy Initiatives

on Co-processing Technology

To bring awareness of the stakeholders on the concept and capability of the cement
kiln co-processing technology and to achieve its inclusion in the waste-related policy
framework of India, various initiatives were taken up by many different agencies.
Initiatives in respect of this awareness generation and advocacy of a few of the
prominent agencies are mentioned below.
A. Confederation of Indian Industries (CII)

CII is a non-governmental, not-for-profit, industry-led organization that plays a

proactive role in India’s development process. CII-Sohrabji Godrej Green Business
Centre (CII-Godrej GBC) is a division of CII and offers advisory services in different
areas. CII in association with Cement Manufacturers Association (CMA) had initi-
ated a project to facilitate use of wastes as alternative fuels and raw materials in
the Indian cement industry. This project was supported by M/s Shakti Sustainable
Energy Foundation (SSEF), a part of Climate Works Foundation.
Stake holder awareness
i. AFR deliberations in the Green Cementech conference.
15.4 Journey 2008–2020 337

ii. Round table conferences in association with State Pollution Control Boards.
iii. AFR Missions of the stakeholders representing cement plant executives and
other stakeholders to various operating installations of co-processing in the
cement plants in India.
iv. Visit of authorities from CPCB and SPCBs to pre-processing and co-
processing installations in India, Asia, and Europe to make them appreciate
the different scales at which co-processing is implemented in these regions
and the governing policy framework for the same.
v. Parallel AFR conference in the Waste Management Summit which is an annual
event organized by CII-Godrej GBC for deliberations on the AFR-related
subjects.
vi. AFR-relevant best practices sharing sessions in different events organized by
CII-Godrej GBC.
vii Awareness sessions at different locations in the country through the regional
centres of CII.
viii. Awareness generation sessions by visiting cement plants located in different
clusters.
ix. Cluster-wise awareness sessions on AFR for the benefit of ULBs and industrial
organizations.
x. B2B meetings between generators, waste processing industries, and cement
plants.
xi. Implementing waste exchange website for facilitating the business tie-ups
between waste generator and cement plants.
xii. Publishing literature on the relevant aspects related to AFR.
• Case study manual on alternative fuels and raw materials utilization in
Indian cement industry (2011).
• Promoting alternative fuel and raw material usage in Indian cement
industry.
• Co-processing: Journey Towards Low Carbon Economy—Pillar to support
India’s Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC).
• Reports of the missions—national and international.
The various initiatives taken up by CII-Godrej GBC are depicted in
Figs. 15.6 and 15.7.

Advocacy
• Constitution of an expert group representing officers from CPCB and SPCBs of
eight states. These eight states were Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Andhra
Pradesh, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, and Rajasthan.
• Demonstration of the environmentally sound features of the co-processing
technology to the expert group by visiting plants in India and Asia and Europe.
• Exposure of the expert group to the policy frameworks of different countries
related to co-processing.
• Interaction of the expert group with the authorities in different countries on the
policy framework related to co-processing.
338 15 Journey of the Growth of Co-processing in India

Fig. 15.6 Awareness and Advocacy initiatives by CII-Godrej GBC. Top: Mr. Ulhas V. Parlikar,
author of the book addressing the seminar

• Submission of the “While Paper on Increasing co-processing in Indian Cement

Plants” in 2012 (CII, 2012) prepared by the expert group.
• Preparation of a draft of an amendment required for incorporating co-processing
in the policy framework and Chhattisgarh submission of the same to MoEFCC
and CPCB.
• Organization of the stakeholder meets to deliberate the drafts of the policy
framework prepared by MoEFCC and submitting the recommendations to
MoEFCC.

B. Cement Manufacturers Association (CMA)

Cement Manufacturers Association (CMA) is the apex body of large cement manu-
facturers in India. Representing almost ~ 90% of the total installed cement capacity in
15.4 Journey 2008–2020 339

Fig. 15.7 Awareness and advocacy initiatives of CII-Godrej GBC

India, CMA endeavours to create an enabling business environment for the Cement
Industry in India. CMA engages in policy and regulatory level discussions with the
Central/State Governments on matters and concerns raised by its Member Compa-
nies. CMA is part of various committees/working groups constituted by the Govern-
ment of India to find sustainable solutions towards efficient utilization of waste by
the Cement Industry. CMA organizes its flagship event “CONSERVE” biennially,
inviting policy makers, academia, sector experts, and Industry representatives to
deliberate over enhanced and effective utilization of waste in co-processing. CMA
partnered with the Government of India in 2019 for one of India’s flagship campaigns
Swachhata hi Seva on minimizing single-use plastic within the country. During this
limited duration campaign, CMA Member Companies reached out to 17 states, 377
villages, covering more than 1,00,000 people through 500 + activities. The project
also involved the disposal of almost 8000 tons of plastic waste over about 3 weeks by
the CMA Member Companies at their plants in close coordination with urban local
bodies. CMA was awarded by the Ministry of Jal Shakti, Government of India, for
its contribution to the initiative.
C. Geocycle India

Geocycle India is a shared services department of ACC Ltd. and Ambuja Cement Ltd.
Geocycle India is a part of the global Geocycle network and has been in operation
in the country for more than a decade. It is involved in pre-processing of wastes into
AFRs and then co-processing them into cement kilns.
Stakeholder awareness
• Organization of stakeholder meets with SPCBs.
340 15 Journey of the Growth of Co-processing in India

• Making presentations in the events organized by local/regional industry associa-

tions, national conferences, etc.
• Publishing articles in national/international journals and publications.
• Media interactions for promoting awareness on AFRs.
Advocacy
• Advocacy initiatives individually and in association with various industry
associations.
• Advocated for achieving preferred status to the technology of co-processing in
the regulatory framework and also permitting interstate movement of hazardous
wastes.
• Participated as an expert in the committees constituted by CPCB and MoEFCC
and prepared draft guidelines for the pre-processing and co-processing of waste
streams.
• Showcased the business model of the co-processing initiative to the Task
Force Committee constituted by CPCB to demonstrate the sustainability of the
co-processing initiative in the country.
D. GIZ (Earlier GTZ)

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH is working

jointly with partners in India for sustainable economic, ecological, and social
development. The thematic areas of GIZ in India are Energy; Environment,
Climate Change and Biodiversity; Sustainable Urban and Industrial Development,
and Sustainable Economic Development. GIZ partnered with Holcim in 2006
in bringing out the guidelines on co-processing in 2006 (GIZ/Holcim, 2006)and
later with LafargeHolcim bringing out a refined version of the same in 2018
(GIZ/LafargeHolcim, 2018).
Stakeholder awareness
• Organizing interactive meets and deliberations on aspects related to AFR.
• Promoting co-processing through stakeholder meets as well as town-specific solid
waste management improvement projects.
• Promoting co-processing through demonstration projects: Conducting trial run
for dry fractions of municipal Solid Waste with Nashik Municipal Corporation
and Geocycle as a pilot.
Advocacy
• Prepared a report on assessment and mapping of cement plants and municipal
solid waste (MSW) processing facilities within 100, 200, and 300 km radius for
promoting RDF co-processing in India (GIZ, 2018).
• Capacity building of the authorities in MoEFCC, other ministries, CPCB, and
several SPCBs on the subject of co-processing.
• Capacity building of MoHUA, the state Urban Development Departments and
Municipal Corporations on the subject of co-processing and utilization of RDF
(GIZ, 2013).
15.4 Journey 2008–2020 341

• Organization of the stakeholder deliberations on the relevance of co-processing

of wastes in the policy framework and sharing of best practices.
• Promoting the co-processing technology for the sustainable management of
wastes (Dieter Mutz, 2014).
• Publication of results of the co-processing trial run for dry fractions of municipal
solid waste with GIZ, Nashik Municipal Corporation, and geocycle in conferences
and journals (Vaishali Nandan, 2014).
• Round table discussions were organized by MoHUA and GIZ for the preparation
of the Municipal Solid Waste Management Manual 2016 with MoEFCC, CPCB,
states, and cities as members of the expert committee deliberations with cement
industries and other relevant stakeholders resulted in inclusion of co-processing
of RDF in the Municipal Solid Waste Management Manual 2016 and the Solid
Waste Management Rules 2016.

E. SINTEF, Norway

SINTEF is one of Europe’s largest independent research organizations. Every year,

several thousand projects are carried out by it for customers large and small spread
out throughout the world.
Stakeholder awareness
Collaboration with CPCB and organizing workshops on AFR in different parts of
the country for awareness generation.
• Publishing articles on the use of AFRs in scientific and other publications.
• Creating awareness among the authorities on the international best practices in
co-processing.
Figure 15.8 depicts the photo of the workshops organized by CPCB and SINTEF
for the promotion of co-processing in the country.
Advocacy
• Collaboration with CPCB in evaluating aspects related to co-processing for
implementation in the policy framework.
• Capacity building of the authorities in MoEFCC and CPCB about co-processing.
• Collaborating with CPCB in drafting guidelines for co-processing and related
matters.
• Advocating the benefits of managing the entire hazardous and non-hazardous
wastes generated in Norway through co-processing in cement kilns.

F. NCCBM

National Council for Cement and Building Materials is an apex body dedicated
to continuous research, technology development and transfer, and education and
industrial services for the cement and building material industries in India.
Stakeholder Awareness
342 15 Journey of the Growth of Co-processing in India

Fig. 15.8 Stakeholder workshops organized by CPCB, India, and SINTEF, Norway, in different
cities in India. Dr. Kare Helge Karstensen, the author of the book, is seen along with CPCB and
SPCB dignitaries

• Promoting use of AFRs in the cement industry by encouraging publications of

scientific articles in the biennial NCB International Conference.
• Dissemination of knowledge in dedicated workshops/webinars (with participation
of over 500) for executives and plant operators on aspects related to co-processing
of AFR’s.
Advocacy
• Promoting the advantages of co-processing among stakeholders and clarifying
their concerns through research investigations, publications, demonstrations, etc.
• Formation of Expertise Group to address concerns of clinker manufacturing units
related to process/operation, system design, cement chemistry, and environment
• For the first time in the AFR field, develop concepts for the co-processing of
domestic and other wastes as alternative fuels, by checking the environmentally
relevant and process-specific influences on the cement production. Accordingly,
appropriate preparation and handling plants and dosing systems are planned for
achieving the target %TSR.
15.4 Journey 2008–2020 343

• Supporting cement plants operating at low/marginal level of %TSR for enhancing

the AFR consumption, without impacting the clinker quality, emission, and
operation and achieving reduction in carbon footprint.
• National Council for Cement and Building Materials is an apex body dedi-
cated to continuous research, technology development and transfer, education
and industrial services for the cement and building material industries.
G. TERI

TERI is an independent, multi-dimensional organization, with capabilities in

research, policy, consultancy, and implementation. It creates innovations and facili-
tates change management in the energy, environment, climate change, and sustain-
ability space. It has pioneered conversations and action in these areas for over four
decades and believes that resource efficiency and waste management are the keys to
smart, sustainable, and inclusive development.
Stakeholder Awareness
• Organizing deliberations about co-processing of AFRs in the cement industry in
its various stakeholder awareness initiatives.
• Promoting the concept of co-processing for sustainable management of solid
wastes in its various projects.
Advocacy
• Promoting the advantages of co-processing among policy makers and other
stakeholders.
• Preparation of Feasibility Study for RDF Availability for Cement Kilns in India
to estimate the availability of RDF within 100, 200, and 300 km radius of cement
kilns for promoting usage of municipal solid waste or MSW-based RDF for co-
processing in cement plants in India and developing innovative business models
to help facilitate this mechanism (TERI, 2017–18).
• Partnered with GIZ in assessment and mapping of cement plants and municipal
solid waste processing facilities (TERI, 2017–18).
H. ISWMAW

International Society of Waste Management, Air and Water (ISWMAW) is a non-

profit non-government organization, active in a variety of areas, including supporting
collaborative research and publication, conferences, meetings, training programs,
information development and dissemination, and technical assistance on a global
scale having collaboration with more than 45 countries. ISWMAW promotes and
develops global sustainable and professional waste management, Sustainable Devel-
opment Goals (SDGs), and the transition to a Circular Economy. The interna-
tional platform of ISWMAW for awareness generation and collaborative activities is
344 15 Journey of the Growth of Co-processing in India

International Conference of Sustainable Waste Management and Circular Economy

(IconSWM-CE). It has a significant impact on encouraging stakeholders to practice
environmentally friendly activities and research for the last 12 years, focusing on
policy instruments, resource efficiency, waste management, green manufacturing,
inclusive sustainable development, recycling, co-processing, and other innovative
technologies.
Stakeholder Awareness
• Instituted the “IconSWM-CE Excellence Award for waste co-processing in
cement plants” for individuals and organizations having significant contributions
to co-processing activities in cement plants including research since 2019. The
processing of IconSWM-CE Excellence Award 2021 and 2022 for co-processing
is under progress.
• Organizing deliberations about co-processing of AFRs in the cement industry in
its various stakeholder awareness initiatives.
• Promoting the concept of co-processing for sustainable management of solid
wastes in its various projects including research projects and publications.
To encourage coprocessing in the cement plants, ISWMAW has announced the
participation in the competition for the “IconSWM-CE Excellence Award for waste
co-processing in cement plants, 2021” in the 11th IconSWM-CE & IPLA Global
Forum 2021 to be held during December 1–4, 2021.
Figure 15.9 provides photos of the the Award Ceremony in the inaugura-
tion of the 9th International Conference on Sustainable Waste Management and
Circular Economy for presenting the “IconSWM-CE Excellence Award for waste
co-processing in cement plant, 2019” by Prof. Sadhan Kumar Ghosh, President,
ISWMAW.
Advocacy
• Promoting the advantages of co-processing among policy makers and other
stakeholders.
• Research for the preparation of reports on corelation between co-processing
and curbing marine littering in India and potential of MSW-based RDF for
co-processing in cement plants in India during 2020–2022.

I. Industrial Institute of Productivity India (IIPI)

Institute for Industrial Productivity India (IIPI) is an independent non-profit organi-

zation operating as a best practice network in partnership with government, industry,
and community to develop and implement solutions that promote resource conser-
vation, sustainable growth, and climate resilience. IIPI achieves this by driving
demand for resource-efficient practices and clean technologies by undertaking action
research, piloting new approaches, and developing and promoting innovative tech-
nologies. IIPI also develops tools and approaches that prepare stakeholders for a
low-carbon future. To identify and resolve the regulatory and policy issues related to
use of alternative fuels and raw materials (AFRs), a Forum of Regulators was created
by IIPI with high-level representation from State Pollution Control Boards of major
15.4 Journey 2008–2020 345

Fig. 15.9 The ISWMAW instituted “IconSWM-CE Excellence Award 2019” for co-processing
are being handed over to the organizations and individuals who contributed significantly to the
promotion of co-processing in India. The awards were handed over by Prof. Sadhan K Ghosh,
Chairman, IconSWM-CE, and President of ISWMAW, the author of the book, in the presence of
the IconSWM-CE Co-chairs, Mr. Arne Ragossnig, President, ISWA, Austria, Dr. Abas Basir, DG,
SACEP, Sri Lanka, Mr C. R. C. Mohanty, Env. Coordinator, UNCRD, Japan, Mr. K. Onogawa,
Director, CCET-IGES, Japan, Dr. H. N. Chanakya, CST, IISc, the Vice chancellor, KIIT and the Jt.
Secretary, UD, Government of Odisha

cement producing states in India. The forum met regularly to deliberate on the key
policy and regulatory bottlenecks, and issued a series of five White Papers/Policy
Briefs. These were developed in the following inputs from the members of state
pollution control boards, technical experts, industry representatives and references
to international best practices, and journals and research documents. Subsequently,
the same has been published as a Compendium of five white papers on alternate fuel
and raw (AFR) material use in cement manufacture. The compendium is the outcome
of the forum’s work to promote AFR use in the Indian cement industry.
J. Government Agencies

Co-processing being a sustainable initiative, this also was promoted by several

government institutions. This included MoEFCC, CPCB, MoHUA, and several
state pollution control boards that included Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka,
Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Telangana, etc.
They actively granted the trials permission and also the regular permission for co-
processing as per the defined protocols. They also encouraged the industry to accept
co-processing as the preferred option for waste management. As co-processing option
346 15 Journey of the Growth of Co-processing in India

provides landfill-free status to the industries—which is an essential requirement for

exporting products to many developing countries—DIPP also actively recommended
the cause of co-processing to MoEFCC, CPCB, and MoHUA.

15.4.3 Notification of Rules, Emission Standards,

Monitoring Protocol, and Guidelines

Based on the awareness initiatives and advocacy efforts implemented by different

agencies, the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC),
Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, and Central Pollution Control Board released
different notifications to facilitate co-processing in the country.
A. Rules
The option of management of wastes using co-processing technology was
included in the Hazardous and Other Waste Management Rules notified in
2016 (HOWM Rules, GOI, 2016). As per these rules, the mandatory require-
ment of the demonstration of the suitability of co-processing technology for
the management of a given waste stream was removed. The new Rule 9 in the
HOWM Rules 2016 notified that grant of permission for co-processing will be
based on compliance with the notified Emission Standards for co-processing.
Co-processing in cement kilns was also incorporated in the Plastic Waste
Management Rules 2016 (PWM Rules, GOI, 2016) for the management of
non-recyclable plastic wastes. Subsequently, these rules have been amended as
Plastic Waste Management (Amendment) Rules 2018.
Co-processing in cement kilns was further incorporated in the Solid Waste
Management Rules 2016 (SWM Rules, GOI, 2016) for the sustainable manage-
ment of segregated combustible fraction (SCF)—also termed as refuse derived
fuel (RDF)—from municipal solid waste (MSW). The permission for co-
processing of the plastic waste and SCF/RDF was also mandated based on
compliance with the notified emission standards.
B. Emission Standards
The Emission Standards for cement kilns undertaking co-processing of AFRs
were notified in the Environment (Protection) Third Amendment Rules 2016
dated 10 May 2016 (MoEFCC—Emission Standards, 2016).
C. Monitoring Protocol
The monitoring protocol for ascertaining compliance with the emission stan-
dards while undertaking co-processing was published by CPCB in 2018 (CPCB,
2018).
D. Guidelines
The technical guidelines for pre-processing and co-processing of wastes were
released by CPCB in July 2017 (CPCB, 2017). The guidelines for co-processing
of plastic wastes were released by CPCB in May 2017 (CPCB, 2017). As per
15.4 Journey 2008–2020 347

Table 15.5 Growth of co-processing in India

Parameter 2008 2012 2016 2020
Number of plants having permission < 10 ~ 20 ~ 45 > 60
Average TSR% 0.6% ~ 1.0 3.8% > 4.0%

these guidelines, the permission for pre-processing and co-processing are being
granted by SPCBs.
Considering the quality issue faced in co-processing of SCF/RDF from MSW in
cement kilns, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA) published
guidelines on usage of refuse derived fuel in various industries in 2018
(MoHUA, 2018).

15.4.4 Status of Co-processing in India

The journey of the growth of co-processing in the Indian cement industry is repre-
sented in Table 15.5. This data is based on the assessment which was carried out by
CII-Godrej GBC.

15.5 Case Studies of Cement Companies

The AFR journey is taken up very aggressively by several companies in India and
the volumes in these companies are getting ramped up on a yearly basis. Case studies
of a few of these companies are provided in the next pages for getting better clarity
of this AFR journey of the Indian cement industry.
Case Study 1—ACC Limited and Ambuja Cement Ltd.
Case Study 2—JSW Cement Ltd.
Case Study 3—J K Lakshmi Cement Ltd.
Case Study 4—My Home Cement Ltd.
Case Study 5—Dalmia Cement Ltd.
Case Study 6—J. K. Cement Ltd.
Case Study 7—Vicat India.
It can be observed from these case studies that most of them are aligned to the
Low-Carbon Technology Road map prepared for the Indian cement industry and are
planning to achieve high level of TSR to reduce the carbon footprint drastically.
348 15 Journey of the Growth of Co-processing in India

Case Study—1

Ambuja Cement Ltd & ACC Limited

In India, Ambuja Cements Ltd and ACC Ltd, which are a part of the global
conglomerate LafargeHolcim, have been offering sustainable waste manage-
ment solutions through co-processing, since 2005. The organizations are the
pioneers of co-processing in the country and together have the capacity to
manage more than 700,000 tons of waste through 13 co-processing and 6 pre-
processing facilities. Plans are already in place to further enhance this capacity.
Ambuja and ACC offer waste management solutions under the umbrella of
Geocycle which is the global waste management brand of the LafargeHolcim
Group. Globally, Geocycle treats around 10 million tons of waste annually,
serving more than 10,000 customers in over 50 countries. It has access to more
than 80 waste pre-treatment facilities and more than 180 cement plants, with
dedicated co-processing installations. Over the years, the organizations put in
concerted efforts in advocacy and capacity building to achieve greater tech-
nical and legal recognition for co-processing technology in line with accepted
international standards. These efforts bore fruit when the changes in the Indian
Waste Legislation in 2016, recognized co-processing as a preferred technology
for waste management.
Leveraging the global experience and extensive know-how of their parent
company, Ambuja and ACC have blazed a trail by supporting a widespread
adoption of the co-processing technology in the country. This was done through
extensive stakeholder engagement, collaboration with academia and scien-
tific bodies and successful technical demonstration of the technology through
more than 50 successful third-party emission monitoring trial burns. Under the
umbrella Geocycle brand, the organizations have also been on the forefront
of innovation, setting up several state-of-the-art facilities catering to varied
waste streams, volumes and complexity. This has allowed them to venture
into more complex waste streamsand facilitated many industries to achieve the
landfill free status. This initiative also permitted sustainable solution for sorted
municipal solid waste, thus supporting government initiatives like ‘Swachh
Bharat’.
Ambuja and ACC work with local communities to sustainably source agri-
cultural waste (which can neither be fed to cattle or suitably used by agricultural
producers) thus providing sustainable livelihood opportunities. In 2020, their
activities under the aegis of Geocycle helped them source 100,000 tons of such
agri-waste.
Their initiative has also been instrumental in remediation of 7 dumpsites
and they are collaborating with more than 20 municipalities to support waste
management in cities and towns across the country. The co-processing opera-
tions of Ambuja and ACC have consistently achieved a 15 to 20% growth in
the last 3 years, treating more than 10,00,000 Tons of waste and alternative
15.5 Case Studies of Cement Companies 349

resources. Their endeavours have led to avoidance of more than 2,90,000 tons
of waste going to landfills in 2020 alone.
www.acclimited.com
www.ambujacement.com

Case Study—2

Co-processing of alternative fuels by JSW Cement Limited

JSW Group, forayed into Cement market in the year 2009 with a vision to
manufacture environment friendly construction materials utilizing industrial
wastes and took initiatives with mission to curb climate change way ahead of
everyone else. It positioned itself distinctively in a surplus supply industry by
promoting Slag Cement & GGBS.
Today, JSW Cement Limited, has manufacturing plants at Vijayanagar in
Karnataka, Nandyal in Andhra Pradesh, Dolvi in Maharashtra, Jajpur & Shiva
Cement Limited (a subsidiary) in Odisha, Salboni in West Bengal and JSW
Cement FZE, Fujairah (a subsidiary) in UAE with an annual installed capacity
to produce 14 MTPA Cement products and GGBS, and is one of the largest
companies in India to produce green construction products.
JSW Cement is operating an integrated cement plant at Nandyal which
utilizes the latest energy efficient technology in clinker manufacturing process.
As part of its sustainability initiative, it started co-processing of wastes
(hazardous & non-hazardous) in kiln from FY-16 and has continuously
increased the Thermal Substitution Rate (TSR) to 8.26% during FY-20. During
this journey it has used multiple types of wastes such as pharmaceutical waste,
350 15 Journey of the Growth of Co-processing in India

liquid waste, plastic waste, carbon black, PPF oil, mixed industrial waste, dolo-
char, biomass etc. and successfully co-processed these with minimal additional
environment impacts. The company has co-processed ~88,500 MT of waste in
cement kiln till FY-21, thus avoiding the usage of ~ 34436 MT of coal.
At its recently commissioned Fujairah clinker plant, it has co-processed
Spent Pot liners (SPL), a waste from aluminum industry, which has given dual
benefits i.e. improving TSR as well as reduction in specific thermal energy.
A project is also underway to commence usage of RDF and is expected to be
commissioned in FY22.
During our efforts in co-processing we have reduced ~ 75398 MT of
CO2 emissions till FY-21 by utilizing the wastes in place of coal. We have
roadmap in place to take up our TSR rate to 30% by 2030 thereby making our
manufacturing process more sustainable.
Benefits of co-processing include saving of fossil fuels; saving of land mass
used for disposal of industrial waste and subsequent damage to environment &
earth by industrial wastes. Apart from co-processing, we use industrial wastes
or byproducts such as red mud, fly-ash, slag, chemical gypsum in the manu-
facturing process, thus reducing the consumption of natural resources like
limestone, bauxite, and mineral gypsum.
We have implemented various energy conservation/efficiency measures, and
carried out third party product certifications like Environmental Product Decla-
ration (EPD), Green-Pro for our PSC, CC & GGBS products. With the help
of all these sustainable initiatives, our specific CO2 emissions per MT of PSC
(261 kg CO2/MT of PSC) is one of least among the cement companies across
the world.
www.jswcement.in or Email info@jswcement.in
15.5 Case Studies of Cement Companies 351

Case Study—3

J K Lakshmi Cement Ltd.

( www.jklakshmicement.com)
JK Lakshmi Cement Limited (JKLC) is a part of the prestigious JK Organi-
sation. This eminent industrial house is over a hundred and twenty-five years
old and boasts operations in India and abroad with a leadership presence in
the fields of tyre, cement, paper, power transmissions, sealing solutions, dairy
products and textiles. Having started the company in 1982, we have modern
and fully computerized, integrated cement plants at Jaykaypuram, in the Sirohi
district of Rajasthan, at Dabok, in the Udaipur district of Rajasthan (a subsidiary
of the company) and at Ahiwara, in the Durg district of Chhattisgarh. With the
four split location grinding units, the combined capacity of our company is
13.3 Million MT per annum. Being a sustainability driven organisation, JKLC
is at the forefront in utilising different kinds of wastes in the manufacture of
cement. Apart from using substantial quantity of fly ash & Slag in the cement
manufacture, we are also utilising large quantities of wastes generated from
Agricultural, Municipal and Industrial sectors.
Our AFR journey started in year of 2005-06 while using of sludge from the
textile industries, we are now associated with around more than 80 industries
and providing them our co-processing solutions for sustainable management
of the hazardous and non-hazardous wastes generated by them. Quite a few of
them have attained the landfill free status. Our current TSR is 6 % which has
helped us to reduce carbon foot print emission level by about 100,000 MT. The
total quantum of AFR co-processed by us so far has been 5, 10,403 MT. This
has helped us to reduce the 8, 00,000 Tons of CO2 emission and Conserved
about 3, 30,000 MT of fossil fuels. Through this initiative we have been able
to provide direct employment to around 10 persons and indirect employment
of 300 persons.
Today, our heads stand high in serving the nation. For the last 34 years
we have been reinforcing the base with multiple superior quality products.
The Company has maintained its status of being the least cost producer
with increased customer satisfaction and loyalty. By implementing sustainable
manufacturing practices across its different units, our company has very well
carried out its duty towards promoting sustainable growth and development
towards betterment of Environment, Community and Economy.
Shrimati Vinita Singhania—Vice Chairperson & Managing Director
352 15 Journey of the Growth of Co-processing in India
15.5 Case Studies of Cement Companies 353

Case Study—4

My Home Industries Private Limited, Mellacheruvu Cement Works,

Telangana
(www.mahacement.com)
My Home Industries Private Limited, Mellacheruvu Cement Works (MCW),
Telangana State was established during the year 1998 with an installed capacity
of 0.2 MTPA and has now attained a capacity of 10 million tonnes per annum.
MCW unit utilises liquid Pharma waste as alternative fuel in the kiln to reduce
fossil fuel with an aim to avoid the environmental pollution, reduce the GHG
emissions and conserve the fossil fuels and natural resources.
MCW has installed in 2012 a state-of-the-art closed circuit Alternative
Fuel facility with unloading, storage and feeding system for co-processing
liquid wastes from Pharmaceutical industries. This facility has been designed
by giving due consideration to required safety standards for managing the
hazardous wastes from pharmaceutical industry. The design of this facility
takes care of the challenges associated with the pharmaceutical wastes such as
low flash points, Chloride corrosion, and odours due to VOCs etc. This facility
provides MCW an opportunity to achieve a TSR of 5% and the same is being
planned for augmentation to achieve 10% TSR by 2030.
The total quantity of Liquid pharma waste co-processed in facility so far is
more than 92,000 Tons, which has led to the conservation of more than 63,000
Tons of high-quality coal. This has also helped the company in reducing more
than 1,01,000 T of GHG emissions . While implementing this co-processing
initiative, MCW has helped more than 8 Pharmaceutical companies to manage
their wastes in a sustainable manner. The direct employment generated due to
this initiative is about 15 Nos. and has helped to provide indirect employment
to > 60 persons. In the year 2019-20, more than 16,370 Tons of Pharmaceutical
wastes were co-processed conserving about 11,000 Tons of coal and avoiding
>18,000 Tons of GHG emissions.
The sustainability journey of MCW continues with higher strides adding
value to environment and sustainability.
354 15 Journey of the Growth of Co-processing in India
15.5 Case Studies of Cement Companies 355

Case Study—5

Decoupling GHG emissions while following Clean and Green is

Profitable & Sustainable
Dalmia Cement Bharat Limited (DCBL) is the fourth largest cement
producer in India with a total installed capacity of 30.75 million tonnes. Dalmia
Cement was the first in global heavy-industry sector to commit to 2040 carbon
negative roadmap. The company was successful in visualising the future course
of policy and actions in 2018 itself as more than 60% of the global GDP
committed to Net Zero within two years. The carbon negative commitment of
Dalmia Cement served as catalyst to change the image of heavy industry sector
from Hard-to-Abate to Possible-to-Abate.
Mr. Mahendra Singhi, MD & CEO, Dalmia Cements Bharat Limited reit-
erated the commitment of at the United Nations Climate Ambition Summit
2020 which was participated by 70 national leaders. Highlighting time to act
now due to unprecedented climate challenge being faced by the humanity. Mr.
Singhi provided the details of DCBL climate actions towards more sustain-
able cement and construction sector. The company has a business philosophy
of “Clean and Green is Profitable and Sustainable” which takes a co-benefit
approach of profitability and sustainability. The company is globally ranked
No 1 by CDP on business readiness for a low carbon economy transition. The
group is nearly ten times water positive and is the first cement company in the
world to join EP100, RE100 and EV 100 initiatives. Dalmia is also identified
as Climate Defender by BBC World, Carbon Pricing Champion by the World
Bank Group and COP-26 Business Leader by UN COP-26 Presidency.
Dalmia Group: Journey of Alternative Fuels:
Usage of Alternative fuel and material is one of the important lever to achieve
Carbon negative commitment. Dalmia has advanced marching towards 2040
goal and made capital expenditure of more than 200 Crores towards required
infrastructure for co processing. In FY 20-21 group kilns co processed more
than 0.22 Million tonnes of hazardous and non-hazardous waste, major material
being RDF, MLP and paper mill plastics. DCBL is a solid waste recycling
positive company on account of its alternative fuels usage.
In FY20-21 average TSR for group cement kilns was more than 8%. DCBL
is the first Indian Cement company to install Chlorine Bypass system to enhance
usage of alternative fuels by end of year 2021 in two plants. Group has set an
ambitious target of achieving TSR of 35% in all group kilns by FY22-23 and
achieving 100% fossil fuel replacement by 2035 through use of alternative
fuels and sustainable biomass use.
DCBL plants located in Meghalaya and Assam are consuming saw dust
generated in saw mills and bamboo as a fuel which is grown locally. This
initiative would gain further momentum considering Indian Government has
356 15 Journey of the Growth of Co-processing in India

declared Bamboo as a grass. Besides, nearly 26 million Ha. Wasteland iden-

tified by MoEFCC may be available for the sustainable biomass resource
development and switching of fossil fuels.
Road Ahead:
Dalmia group is committed to its target of carbon negative roadmap & 100%
switching of fossil fuels.
(www.dalmiacement.com)

Case Study—6

J K Cement Limited.
(www.jkcement.com)
JK Cement Ltd is one of India’s leading manufacturers of Grey Cement and
the third largest White Cement manufacturer in the World. Over four decades,
the company has partnered India’s multi-sectoral infrastructure needs on the
strength of its product excellence, customer orientation and technology lead-
ership. JK Cement’s operations commenced with commercial production at its
flagship grey cement unit at Nimbahera, Rajasthan in May 1975. The Company
has an installed Grey Cement capacity of 14.7 MnTPA, making it one of the
top cement manufacturers in the Country. JKCL is the No. 1 manufacturer
of Wall Putty in the world with capacity of 1.2MnTPA and the third largest
15.5 Case Studies of Cement Companies 357

manufacturer of White Cement, globally, with total white cement capacity of

1.20 MnTPA.
JK Cement has always worked towards reducing carbon footprint and has
made a shift to green-technology. In this drive JK Cement has been focussing
on increasing the use of alternate fuels & raw materials and also setting up
more solar, wind and waste heat recovery sources of energy generation. The
company is utilising Solid and Liquid waste; combustible material from MSW,
processed RDF, FMCG waste, AGRO waste & Industrial waste as an alternative
fuel and GCP dust, Lime sludge, red mud and iron sludge as a Raw material
in the kiln to reduce fossil fuel and natural raw material usage.
JK Cement has always worked towards reducing carbon footprint and has
made a shift to green-technology. In this drive JK Cement has been focussing
on increasing the use of alternate fuels & raw materials and also setting up
more solar, wind and waste heat recovery sources of energy generation. The
company is utilising Solid and Liquid waste; combustible material from MSW,
processed RDF, FMCG waste, AGRO waste & Industrial waste as an alternative
fuel and GCP dust, Lime sludge, red mud and iron sludge as a Raw material
in the kiln to reduce fossil fuel and natural raw material usage.
The AFR Journey of JK Cement started in the year 2014 with 6000 MT
consumption per annum and now the total quantity of waste co-processed
in JK plants is more than 500,000 Tons which has led to the conservation
of more than 125,000 Tons of high-quality coal. This has also helped the
company in reducing >325,000 T of GHG emissions. JK Cement’s Muddapur
unit is running on +18% TSR and has facility of both Solid and Liquid feeding
arrangement. In the year 2019-20, nearly 150,000 Tons of solid + liquid wastes
were co-processed conserving about 80200 Tons of coal and almost 140,000
Tons of GHG emissions. In the year 2020-21, 205,000 Tons of solid + liquid
wastes were co-processed conserving about 106,000 Tons of coal and reducing
180,000 Tons of GHG emissions.
JK Cement’s endeavour is to create sustainable economic value for stake-
holders while ensuring a positive impact around the communities they operate.
JKCL has diligently crafted its sustainability strategy through an extensive
process comprising internal and external consultations, peer benchmarking
and its alignment with national and global goals. To further augment the same,
company has built a solid governance ecosystem to ensure that efforts are
carried out in a consistent, accountable and transparent manner.
358 15 Journey of the Growth of Co-processing in India

Case Study—7

VICAT INDIA
Bharathi Cement Ltd. and Kalburgi Cement Ltd. are the flagship companies of
Vicat, France in India. Vicat is the pioneer in cement manufacturing since its
invention by Louis Vicat in 1817. Vicat, in India, operates with a name brand
“Bharathi Cement” and “Vicat Cement” (only in Maharashtra). The company
owns the state-of-the art manufacturing plants in Kadappa, Andhra Pradesh and
Kalaburagi, Karnataka with a combined production capacity of 8.6 MTPA.
Since 2012, VICAT in India started replacing their traditional fuels with
AFRs. For this, it has installed State-of-the-art co-processing facilities with
stringent safety standards in both the plants to co-process many different kinds
of hazardous and non-hazardous waste streams. These facilities provide Bharati
Cement Ltd. and Kalburgi Cement Ltd. an opportunity to achieve a TSR of
19% and 23% respectively and is poised to achieve 35% TSR by 2030.
The total quantity of waste co-processed in these facilities annually is more
than 2,25,000 Tons which has led to the conservation of around 1,40,000 Tons
of high-quality coal. This has also helped the Vicat group to reduce >3,00,000
T of GHG emissions annually. The direct employment generated due to this
initiative is 55 and has helped to provide indirect employment to >180 persons.
While implementing this co-processing initiative, it has helped a large number
of number of industries to ensure that their waste gets managed in a transparent,
traceable and auditable manner.
To have sustainable utilization of waste, Vicat is extending its support and
handholding with local waste processors by investing for pre-processing the
waste in their premises. A recent tie up with Bhumi Greens in Pune is one of
15.5 Case Studies of Cement Companies 359

the benchmark example for the industry for such a collaboration. Along with
M/s Bhumi Green Energy, Vicat India has invested for the 1000 TPD legacy
municipal waste processing unit in Pune. The generated RDF is being trans-
ported and used at Vicat India Kalburgi Cement Plant in Karnataka. This MSW
processing unit in running successfully and Vicat India is looking at several
other cities to implement this kind of model for sustainable AFR production.
Vicat leads the country in co-processing drive with highest percentage of
TSR.
(www.bharathicement.com)
360 15 Journey of the Growth of Co-processing in India

15.6 Conclusion

After 2016, many cement plants have been observed to initiate co-processing and
many who are already co-processing are able to ramp up their volumes due to facilita-
tion that has happened in the policy framework and also the Swatch Bharat Abhiyan
that has been initiated in the country from 2014. The major rise in volumes is from
the Municipal sector on account of the reforms that have been happening towards the
management of MSW and also due to remedying of the existing dump yards. Many
cement plants have now > 10% TSR in their kilns and many of them are targeting
bigger aspirations for 2030 and 2050 to move towards the net-zero ambition.

References

CII. (2012). White Paper on Increasing Co-Processing in Cement Plants. Shakti Sustainable Energy
Foundation (shaktifoundation.in).
Circular from CPCB in Conjunction with Rule 9 of HWM Rules, 2016 with list of trialed waste
streams, B-33014 /7/2016/PCI-II, Dated 30 Jun 2016
CPCB, Annual Report, 2003–2004. http://www.cpcbenvis.nic.in/annual_report/AnnualReport_
8_AnnualReport_2003-04.pdf.
CPCB, Annual Report, 2005–2006. http://www.cpcbenvis.nic.in/annual_report/AnnualReport_21_
AnnualReport_2005-2006.pdf.
CPCB, Annual Report 2004–2005. http://www.cpcbenvis.nic.in/annual_report/AnnualReport_21_
AnnualReport_2004-2005.pdf.
CPCB. (2016). Guidelines for co-processing of plastic wastes in cement kilns as per Rule 5b of
PWM Rules, May 2017.
CPCB. (2016). Guidelines for Pre-processing and Co-processing of Hazardous and Other Wastes
in Cement Plant as per H & OW(M & TBM) Rules, July 2017.
CPCB. (2018). 1st Revised guidelines for Continuous Emission Monitoring System.
Eco-echoes. (2008). 9(4), 1–5, Eco-Oct-Dec-08.pmd (icpe.in)
Environment (Protection) Third Amendment Rules (2016). Notified by MoEFCC, Government of
India (GSR497E) dated 10 May 2016, http://ismenvis.nic.in/Database/Notification_10th_May_
2016-GSR497E_12779.aspx.
GIZ. (2018). Assessment and Mapping of Cement Plants, and Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)
Processing, Facilities within 100, 200 and 300 km Radius, for Promoting RDF Co-processing in
India.
GIZ. (2013). Status Report on Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) utilisation in India.
GIZ/LafargeHolcim. (2018). Guidelines on pre-processing and co-processing of waste.
GTZ/Holcim. (2006). Guidelines on co-processing of wastes.
HOWM Rules. (2016). Notified by MoEFCC Government of India (GSR 395 E) dated 4 April 2016
available at http://moef.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/GSR-395E.pdf
Karstensen, et al. (2014). Destruction of concentrated chlorofluorocarbons in India demonstrates
an effective option to simultaneously curb climate change and ozone depletion. Environmental
Science & Policy, 38, 237–244.
Mutz, D., & Nandan, V. (2014). Co-processing waste materials in cement production: Experience
from the past and future perspectives. International Journal of Environmental Technology and
Management, 17(2/3/4).
MoHUA, CPHEEO. (2018). Guidelines on usage of RDF in various industries, Oct available at
5bda791e5afb3SBMRDFBook.pdf (cpheeo.gov.in)
References 361

Nandan, V., Dube, R., Yadav, J., Parlikar, U., Nicole, G., Chakraborty, M., & Salunke, S. (2014).
Co-processing trial of dry segregated rejects from Municipal Solid Waste in cement plants. In
Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Solid Waste Management, (pp. 376–388).
Jan. 28–30.
Parlikar, U., Bundela, P. S., Baidya, R., Ghosh, S. K., & Ghosh, S. K. (2016). Effect of variation
in the chemical constituents of wastes on the co-processing performance of the cement kilns.
Procedia Environmental Sciences, 35, 506–512.
PWM (Amendment) Rules. (2018). notified by MoEFCC, Government of India (GSR 285 E) dated
27 March 2018 available at http://moef.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/PWM-amendment-
english-2018.pdf
PWM Rules. (2016). Notified by MoEFCC, Government of India (GSR 320 E) dated 18 March
2016 available at PWM-Rules-2016-English.pdf (moef.gov.in)
SWM Rules. (2016). Notified by MoEFCC, Government of India, (SO1357 E) dated 8 April 2016
available at http://moef.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/SWM-2016-English.pdf
TERI, Annual report, 2017–2018, pp 33
The Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules. (2008).
Government of India
WBCSD (2014). Cement sustainability initiative, guidelines for co-processing fuels and raw
materials in cement manufacturing.
Appendix

Chapter 1

3R Energy Intensive POPs,

AFR GHG emissions, Polychlorinated dibenzofurans
Alternative Fuels, Global CO2, (PCDFs),
Basel Convention, Hazardous waste, Primary fuel
Cement production Incineration, The Combustion Stockholm Convention,
Circular Economy, efficiency, Ton of oil equivalent (TOE),
Co-processing, Indian Cement Industry Transforming Our World,
Earth Summit, Landfill, Trial burn,
Electrical energy consumption Our Common Future, WCED,
Polychlorinated World Conservation Strategy,
dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs),

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license 363
to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022
S. K. Ghosh et al., Sustainable Management of Wastes Through Co-processing,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-6073-3
364 Appendix

Chapter 2

Alternate use Dust Plastic waste

Alternative fuels and raw Environmentally sound Pre-calciner
materials (AFR) management Preheater
Alternative raw materials Environmentally sound Pre-processing
Authorisation technologies Producer
Auto-Ignition Temperature Extended Producer Recovery
Basel Convention Responsibility (EPR) Recycling
Biodegradable waste Facility Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF)
Bio-methanation Flash Point Registration
Brand owner Food-stuffs Prescribed Authority
Calcination Fuels Reuse
Captive treatment, storage and Handling Rotary kiln
disposal facility Heating (calorific) value Sanitary land filling
Carry bags Higher heating (calorific) value Segregation
Cement (HHV) Solid waste
Central Pollution Control Importer Solid Waste Management
Board (CPCB) Incineration (SWM)
Clinker Inert Sorting
Clinkering Institutional waste generator Storage
Co-incineration plant Kiln State Pollution Control Board
Combustible waste Leachate Street vendor
Commodity Local Body Sustainable development
Common treatment, storage Lower heating (calorific) value Tipping (or Gate) Fee
and disposal facility (LHV) Transboundary movement
Composting Manufacturer Transportation
Concrete Multi-layered packaging Transporter
Consent Non-biodegradable waste Treatment
Contractor Non-Recyclable Plastics Waste User fee
Co-processing (NRPW) Utilisation
De-centralised processing Operator of a facility Virgin plastic
Disintegration Operator of a facility Waste
Disposal Other wastes Waste generator
Dry waste Plastic Waste pickers
Dump sites Plastic sheet
Appendix 365

Chapter 3

AFR Acid–base neutralization, Adverse impact of

Alternative fuels incineration, environment,
Battery cases, Biomass Association of the Austrian
Calcination Cashew nut shell Cement Industry (VÖZ),
Clinker Chemical fixation Basel Convention for
Clinker chemistry Circular economy Hazardous Waste Treatment,
CO2 emission Classified wastes Blast furnace flue dust,
Contamination of aquifer Control human health Burning process,
Co-processed Effectiveness, business potential
Coprocessing Farming & breeding units, Carbon black/powder,
Domestic refuse, construction & demolition Central Pollution Control
Dried sewage sludge, plastics activities, Board (CPCB),
wastes & residues, Feedstock, Combustion efficiency,
Wood waste, Final disposal Common Hazardous Waste
Employment generation Food processing units Treatment, Storage and
Environmental pollution Soil Fossil fuels, Disposal Facilities (TSDFs),
fertility, Gas, captive treatment facilities,
Flora-fauna Gross calorific value (GCV) Compliance,
Gaseous Handling protocols Cradle-to-gate assessments,
GHG Hazardous waste management Ecological cement
Global cement industry rules 2016 (eco-cement),
limestone Landfill End-of-Life Vehicle Directive,
Heavy metals Landfill gas, Estimated projections
Kiln Major developing countries. Foot wear,
Liquid, ministry of non-renewable German Research Institute of
Long residence time, energy (monre), the Cement Industry (FIZ),
Oxidizing atmosphere, Natural gas Guidelines,
Ash retention in clinker, Non-cattle feed harvest rejects, High moisture plastic waste,
alkaline environment Nut shells, Industrial furnace,
High thermal inertia Oil-bearing soils, Intended Nationally
Natural resource depletion Paint sludge Determined contribution
Non-renewable fossil fuels, Pyrolysis gas, (INDC).,
Paper waste, Refinery waste gas, Issues and Challenges,
Petroleum coke (petcoke), Refuse derived fuel (rdf), leachability,
used tyres, coconut shell, Low moisture Plastic waste,
Policy makers Rice husks, MSW incineration,
Portland cement Solidification, Paint sludge,
Pulp sludge, Sources, municipal waste Potlining
Recovery of resources streams precalciner kilns,
Recycled Supply chain framework, Resin waste,
Rubber residues, Sustainability, sanitary landfill,
Secondary raw materials Trials, Spent Pot Liner Waste,
Solid Valorization, Stakeholders,
Thermal substitution rates TSR Waste treatment plants Transboundary Movement,
Waterbodies incineration units, Tyre Derived Fuel (TDF),
Wastewater purifiers, Tyre pyrolysis,
Waste materials
366 Appendix

Chapter 4

Alternative Fuels Clinkerization Aluminium

Cement Fuel preparation Bag filters
Clay Kiln feed By-pass
Coal Petcoke Calcium
Dispatch Pozzolanic materials Dry process
Fuel preparation Raw material preparation ESP
Grinding RDF Exhaust gas
Limestone Rotary kiln Flame temperature
Manufacturing process Semi dry process Iron
Mines Semi wet process Raw mix
Portland cement VSK Retention time
Quarrying Wet process Silica
Raw materials preparation

Chapter 5

Raw mix Silica PSC

Coprocessing Alumina Fly ash
AFRs, Iron GBFS
Cement manufacture OPC Limestone
Cement chemistry PPC Standards
Operations Rotary kiln Clinker phases
Quality control Compressive strength Degre of calcination
Calcium Flame photometer Loss on Ignition
C3S Gravimetric analysis % Liquid
C2S Volumetric Sulfur to Alkali Ratio
C3A Complexometric Free Lime
C4AF Raw meal Excess sulphur
Ash Alumina Modulus Blending Ratio
XRF Silica Modulus Kiln feed to clinker factor
XRD Raw meal to clinker ratio Clinker to cement factor
Optical Microscopy LSF Insoluble residue
Coal ash Hydraulic Modulus Volumetric loading
Burner Bogue’s Formulae Thermal loading
Theoretical air % Excess Air Feed moisture evaporation rate
Primary air momentum GCV False air
Burner nozzle velocity NCV
Position of burner Ultimate Analysis
Proximate Analysis
Appendix 367

Chapter 6

Waste Acceptance Bomb Calorimeter MSDS

Waste evaluations Flash Point analyser Inspection
Waste Handling Chloride titrator Radioactive wastes
Transport Sulphur analyser Segregation
Non-compliant deliveries GC MS Design considerations
Labelling ICP AES VOC
Types of AFRs Stack House keeping
Pre-processing Emission monitoring Storage time
Storage Guidelines Fire detection and control
BAT Spills PCDD
BEP Safety PCDF
Quality EIA AFRs
Emission monitoring Calibration Input control
UN Dangerous Goods labelling Trial Feed point
Compatibility of chemicals Training Main burner
Hazardous wastes EMS Kiln inlet
Pre-processing Banned wastes Raw mill
Co-processing Risky wastes Process control
CEMS Acceptance control Laboratory
Stack monitoring Negative list Limit values
Test Burn PPE POHC
DE DRE
POPs

Chapter 7

Sustainability Water International Energy Association

Cement manufacture Plastics (IEA)
Co-processing Packaging Technology Road-map
Natural Capital Acidic emissions Primary emissions
Carbon foot-print Profits Secondary Emissions
Emissions Cement Sustainability Initiative Tertiary emissions
GHGs (CSI) CO2
Particulate matter WBCSD Climate Change
SOx Battelle Memorial Institute Energy Efficiency Improvement
NOx Agenda for Action Clinker substitution
VOC, Resource efficiency Carbon capture and utilization
Mining Conservation (CCU)
Bio-diversity Low carbon road map Carbon capture and Storage (CCS)
Economics Acid due point Renewable energy
Circular economy Rankine cycle LC3 Cement
Lever Organic Rankine cycle FGD Technology
Fly ash Kalina cycle EBA Process
GBFS Geopolymer Water conservation
Volcanic ash Algal growth Harvesting
Waste heat recovery Sustainable mining Plastic
Water table Challenges
Plantation Packaging
TSR
368 Appendix

Chapter 8

Environmental regulation Japan Solid Waste Management

Pollution South Africa Rules
Policy River NIMBY
Act Valley Permit
Law Framework SOP
Rule Factories Act Single Window
Guidelines Water Act EPR
Technology Air Act GTZ
Co-processing Environment Protection Act Holcim
Pre-processing Motor Vehicles Act Technical Guidelines
Constitution Public Liability Insurance Act Basal
State Government National Environmental LafargeHolcim
Central Government Tribunals Act WBCSD
India National Environmental GIZ
Brazil Appellate Authority Act UNEP
USA Labour SINTEF
European Union DGFASLI ADEME
Germany CPCB Ecology
MoEFCC SPCB Emission Limits
Hazardous & Other Waste Forest Conservation Act WID
Management Ruels EPA BAT
Plastic Waste MAnageemnt Clean Air Act WFD
Rules Eco Towns EC
Industry Green Development MACT IPPC
Plan CISWI Denmark
NSR / PSD Ireland Hungary
NDRC Netherlands
UK Czech Republic

Chapter 9

Emission Raw materials CEMS

Considerations Kiln dust CPCB
Thermal treatment Kiln system SPCB
Emission Impact Flora NO
Co-processing Fauna NO2
Standards Diseases P2 O5
Particulate emissions Gravity settling CO2
Acidic emissions Mechanical collectors Thermal NOx
Dust emissions Wet scrubbers Pyritic sulphur
Stack emissions ESP DeNOx
Fugitive emissions Fabric filters DRE
PM NOx, Opacity
FGD SOx, FTIR
SCR H2 S VOC
SNCR SO3 Hg
IPCC SO2 Dioxin & Furan
WBCSD HCl Toxic
CCS HF AFR
Clinker Kiln end Kiln Burner
Appendix 369

Chapter 10

Co-processing SWM Rules Dioxin

Thermal Treatment HOWM Rules Furan
RII PWM Rules Heavy Metals
AFRs SPCB Waste to Energy
Clinker ODS Municipal
Fossil fuels Principles of co-processing RDF
Wet Process Quality SCF
ILC Laboratory Dried Sewage Sludge
SLC Ultimate Analysis Industrial
Hazardous Waste Proximate Analysis Non-hazardous
Pre-processing Gas Chromatograph Agricultural
TSR Finger Print Agro-waste
Flash Point Gross Calorific Value Banned
Auto Ignition Temperature Pollution Radio active
MSDS Spill Bio-medical
Sustainable Waste Management Concrete floor Asbestos
Lumpy Waste Odour Electronic
Coarse Waste Fragrance POPs
Fine solid waste Activated Carbon Batteries
Liquid Waste Polymer sheets Basel
Zero Waste Zeolite CPCB
Emissions Incompatible materials Plastic
Chlorine Electrical installations Rubber
Fluorine Chemicals Net Calorific Value
Sulphur Fire Fighting Ash
Pre-calciner AFR Feeding Moisture
Kiln inlet Main burner Viscosity
Mid kiln Shut Off Gate CEMS
Transportation Tyres SOx
Lift Tyre chips NOx
Winch Statutory HCL
Conveyor Liability HF
Calciner Floor Sustainability VOC
Sludge Waste Management Hierarchy NH3
Feeding systems Specific Thermal Energy Dust
Double Flap Valve Consumption Screw Conveyor
Rotary Air Lock
Coating
370 Appendix

Chapter 11

Pre-processing Entry gate Environmental provisions

Co-processing Weigh Bridge Safety provisions
Wastes Laboratory VOC emissions
AFRs Solid wastes Floor spillage
MSW Liquid Waste Odor control
Recyclable waste Sludge waste Safety provisions
Calorific Value Shredder Toxic materials
Cement kiln Screens Runaway reaction
Alternative Fuel Shaft design Fire prevention
Quality of clinker Hammer mill Rolling Bed Dryer
Unit operations Grinder Conduction Dryer
Blending Granulator Convection Dryer
Shredding Moisture Sludge
Drying Thermal Energy RDF
Impregnation Fluidised bed dryer Segregation
Size separation Spray Drier Bailing
Rotary Dryer

Chapter 12

Co-processing Manpower Fuel mix

Operation Manual AFR mix
Sustainability SOP MSDS
Legal Emergency management HAZOP
Environmental External communication PPE
Technical Design considerations Emergency Response Plan
Quality Spillage Geopolymer
Health Fire Burner Momentum
Safety Odor Odor control
Acceptance Dust Misting Systems
Sampling Laboratory Catalytic oxidation
Analysis CEMS Thermal Oxidation
Chlorine TSR% Zeolite based curtain
Sulphur A/S ratio Hammers
Alkali Chlorine bypass Rings
Raw mix design Build-up
Coating Chlorin limits
Appendix 371

Chapter 13

AFR Minimum Acceptable Price Gate Fee

Alternative Fuels and Raw Materials Mechanized Operation and Management
Economic Parameters Manufacture Saving
Electricity Cost Mill scale SCF
Elementary Incineration Raw material Solid AFR
Investment Resource Salient features
Business Principle RDF Solid
Business Model Raw meal Hazardous
Biomass Negative Variable Landfill
Fixed Cost Natural Liquid AFR
Fuel cost Non-Hazardous Waste
Cost Variable Cost Pre-processing
Clinker Viability Transport Cost
Co-processing Zero Landfill Tipping Fee
Challenges TSR%

Chapter 14

Resource Intensive Emissions Alternative Fuels

Fossil fuels Power AF
CO2 Heat TSR%
Sustainable Minerals Sustainability
Co-processing AFR GNR
Carbon foot-print Biomass Cement production
GCCA
372 Appendix

Chapter 15

Stakeholder External Affairs Brochures

Engagement Impact Flyers
Co-processing Messages Leaflets
Authorities Communication plan Cooperative Federation
Communities Assessment Community Advisory Panels
Activists CSR Mission
NGOs Philanthropic Mapping
Associations Human right Trust
Permits Advocacy LafargeHolcim
WBCSD Ambuja Guidelines
Co-processing Ultratech Mapping
GCCA JK Lakshmi SINTEF
CPCB Geocycle NCCBM
Pre Trial Stakeholder meets TERI
Post Trial Plastic waste Monitoring Protocoal
Trial Variation in constituents Status
Emission monitoring schedule POPs SSEF
Co-incineration ODS Geocycle India
ETP sludge DRE GTZ,
Chemical Industry Awareness GIZ
Paint Sludge Advocacy CETP sludge
Tyre chips CII Holcim
TDI Tar Godrej-GBC ACC
CMA
Bibliography

Agarwal, S. K. et al., (2001). Use of de-carbonated material ‘LD slag’ in the manufacture of portland
clinker. In Proceedings of 16th NCB International Seminar.
Baidya, R., Ghosh, S. K., & Parlikar, U. V. (2016). Co-processing of industrial waste in cement
kiln–a robust system for material and energy recovery. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 31,
309–317.
Baidya, R., Ghosh, S. K., Ghosh, S. K., & Parlikar, U. (2015). Co-processing of waste in
cement plants. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Solid Waste Technology and
Management (pp. 513–525).
Baidya, R., Ghosh, S. K., & Parlikar, U. V. (2015). Co-processing of waste—a robust process of
energy utilisation from industrial wastes. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Waste
Management and Technology (pp. 317–325) (Excellent Paper Award).
Baidya, R., Ghosh, S. K., & Parlikar, U. V. (2015). Sustainability of cement kiln co-processing of
wastes in India: A pilot study. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Solid Wastes
2015 (pp. 843–846). Knowledge Transfer for Sustainable Resource Management, ISBN 978-
988-19988-9-7.
Baidya, R., Ghosh, S. K., & Parlikar, U. (2016). Influence of varying waste characteristics on kiln
emission. In Proceedings of the Asia-Pacific Conference on Biotechnology for Waste Conversion.
Baidya, R., Ghosh, S. K., & Parlikar, U. V. (2017). Sustainability of cement kiln co-processing of
wastes in India: A pilot study. Environmental Technology, 28, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/095
93330.2017.1293738.
Baidya, R., Ghosh, S. K., & Parlikar, U. (2017). Co-processing of marble slurry in Indian cement
plant. In Proceedings of the 4th 3R International Scientific Conference on Material Cycles and
Waste Management.
Bundela, P. S., Parlikar, U., & Gautam, S. P. (2011). Co-processing of oils rags waste from Ford
India at ACC Madukkarai. Journal of Applied Sciences in Environmental Sanitation, 6(3), 343.
Bundela, P. S., Parlikar, U., & Gautam S. P. (2011). Co-processing of ETP Sludge at ACC
Madukkarai. Recent Research in Science and Technology, 3(9).
Bundela, S. P., Ulhas, P., & Milind, M. (2014). From Grey to Green : Waste Co-processing in
Cement kilns. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Solid Waste Management
(pp. 347–352), 28–30 Jan 2014.
Bundela, P. S., Chakrawarty, M., & Gautam, S. P. (2010). Co-processing trial of spent carbon at
Wadi Cement Works Karnataka. American Journal of Environmental Sciences, 6(4), 371–378.
Gautam, S. P., Bundela, P. S., & Chawla, V. (2009). Co-processing of plastic waste with coal in
the cement Kiln. In Proceedings of the Journal of Solid waste Technology Management 24th
Conference.

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license 373
to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022
S. K. Ghosh et al., Sustainable Management of Wastes Through Co-processing,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-6073-3
374 Bibliography

Gautam, S. P., Mohapatra, B. N. et al., (2009). Energy recovery from solid waste in cement rotary
kiln and its environmental impact, Published and Presented In Proceedings of 24th International
Conference on Solid Waste Technology & Management (pp. 15–18).
IIP / CMA (2015). Financial viability and barriers for implementing AFR project—an industry
perspective. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Enhancing use of AFR in the
Indian Cement Industry, Feb 19–20.
Kamyotra, J. S., Bala S. S., Gupta, P. K., Helge, K. K., & Parlikar, U. V. (2013). Cement kiln
co-processing technology for management of waste from automobile industry in an ecologi-
cally sustaining Manner. In Proceedings of the 13th NCB International Seminar on Cement and
Building Materials.
Liju, V. et al. (2019). Investigation on utilization of wollastonite in manufacture of OPC clinker. In
Proceedings of 16th NCB International Seminar.
Mohapatra, B. N. et al. (2012). Co-processing plastic waste. Indian Cement Review, 42–45.
Mohapatra, B. N. et al. (2012). Energy recovery & eco friendly disposal of plastic waste by co-
processing in cement kiln. CMA Quarterly Journal Cement, Energy & Environment, 11(3).
Mohapatra, B. N. et al. (2014). Indian experience in using AFR in cement kiln industrial angles, 3,
7–13.
Mohapatra, B. N. et al. (2019). Use of alternative fuels and raw materials in cement industry in
India—prospects and challenges. In Proceedings of CMA Conserve Conference on 30th Sep.
Mohapatra, B. N., James, S., & Gupta, R. M. (2009). Successful utilization of processed municipal
solid waste (RDF) as an alternate fuel in cement kiln. In Proceedings of the Presentation &
publication in 11th NCB International Seminar 2009 from 17th–20th Nov.
Mohapatra, B. N. et al. (2014). Successful co-processing of hazardous waste, opium marc in
cement kiln. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Solid Waste Technology &
Management in March 30-April 2.
Nandan, V., Dube, R., Yadav, J., Pawar, R., & Parlikar, U. (2014) Co-processing trial run with
pre-processed Municipal Solid Waste Fractions. ZKG International, (7–8) AFR Special.
Parlikar, U., Bundela, P. S., Baidya, R., Ghosh, S. K., & Ghosh, S. K. (2016). Effect of variation
in the chemical constituents of wastes on the co-processing performance of the cement kilns.
Procedia Environmental Sciences, 35, 506–512.
Parlikar, U. (2015). Managing hazardous and other wastes through cement kiln co-processing in a
sustainable manner, IGCW 2015, Dec 4–5
Parlikar, U. (2014). Technological advancements for manufacturing cement in an ecologically
sustaining manner in the future. Indian Concrete Journal.
Parlikar, U., Ahuja, D., Sengupta, B. S., Baidya, R., & Ghosh, S. K., (2015). Disposal of wastes by
co-processing in cement kilns—influence of their varying characteristics on critical kiln emission
parameters. In Proceedings of the 14th NCB International Seminar on Cement and Building
Materials. (Excellent Paper Award).
Parlikar, U., Goyal, A., Mishra, A., Shah, M., Hill, A., & Ghosh, S. K. (2015). Evaluation of Use
of SRF as AFR in Cement kiln, IconSWM.
Parlikar, U. (2015). Managing hazardous and other wastes through cement kiln co-processing in a
sustainable manner. In IGCW 2015, 4–5 Dec 2015. Mumbai, India
Parlikar, U. (2017). Recommended quality standards for SRF/RDF derived from MSW to improve
their resource recovery in cement kilns, Special Publication of Cement Manufacturers’ Associa-
tion on Alternative Fuels and Raw Materials. In Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on
AFR (pp. 23–24).
Parlikar, U., Kiran Ananth, P. V., Muralikrishnan, K., & Kannan, V. (2017). Waste mapping and
forecasting for alternative fuel usage in cement plants, Special Publication of Cement Manufac-
turers’ Association on Alternative Fuels and Raw Materials. In Proceedings of 3rd International
Conference on AFR (pp. 23–24).
Yadav, D. et al. (2019). Utilization of leather sludge in cement manufacture. In Proceedings of the
16th NCB International Seminar.