89752 Executive Summary of ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT for China GEF Municipal Solid Waste Management Project Foreign Economic Cooperation Office Ministry of Environmental Protection, PRC July 2014 EA Executive Summary for China: GEF MSW Project Table of Content Abbreviations .......................................................................................................... ii 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................1 1.1 Background .........................................................................................1 1.2 Project Development Objective ..............................................................2 1.3 Project Description ...............................................................................2 1.4 Candidate MSW Incineratos ...................................................................3 2 Environmental Regulatory Framework..................................................................4 2.1 Domestic Laws and Regulations .............................................................4 2.2 World Bank Safeguards Policies and Environment, Health and Safety (EHS) Guidelines.........................................................................................................7 2.3 Stockholm Convention...........................................................................8 2.4 Comparison of Domestic and International Emissions Standards for MSW Incineration ......................................................................................................9 3 Environment and Social Baselines ..................................................................... 13 3.1 Natural and Social Economics Baselines ................................................ 13 3.2 Peripheral Environment and Sensitive Receptors .................................... 14 4 Review of Incinerators’Deisgn and Operations ............................................ 18 4.1 Incineration Plant Profile ..................................................................... 18 4.2 Incinerating Facilities .......................................................................... 18 4.3 Operating Conditions .......................................................................... 19 5 Environmental Audit ........................................................................................ 21 5.1 Project Approvals................................................................................ 21 5.2 Pollution Control and Compliance Analysis ............................................. 21 5.3 EHS Management System.................................................................... 31 5.4 Findings and Issues ............................................................................ 32 6 Public Consultation .......................................................................................... 35 6.1 Public Consultation and Information Disclosure ...................................... 35 6.2 Public Engagement Plan ...................................................................... 36 7 Environmental Management Plan ...................................................................... 37 7.1 EMP Design........................................................................................ 37 7.2 Institutional Arrangement .................................................................... 37 7.3 EMP Budget ....................................................................................... 37 i EA Executive Summary for China: GEF MSW Project Abbreviations and Accronynms APC air pollution control Bank World Bank BAT best available techniques BEP best environmental practices CFB circulating fluidized bed DongJiao DongJiao MSW Power Plant EA environmental assessment EHS Guidelines World Bank Group Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines EPB environmental protection bureau EMP environmental management plan FECO Foreign Economic Cooperation Office, Ministry of Environmental Protection KongGang KongGang MSW Power Plant MEP Ministry of Environmental Protection, PRC MSW municipal solid wastes NIP National Implementation Plan POPs persistent organic pollutants Stockholm SC Convention UMB urban management bureau WuHua WuHua MSW Power Plant XiShan XiShan MSW Power Plant ii EA Executive Summary for China: GEF MSW Project 1 Introduction 1.1 Background This document summarizes the environmental assessment of the GEF China Municipal Solid Waste Management Project, highlighting the main issues and conclusions of the Environmental Audit, Environmental Management Plan (EMP), and Social Assessment (SA) reports of the project. According to Chinese Environmental Assessment laws and regulations, and the World Bank’s Operational Policy and Bank Procedures OP/BP4.01 Environmental Assessment, the proposed project is Category A for environmental assessment purposes due to the nature of the project. The National Implementation Plan of the People’s Republic of China for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) lists the municipal solid waste (MSW) disposal sector as one the country’s six priority industries for POPs reduction. In order to help China implement its responsibility under the Convention, achieve reduction of dioxin emissions from MSW incineration, the Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP) and the World Bank work together to promote best available techniques (BAT) and best environmental practices (BEP) in accordance with the Stockholm Convention (SC). Four existing MSW incinerators in Kunming City were identified as candidates for the demonstration of BAT and BEP. With grant financing from the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) complemented with own resources, selected MSW incinerators would improve operations and install necessary equipment to demonstrate operations that are in line with SC BAT and BEP. Consistent with the World Bank Operational Policy (OP) 4.01 on Environmental Assessment, the appropriate safeguards instrument for this project was determined to be an environmental audit because all four incinerators are existing plants and the proposed physical activities in these incinerators are mainly about equipment enhancement. Therefore, with the support of the Foreign Economic Cooperation Office (FECO) of MEP, each of the four incinerators prepared an environmental audit report. Based on the findings and recommendations of the environmental audit, a standalone EMP was also prepared for each incinerator. During project preparation, a social assessment and public consultations were carried out and integrated with the environmental assessment process. This EA Executive Summary is prepared based on these reports, as well as project feasibility studies, design and relevant technical studies carried out for the project. The environmental audit and EMP reports present information on the regulatory framework; incinerator operations; environmental compliance; environmental, health and safety management system, and risk assessment. The reports were reviewed by the World Bank and found to be in compliance with the World Bank safeguards policies and the World Bank Group Environmental, Health and Safety (EHS) Guidelines. The reports were disclosed locally on March 10, 2014 and on March 20, 2014 in InfoShop of the World Bank. 1 EA Executive Summary for China: GEF MSW Project 1.2 Project Development Objective The project aims to build capacity and demonstrate best available techniques (BAT) and best environmental practices (BEP) in municipal solid waste (MSW) incineration in accordance with the Stockholm Convention. 1.3 Project Description The project includes two demonstration cities and central government departments. The project aims to demonstrate good practices in enhancing enforcement capacity of regulatory authorities, applying BAT/BEP systematically in selected incinerators, and disclosing information to the public. The project’s aim is to demonstrate reduction of dioxin emission in MSW incineration, recognizing the increasing trend of MSW in China; rather than support incineration per se. Demonstration activities will take place in existing incinerators with the objective to gradually replicate them in other incinerators in operation in China. In demonstration city Kunming, four existing MSW incinerators may receive GEF funding to invest in enhanced equipment in order to implement operational improvement programs. During the first year of project implementation, each of the four incinerators will be subject to an intensive operational and environmental performance audit to collect and analyze comprehensive data on operating conditions and environmental emissions, and identify areas of improvement. Based on these findings an operational improvement program that is consistent with BAT and BEP will be prepared for each incinerator. Incinerators that commit to implementing these programs and fulfill financial eligibility conditions will be supported during the remainder of the project, including through grant funding for necessary upgrades of equipment relevant for dioxin emission reduction. The project will aim at implementing operational improvement programs in at least three demonstration incinerators. In Kunming the project will also support the Kunming Urban Management Bureau (UMB), Yunnan Provincial Environmental Protection Department (EPD) and Kunming Municipal Environmental Protection Bureau (EPB) to implement an online monitoring system that transmits incinerator operating and emissions data to these authorities for better inspection and public disclosure. All the MSW incinerators in the city will be covered by the online monitoring system regardless they will be financed by the GEF grant or not. In addition, in Kunming the project will support training of regulators and MSW incinerator operators, piloting of integrated permits for MSW incinerators, and public disclosure of emission data. In demonstration city Ningbo, the project will primarily technical assistance activities including an online monitoring system, regulator and incinerator operator training, public disclosure that is similar to Kunming. In addition, the project will support enhancing the capacity of an existing dioxins lab in Ningbo. Taking advantage of an ongoing MSW segregation project financed by World Bank loan, the GEF project will support twining knowledge sharing of Kunming and Ningbo on MSW segregation and an assessment of impact of MSW segregation on dioxins emissions in Ningbo. 2 EA Executive Summary for China: GEF MSW Project At national level, the project will support several technical assistance activities on: (i) regional planning of MSW disposal that would identify cost effective disposal options at a regional scale; (ii) the system of statistical indicators and MSW classification; (iii) updating and developing four national-level technical standards for MSW incinerator operations; and (iv) design of systems for online monitoring local regulatory authorities. By design, the project fully incorporates environmental and social considerations into its physical investment and technical assistance activities. In addition, by engaging the public, the project is expected to raise public knowledge and awareness on the proper operation of MSW incinerators, risks associated with dioxin emissions at different levels, and the importance of public oversight. 1.4 Candidate MSW Incinerators Four existing MSW incinerators in Kunming were identified during project preparation. These incinerators are relatively new and put into formal operation in the past few years. Specifically, • Wuhua incinerator was built in December 2007 and put into formal operation in July 2008. Design capacity is 1,000t/d • Dongjiao incinerator was built in March 2009 and put into formal operation in March 2011. Design capacity is 1,600t/d • Xishan incinerator was built in August 2012 and put into formal operation in June 2013. Design capacity is 1,000t/d; and • Konggang incinerator was built in June 2011 and put into formal operation in August 2013. Design capacity is 1,000t/d Konggang incinerator uses mass burn (moving grate) technology, while the other three incinerators use the circulated fluidized bed (CFB) technology for combustion. All four incinerators have in place air pollution control (APC) equipment that treats flue gases after the combustion process. All the four incinerators generate electricity and sell it to the power grid. 3 EA Executive Summary for China: GEF MSW Project 2 Environmental Regulatory Framework For each incinerator, a full environmental audit was carried out following the Chinese environmental impact assessment regulations and the World Bank safeguards policies. World Bank OP 4.01 Environmental Assessment and requirements regarding information disclosure and public consultation apply to the project. In addition, the World Bank Group Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines (“EHS Guidelines” hereafter) were taken into account in the EA process. The project will not involve any new land acquisition and will not trigger World Bank OP 4.12 Involuntary Resettlement, as land acquisition was completed for all four incinerators in Kunming without anticipation to the project. Nevertheless, a review of the land acquisition process was carried out as part of the social assessment. The review indicates that the resettlement process and the compensation paid to the affected people were consistent with the principles of the OP4.12 and the relevant government regulations and laws. There are no ethnic minority communities in the project area. 2.1 Domestic Laws and Regulations Key Chinese national and sectoral policies, regulations on environmental quality and pollutant discharge/emission standards, and technical guidelines that are relevant to MSW incineration are summarized in Table 2-1. 4 EA Executive Summary for China: GEF MSW Project Table 2-1 Relevant Key Chinese Environmental Laws and Regulations on Incineration Facilities Title Relevant Articles Environmental  All the pollutant discharging must meet the relevant national or local standards. Protection Law of  All the pollution control facilities must be designed, built, and operated with the major part of the project simultaneously. The project cannot be China P. R., issued operated until these pollution control facilities is acceptance by the authorized environmental protection agency. on Dec. 26th 1989  New construction projects, expansion or reconstruction projects which discharge atmospheric pollutants shall be governed by the state regulations concerning environmental protection for such projects. Law of the  Where atmospheric pollutants are discharged, the concentration of the said pollutants may not exceed the standards prescribed by the state and People's Republic local authorities. of China on the  Enterprises shall give priority to the adoption of clean production techniques that are instrumental to high efficient use of energy and to reducing Prevention and the discharge of pollutants so as to decrease the generation of atmospheric pollutants. Control of  Units that discharge dust into the atmosphere must adopt measures to remove such dust. The discharge of toxic waste gas and dust into the Atmospheric atmosphere shall be strictly restricted. When such discharge is really necessary, the discharged gas or dust must undergo purification treatment. Pollution, issued  Units that discharge fetor into the atmosphere must take measures to prevent the pollution of neighboring residential areas. on Oct. 29th 1996  In the transportation, loading and unloading, and storage of substances that may diffuse toxic or harmful gases or dust, sealing or other protective measures must be taken. Law of the  The necessary supporting installations for the prevention and control of environmental pollution by solid waste specified in the statement of the People's Republic effect of the construction project must be designed, built and put into operation simultaneously with the main part of the project. The construction of China on the project may be put into production or use, only after the installations for the prevention and control of environmental pollution by solid waste are Prevention and examined and considered up to standards by the competent administrative department of environmental protection that examined and approved Control of the statement of environmental effect. The installations for the prevention and control of environmental pollution by solid waste must be checked Environmental and accepted at the same time as the main part of the project is checked and accepted. Pollution by Solid  Hazardous wastes must be collected and stored separately according to their different characteristics. It is forbidden to collect, store, transport Waste, issued on and treat mixed hazardous wastes of incompatible nature that have not undergone safety treatment. Apr. 29th 2000 National catalogue of Hazardous  HW18 Residues of incinerating disposal Wastes Inventory,  802-002-18 Fly ash from incinerating domestic garbage issued on Aug. 1st 2008 Policy on the  MSW incinerators should be built in developed cities with scarce land and the lower calorific value above 5000kJ/kg. Treatment and  It is recommended to use grate incinerator. The incinerator which cannot meet the control standard is prohibited. Pollution Control  Provide for sufficient residence time at least 2 seconds above 850℃ and turbulent mixing in the combustion chamber(s) to complete incineration. 5 EA Executive Summary for China: GEF MSW Project Title Relevant Articles off Municipal Solid  The combustion process should be strictly applied with Pollution Control Standard of MSW Combustion to protect the environment by control or Wastes, treatment on gas, wastewater, bottom ash, fly ash, odor, and noise. ChenJian[2000]  The semi-wet with bag filter technology is recommended to control the exhaust gas. No.120  The leachate should be pretreated separately to meet the standard before discharging. Announcement on Enhancing the EIA  Power generation project of MSW, including the sludge, should apply the following principles: the construction and operation must be under the Management of national and professional standards or regulations with a quantity and quality of the mass. At present, the mineral fuel mass is not allowed except biomass power CFB project, while in CFB, the ratio should be less than 20%. generation  The pollutant standard should meet the STANDARD FOR POLLUTION CONTROL ON THE MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE INCINERATION project, (GB18485-2001), while dioxin should meet 0.1ng TEQ/m3. HuanFa[2008]  The health protection zone should be no less than 300 m. No.82 6 EA Executive Summary for China: GEF MSW Project 2.2 World Bank Safeguards Policies and Environment, Health and Safety (EHS) Guidelines 2.2.1 Compliance with safeguards policies Table 2-2 shows the compliance analysis with the Bank’s safeguard policies. Table 2-2 Compliance with safeguard policies Safeguard Policies Triggered Compliance OP/BP4.01 Environmental Yes Category A project. Assessment A full Environmental Audit and EMP are prepared for each candidate incinerator; Two rounds of public consultation were carried out during project preparation. OP/BP 4.04 No The Project does not involve any natural habitats Natural Habitats OP/BP 4.36Forests No The project would not finance any activity that may involve a major change or degradation of the important forest area or related major natural habitat as defined in the Policy. OP 4.09 No The project would incur neither purchase of any pesticide nor Pest Management additional pesticide application. No action is required according to the Policy. OP 4.37 Dam safety No There are no dams in the project area. OP4.11 Physical Cultural No Not any cultural heritage or other physical cultural resource Resources has been found. Chance-find procedure is included in the EMP. OP/BP 4.12 No This project will carry out activities in existing MSW Involuntary Resettlement incineration plants, so no land acquisition and resettlement are involved. OP/BP 4.10 No There are no indigenous residents living in the project area or Indigenous Peoples no indigenous residents will be affected by the project. OP 7.50 No Projects on International There are no international waterways in the project area. Waterways OP/BP 7.60 Disputed area No There are no any areas under dispute involved in the project area. 2.2.2 World Bank Group Environmental Health and Safety Guidelines The World Bank Group Guidelines applicable to this project include the General Guidelines and sub-guidelines related to MSW incineration. The EHS Guidelines contain performance levels and measures that are generally considered to be achievable in new facilities by existing technology at reasonable costs. Application of the EHS Guidelines to existing facilities may involve the establishment of site-specific targets, with an appropriate timetable for achieving them. The applicability of the EHS Guidelines should be tailored to the hazards and risks established for each project on the basis of the results of an environmental assessment in which site-specific variables, such as host country context, assimilative capacity of the environment, and other project factors, are taken into account. The applicability of specific technical recommendations should be based on the professional opinion of qualified and experienced persons. When host country regulations differ from the levels and measures presented in the EHS Guidelines, projects are expected to achieve whichever is more stringent. If less stringent levels or measures than those provided in these EHS Guidelines 7 EA Executive Summary for China: GEF MSW Project are appropriate, in view of specific project circumstances, a full and detailed justification for any proposed alternatives is needed as part of the site-specific environmental assessment. This justification should demonstrate that the choice for any alternate performance levels is protective of human health and the environment. The Environment, Health and Safety Guidelines for Waste Management Facilities includes measures and performance levels relevant to MSW incineration, including management of air emissions, ash and other residuals, water effluents, noise, and occupational health and safety. These measures have been incorporated into the project EMP. The said Guidelines also make reference to emission standards for MSW incinerators from the European Union and the United States for this sector. A detailed analysis of the two referenced standards and a comparison with applicable Chinese standards and actual emission levels are presented in this report. 2.3 Stockholm Convention The key relevant articles in Stockholm Convention and the BAT/BEP Guidelines on POPs are as the followings (1) BEP  Reducing the overall mass of wastes that have to be disposed of by any means serves to reduce both the releases and residues from incinerators. Diversion of biodegradables to composting and initiatives to reduce the amount of packaging materials entering the waste stream can significantly affect waste volumes. Responsibility for waste minimization lies only to a minor extent with the operator of a waste incineration plant. However, coordination and harmonization of relevant activities on different organizational levels (e.g. operator, local, regional or national level) is of major importance for protection of the environment as a whole.  Curbside or centralized sorting and collection of recyclable materials (for example, aluminum and other metals, glass, paper, recyclable plastics, and construction and demolition waste) also reduces waste volume, saves valuable resources and removes some non-combustibles. Responsibility for these activities must be coordinated between relevant levels.  Operators must be able to accurately predict the heating value and other attributes of the waste being combusted in order to ensure that the design parameters of the incinerator are being met. This can be done using the results from a feed monitoring program of key contaminants and parameters where sampling and analysis frequencies and rigor would increase as feed variability increases.  To achieve optimal prevention of formation, and capture, of chemicals listed in Annex C, proper care and control of both burn and exhaust parameters are necessary. In continuous feed units, the timing of waste introduction, control of burn conditions and post-burn management are important considerations  These events are normally characterized by poor combustion, and consequently create the conditions for formation of chemicals listed in Annex C. For smaller, modular incinerators operating in batch mode, start-up and shutdown may be daily 8 EA Executive Summary for China: GEF MSW Project occurrences. Preheating the incinerator and initial co-firing with a clean fossil fuel will allow efficient combustion temperatures to be reached more quickly. Wherever possible, however, continuous operation should be the practice of choice. Independent of the operation mode waste should be fed into the combustion system only when the required temperature (e.g. above 850℃) is reached. Upsets can be minimized through periodic inspection and preventive maintenance. Incinerator operators should not feed the waste during filter bypass (“dump stack”) operations or during severe combustion upsets.  Routine inspections by the operator and periodic inspections by the relevant authority of the furnace and air pollution control devices should be conducted to ensure system integrity and the proper performance of the incinerator and its components.  High-efficiency combustion is facilitated by establishing a monitoring regime of key operating parameters, such as carbon monoxide (CO), volumetric flow rate, temperature and oxygen content.  Carbon monoxide, oxygen in the flue gas, particulate matter, hydrogen chloride (HCl), sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), hydrogen fluoride (HF), airflows and temperatures, pressure drops, and pH in the flue gas should all be routinely monitored.  Bottom and fly ash from the incinerator must be handled, transported and disposed of in an environmentally sound manner.  Regular training of personnel is essential for good operation of waste incinerators. Creating and maintaining public goodwill towards a waste incineration project is critical to the success of the venture. (2) BAT  Environmental concerning location is the most important for a new MSW incinerator.  Proper management of time, temperature and turbulence (the “3 Ts”), as well as oxygen (airflow), by means of incinerator design and operation will help to ensure the above conditions. The type and order of treatment processes applied to the flue gases once they leave the incineration chamber is important, both for optimal operation of the devices and for the overall cost-effectiveness of the installation. Best available techniques involve applying the most suitable combination of flue gas cleaning systems, including the dust (particulate matter) removal techniques, acid gas removal techniques, fuel gas polishing techniques, NOx removal techniques, etc. 2.4 Comparison of Domestic and International Emissions Standards for MSW Incineration The EHS Guidelines for Waste Management Facilities make reference to European Union 1 1 EU Directive 2000/76/EC, applicable to MSW and Hazardous Waste Incinerators 9 EA Executive Summary for China: GEF MSW Project and the United States 2 air emission standards for MSW incineration. Table 2-3 presents a detailed comparison of current Chinese national-level standards with EU and US standards for air emissions for MSW incinerators. For dioxins, the EU has adopted 0.1 ng TEQ/m3. The United State standard is about 0.2 ng TEQ/m3 (after unit conversion) for new MSW incinerators. A broader review of international and domestic dioxin emission standards show that Japan, Beijing, Shanghai, Hong Kong SAR, China 3 and Taiwan, China have also adopted 0.1 ng TEQ/m3; while the US standard for existing MSW incinerators is about 0.5 ng TEQ/m3. Chinese national level regulations have two sets of standards for dioxins emission for MSW incinerator. The current national standard, i.e. Standard for Pollution Control on the MSW Incineration (GB18485-2001), was issued in 2001 and stipulated a dioxin emission standard of 1ng TEQ/m3. However, in 2008, MEP issued a document (No. 82, HuanFa [2008]) stipulating that new, power generating MSW incinerators (also known as “Waste-to-Energy“or “WTE”) must meet 0.1 ng TEQ/m3. Therefore, Konggang and Xishan incinerators whose EIAs were approved after the effectiveness of the 2008 MEP document have to meet 0.1 ng TEQ/m3, while Dongjiao and Wuhua incinerators are subject to the 1 ng TEQ/m3 emission limit. During appraisal of the project, MEP issued updated Standard for Pollution Control on the MSW Incineration (GB18485-2014). According to this updated standard, for dioxins the old standard GB18485-2001 will remain effective until December 31, 2015; while starting from Jan 1st, 2016, all existing MSW incinerators will have to meet 0.1 ng TEQ/m3. The emission standards for conventional air pollutants vary over different sampling durations in a general sense. The old Chinese national standard GB18485-2001 does not specify such durations. The updated GB18485-2014 stipulates such durations. The EHS guidelines partially specify such durations. To make the comparison more meaningful, Table 2-3 includes emission standards of the original EU and US standards that are not quoted by the EHS Guidelines. For example, EU 1-hr average TSP, NOx and SO2 are added. In addition, the US standards use different unit systems that have to be converted to be comparable with Chinese and EU standards. It should be noted that in the case of EU and US standards, different parameters present different levels and they are associated with different sampling durations. This may reflect differences in country context, assimilative capacity of the environment, and other technical factors such as sampling and monitoring methodologies and combustion techniques. 2 US EPA Standards of Performance for Large Municipal Waste Combustors, 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart Eb 3 Hong Kong SAR, China refers to Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China 10 EA Executive Summary for China: GEF MSW Project Table 2-3 Comparison of Chinese national standards with EU and US standards for air emissions of MSW incinerators National National EHS Guidelines Parameter Standard, Stanard, (expanded) GB18485-2001 GB18485-2014 Ref. Pollutants Time mg/m3 mg/m3 EU USA USA converted mg/m3 (mg/m3) 1 Total Suspended Particulates 1-hr average 80 30 30 20 24-hr average 20 10 n/a 20 2 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1-hr average 150 100 50-150ppmv 62.5-187.5 24-hr average 80 50-150 3 Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 1-hr average 400 300 400 n/a n/a 24-hr average 250 200-400 150ppmv Not Convertible 4 Sulfur Dioxides (SO2) 1-hr average 260 100 200 30ppmv or 80% 85.7 or 80% 24-hr average 80 50 reduction, reduction, whichever is less whichever is less strigent strigent 5 Hydrochloric Acid (HCl) 1-hr average 75 60 60 25ppm or 95% 40.7 or 95% 24-hr average 50 10 reduction, reduction, whichever is less whichever is less strigent strigent 6 Mercury (Hg) Test Average 0.2 0.05 0.05-0.1 0.05 mg/dscm 0.05 or 80% 11 EA Executive Summary for China: GEF MSW Project or 80% reduction, reduction, whichever is less whichever is less strigent strigent 7 Lead (Pb) Test Average 1.6 See below Ref. 11 See below 0.14 0.14 Ref. 10 8 Cadmium (Cd) Test Average 0.1 See below Ref. 9 0.05-0.1 0.01 0.01 (0.5-8 hr average) 9 Tl+Cd Test Average n/a 0.1 10 Total Metals / n/a n/a 0.5-1 n/a n/a (0.5-8 hr average) 11 Sb+As+Pb+Cr+Co+Cu+Mn+ Test Average n/a 1.0 n/a n/a n/a Ni+V 12 HF / n/a n/a 1 n/a n/a 13 Dioxins (incl. furans) / 1 ng TEQ/m3; 0.1 ngTEQ/m3 0.1 ngTEQ/m3 13 0.2 0.1 ng TEQ/m3 for Test average (6-8 hr （ng/m3)(total ng TEQ/m3 new incinerators built average) mass) after 2008 Note Effective for existing To be effective for 7%o oxygen, mg/m3=ppmv*co MSW incinerator until existing MSW dscm: milligrams mpound molecular December 31, 2015 incinerator on Jan per dry standard weight/22.4 st 1 , 2016 cubic meter 12 EA Executive Summary for China: GEF MSW Project 3 Environment and Social Baselines 3.1 Natural and Social Economics Baselines The city of Kunming is the capital of Yunnan Province in southwest China. Kunming is located in the middle of Yunnan-Guizhou Plateau. Its overall topography is featured with high northern part and low southern part. Most of the city has an altitude between 1,500m and 2,800m. The city presents low latitude-plateau-monsoon weather feature and has an annual average temperature of 15 oC and an annual precipitation of 1,035mm. Kunming has a total area of 21,473km2, divided into 6 districts, 7 counties and a county level city. It has a population of 7.26 million. The urban area has a population of 5.3 million (2013). The city has a GDP of CNY301 billion and an average per capita GDP of CNY 41,458 in 2012. The city is also a critical transport hub in southwestern China by having the fifth largest airport in China, several national expressways, and intensive road networks connecting the remainder of the province. Kunming has good ambient air quality compared to the rest of China. Based on Kunming Environmental Quality Reports during 2010-2012, pollutants monitored on a daily basis, including PM10, SO2, and NO2, all met applicable national ambient air quality standard. They also show a slightly improving trend over the period. In 2012, the monitored annual average PM10, SO2 and NO2 concentrations were 67, 34, and 36 ug/m3 respectively, while, the national Ambient Air Quality Standard (GB3098-2012, to be effective in Jan 1, 2016) stipulates standards of 70, 60 and 40 ug/m3 for the three air pollutants in Kunming City. The four candidate MSW incinerators are located in suburban or rural areas in Kunming. Wuhua incinerator is in northwestern Kunming, about 12km from its urban area. Dongjiao incinerator is in eastern Kunming, about 30km from its urban area. Xishan incinerator is in southwestern Kunming, about 50 km from its urban area. Konggang incinerator is in northeastern Kunming, about 50km from its urban area. More physical details of the four incinerators are included in Table 3-1. Figure 3-1 presents the location of the four incinerators 13 EA Executive Summary for China: GEF MSW Project Table 3-1 Physical Features of the Four MSW Incinerators 4 Items DongJiao KongGang WuHua XiShan Location BaiShuiTang Village, YunQiao Village, DaBanQiao KunLu Road Entrance, XiaoHaiKou Village, KunMing Economy Town, GuanDu District, DaPuJi, WuHua District, HaiKou Town, XiShan and Technology KunMing KunMing District, KunMing Development Zone Geology and Mountainous area Mountainous area Mountainous area Mountainous area Landform Ecology Evergreen broad leaf Evergreen broad leaf trees Evergreen broad leaf Evergreen broad leaf trees and bamboo and bamboo dominate. trees and bamboo trees and bamboo dominate. No precious or protected dominate. dominate. No precious or flora or fauna found in the No precious or No precious or protected flora or project area. protected flora or fauna protected flora or fauna found in the found in the project fauna found in the project area. area. project area. Administration GuanDu District: GuanDu District: 522.21km2 WuHua District: XiShan District: and Population 522.21km2 Population: 541 thousand 397.86km2 881km2 Population: 541 Population:966 Population:760 thousand thousand thousand 3.2 Peripheral Environment and Sensitive Receptors Sensitive environmental and social receptors in the vicinity of the four incinerators are listed in Table 3-2 and Figures 3-2~3-5. Table 3-3 gives approved health protection distance for each incinerator as documented in EIA prepared before building of the incinerators. It is concluded that these incinerators all meet the requirements on health protection distances. In addition, it is noted that Dongjiao incinerator is located by a large sanitary landfill that was closed several years ago. Of the four incinerators, Wuhua is located nearest to the urban area and there are more people live in its vicinity. Other three incinerators are located far away from populated areas. Table 3-2 Sensitive Environmental and Social Receptors Incinerator No. name of village population location distance (km) 1 Qingshui 1394 south 2.6 DongJiao 2 ALa 2371 west 1.1 1 ZhangZiGou 107 southeast 1 KongGang 2 ShaJing 461 south 1.5 1 DaYangTian 500 households southwest 1 WuHua 2 PuJi 500 households southeast 1 1 YunLong 182 south 2.6 2 TaoShu 527 south 2 3 DaYingZuang 758 southwest 1.3 4 XiaoHaiKou 560 west 0.5 5 XiaDiPing 331 west 2.25 XiShan 6 QingYuTang 510 southwest 2 7 XiaoHeBian 126 northeast 1.42 8 DianWei 552 north 2.5 9 Residential area of WuNa Company 2800 southwest 2.7 10 YunLong primary school 267 south 2.9 The approved protection zones are listed in Table 3-3. Table 3-3 the approved protection distances DongJiao KongGang WuHua XiShan requirement in No. 82, HuanFa [2008] assessment 800 m 500 m 800 m 500 m ≥300 m all meet the requirement 4 In 2012 14 EA Executive Summary for China: GEF MSW Project Figure 3-1 Location of 4 Candidate MSW Incinerators in Kunming City 15 EA Executive Summary for China: GEF MSW Project Figure 3-2 DongJiao incinerator and nearby sensitive environmental/social receptor Figure 3-3 KongGang incinerator and nearby sensitive environmental/social receptor 16 EA Executive Summary for China: GEF MSW Project Figure 3-4 WuHua incinerator and nearby sensitive environmental/social receptor Figure 3-5 XiShan incinerator and nearby sensitive environmental/social receptor 17 EA Executive Summary for China: GEF MSW Project 4 Review of Incinerator Designs and Operations During project preparation, the design and operational aspects of each candidate incinerator was carefully examined and assessed based on available information. SC BAT/BEP Guidelines and WBG EHS Guidelines are referenced and compared where applicable. 4.1 Incineration Plant Profile These four companies’ information is listed in Table 4-1. Table 4-1 Company Information WuHua DongJiao XiShan KongGang KunMing XinXingZhe KunMing ChongGang KunMing CEC Environmental YunNan Green Energy Renewable Energy Owner Environmental resources Production Co., Ltd Power Generation Co., Protection Co., Ltd Co., Ltd Ltd YunQiao Village, KunLu Road Entrance, XiaoHaiKou Village, BaiShuiTang Village, DaBanQiao Town, Address DaPuJi, WuHua HaiKou Town, XiShan ALa Town, KunMing GuanDu District, District, KunMing District, KunMing KunMing Total employees 74 130 66 69 Officially start th th Jul. 15 , 2008 Mar. 9 , 2011 Jun. 18th, 2013 Aug. 12th, 2013 operation 4.2 Incinerating Facilities Table 4-2 presents an overview of the four incinerators. Table 4-2 Information on the Incinerating Facilities WuHua DongJiao XiShan KongGang 2*500t/d Mass Burn Combustion Unit 3*400t/d CFB 4*550t/d CFB 3*400t/d CFB (Grate Furnace) Power Unit 2*12MW 2*15MW 2*12MW 1*18MW Approved design 1,000t/d 1,600t/d 1,000t/d 1,000t/d capacity Operational hours 7,900*3 4,800*4 3,000*3 6,900*2 per year MSW incinerated 1,025t/d in 2012 1,527t/d in 2012 547t/d in 2012 360t/d in 2013 1,150t/d in 2013 1,432t/d in 2013 662t/d in 2013 11.6 thousand MW in 190 thousand MW in 68.3 thousand MW in 2012 2012 2012 47 thousand MW in Power generated 12.5 thousand MW in 157 thousand MW in 76.9 thousand MW in 2013 2013 2013 2013 As indicated in Table 4-2, three of the four incineration plants in Kunming use CFB furnaces; only the newest Konggang uses mass burn (moving grate) furnace. In general, it is cheaper to build CFB than mass burn furnace. Its combustion is more complete than mass burn because it circulates wastes during burning, which is conducive to mass and heat transfer. A disadvantage of CFB is that its non-stop operating period is considerably shorter than mass burn because CFB has to undertake more frequent maintenance. In addition, CFB is less capable of handling heterogeneous wastes compared with mass burn. SC BAT/BEP guidelines also states that fluidized bed furnaces are well demonstrated for finely divided and consistent wastes, while mass burn incinerators are well demonstrated in the combustion of heterogeneous MSW and have a long operational history. 18 EA Executive Summary for China: GEF MSW Project In developed countries, mass burn is dominating for MSW incineration. While, as of 2010, there were 109 MSW incineration plants in China; 43% use CFB and 54% use mass burn. Mass burn incinerators are more seen in eastern coastal area, particularly in large cities; while CFB incinerators are more seen in middle-size cities and mid-western China. Understanding and experiences to be gained from the project on how to better operate CFB incinerators will be particularly helpful for China. Figure 4-1 shows the flow scheme of CFB incineration technology and APC facilities in Dongjiao, Wuhua and Xishan incinerator. Figure 4-2 shows the flow scheme of mass burn incineration technology and APC facilities that are used in Konggang incinerator. power generation active carbon exhaust gas coal crashing coal bunker fly ash CFB spray drying bag filter M SW segerating storage solidification bottom ash leachate m agnetic recyclable landfill wastewater for sale separation treatm ent unrecyclable reuse pool landfill Figure 4-1 simplified flow scheme of DongJiao, WuHua, and XiShan power generation active carbon exhaust gas fly ash M SW segerating storage M artin Grate spray drying bag filter solidification leachate bottom ash wastewater m agnetic recyclable landfill treatm ent for sale separation unrecyclable reuse pool landfill Figure 4-2 simplified flow scheme of KongGang 4.3 Operating Conditions The key BAT/BEP of MSW incinerator comprises good combustion at furnace followed by effective flue gas treatment at air pollution control facilities. For example, the EU requires that the gas resulting from the MSW incineration process should be raised, after the last injection of combustion air to a temperature of 850 degree Celsius for a period of two seconds. Proper turbulence and adequate oxygen in furnace are also required. Rapid quenching of the flue gas right after leaving all combustion chambers is preferred in order to avoid regeneration of dioxins. APC facilities typically include using lime to remove acidic flue gases, injecting activated carbon to remove dioxin and heavy metals, and a bag house that collects particulates before final emission from the stack. 19 EA Executive Summary for China: GEF MSW Project Key design parameters for each candidate incinerator, including combustion control and use of lime and activated carbon are listed in Table 4-3. Table 4-3 Combustion conditions and use of lime and activated carbon in each incinerator WuHua DongJiao XiShan KongGang low calorific 5884 kJ/kg 5024 kJ/kg 5024kJ/kg 4187～9419kJ/kg value chamber 850℃-950℃ 860-880℃ 850℃-950℃ 1000℃ temperature residence time >2s 4.8s >2s >2s above 850°C ignition loss ≤3% ≤1% 3% ≤3% temperature of 310℃ 175℃ 238℃ 228℃ primary air temperature of 250℃ 210℃ 220℃ 170℃ secondary air temperature 850℃ 950℃； 850℃ 1000℃ after chamber temperature 170℃ 170℃； 200℃ 210℃ after boiler average activated carbon 7.5kg/h per incinerator 15.6 kg/h per incinerator 6.5kg/h per incinerator 4 kg/h per incinerator injected lime injected 100kg/h per incinerator 400 kg/h per incinerator 210kg/h per incinerator 160 kg/h per incinerator Overall, these design parameters are consistent with SC BAT/BEP and WBG EHS guidelines. Each incinerator, in its normal operation, runs with these design parameters. However, several issues were identified, including • Humid and heterogeneous raw wastes compromises optimal combustion conditions; • CFB furnaces have a considerable frequency of fire-pressing and restart operation that result in unsteady combustion; • Efficiency of lime and activated carbon dosing may need better control to improve reaction efficiency and respond to extreme conditions; • Bag house materials and leak detection can be enhanced to improve dust capture efficiency and better respond to extreme conditions. These issues are directly linked to air emissions and are discussed in detail in Chapter 5 Environmental Audit. 20 EA Executive Summary for China: GEF MSW Project 5 Environmental Audit The environmental audit examined regulatory compliance, management of air emissions, wastewater, solid wastes and other environmental, health and safety issues of the four candidate incinerators in Kunming. 5.1 Project Approvals A review of EIAs, approvals and environmental acceptance were carried out. All the four incinerators have had their environmental approvals required by domestic regulations. The approvals of EIAs were obtained prior to the construction of those incinerators. After pilot operation, all the four incinerators obtained environmental acceptance after monitoring of emissions and validating the requirements documented in the EIAs and approval documents. A review of the land acquisition process was carried out as part of the social assessment. The project will not involve any new land acquisition. Land acquisition for purposes of construction of four MSW incineration plants in Kunming City took place prior to this project (2006-2009). The land acquisition was completed without anticipation to the proposed project. Nevertheless, a retroactive review was carried out. The review concluded that compensation has been paid according to relevant government policies and consistent with the principles and requirement of the Bank policy on Involuntary Resettlement OP4.12. There are no pending issues on land acquisition. Furthermore, no new land acquisition is envisaged under the project as there is no expansion of any of the existing incinerators. In addition, there are no ethnic minority communities associated with the project area or activities. 5.2 Pollution Control and Compliance Analysis Waste streams generated in MSW incinerators include air emissions, fly ash, bottom ash (slag), and other solid wastes, and wastewater. The project is expected to have direct environmental benefits by further reducing dioxins and other air emissions from the demonstration MSW incinerators. As is well known, dioxin is extremely biologically toxic and persistent in the environment. Other polluting emissions from MSW incineration may include particulate matters (measured in Total Suspended Particulates, TSP); acidic pollutants such as SO2, NOx and HCl; and heavy metals, etc. In addition, combustion by-product fly ash often contains dioxins and heavy metals; hence it is considered a major environmental concern and should be properly managed. The four incinerators have proper pollution management facilities and measures to address these environmental issues. 5.2.1 Dioxin Emissions Dioxins emissions from the four candidate incinerators have been tested at least once a year by accredited monitoring institutes that specialize in dioxins analysis, as required by Chinese regulation. Table 5-1 shows the results of such tests made since the environmental 21 EA Executive Summary for China: GEF MSW Project acceptance monitoring of each MSW incinerator until Jan, 2014. Environmental acceptance monitoring is a precondition of MSW incinerator official operation (Table 4-1 gives the dates of official operation of each candidate MSW incinerator). Table 5-1 Dioxins Emission Test Results WuHua DongJiao XiShan KongGang Approved emission 1.0 1.0 0.1 0.1 level(ng TEQ/m3) Dioxin Emissions(ng TEQ/m3) 0.057-0.89 0.001-0.187 0.00131-0.078 0.011 Number of tests 12 39 21 1 Number of results exceeding 0.1 3 3 0 0 TEQ/m3 Based on these results of dioxin tests, the following observations are made. • All incinerators fully met approved dioxins emission standards as per national regulations; • The two newer incinerators, i.e. Xishan and Konggang, also fully met the most stringent dioxins emission standard of 0.1 ng TEQ/m3 as adopted by EU; • The two older incinerators, i.e. Wuhua and Dongjiao, had a majority of their dioxin emission test results lower than 0.1 TEQ/m3, which indicates their hardware and operation, if well managed, are capable of meeting the most stringent standard for dioxins. However, the following need to be taken into account in interpreting these test results. First, during sampling, incineration facilities and air pollution control devices run at normal or optimal conditions; while at other times this may not be the case. This is evident from the fact that some of the dioxin emission test results indicate emissions of 0.001ng TEQ/m3, which is the theoretical minimum under perfect conditions and then still only when an overdosage of active carbon is used for removal. For more reliable results, under the project, sampling for dioxin stack tests will be done under normal operating conditions, as required by the relevant Chinese regulation. Furthermore, review of the incinerators’ operations showed in the three CFB incinerators (Wuhua, Dongjiao and Xishan) a high frequency of fire-pressing and restarts due to below-capacity waste delivery and blockages caused by highly humid waste and extra-large or incombustible objects due to poor MSW segregation at source. According to the incinerators’ operators, a typical fire-pressing and restart cycle includes lowering temperature, stopping garbage feed-in, removing of blockage and increasing the furnace temperature. Therefore, these dioxins test results may have not reflected the full picture of dioxin emissions of these incinerators. 5 In view of these challenges, the project will take several technical measures to ensure consistent low emissions of dioxins from these incinerators. 5 It should be noted that dioxin tests require highly specialized specialists and expensive analytical equipment. Dioxins can not be monitored online either. Local environmental authorities often don’t have the capacity to do dioxin tests, as is the case in Yunnan Province. 22 EA Executive Summary for China: GEF MSW Project • Dioxin emissions are closely linked with effective flue gas treatment process. Therefore, likely investments in the incinerators include enhancement of activated carbon injection devices and bag house. • Dioxins emission generation in furnace is closely linked to combustion temperatures and rapid quenching after combustion chamber. Therefore, continuous monitoring of furnace temperatures, as well as operation parameters of flue gas treatment devices, will be supported by the project so that urban management and environmental authorities will be able to closely supervise the operation of these incinerators. • In the first year of project implementation, a comprehensive review of operating and environmental performance of the four incinerators will be carried out by experienced international consultants. This effort will build on the technical evaluation and environmental audit conducted during project preparation, and will closely examine the operating and emission status of each incinerator over a 9-12 month period. Incinerator-specific operational improvement programs will be developed to address the challenges facing these incinerators and to achieve consistently low emission of dioxins. The above discussed improvement measures not only address dioxin emissions but also other air emissions as discussed in next section. As per the Standard for Pollution Control on the MSW Incineration (GB18485-2014) issued in May 2014 during the project appraisal, starting from January 1st, 2016, the four existing MSW incinerators will have to meet 0.1 ng TEQ/m3 dioxins emission standard, which is consistent with EU standard. 5.2.2 Emissions of other Air Pollutants Chinese regulations require that monitoring of other conventional air pollutants be carried out through regular inspection monitoring conducted by local environmental protection bureaus, and online monitoring equipment installed at the incinerators. During the environmental audit process, the EPB inspection monitoring results and online monitoring data from recent years were examined. 1. EPB Inspection Monitoring Table 5-2 presents results of inspection monitoring on the four incinerators since they were put into formal operation（Table 4-1 gives the dates of official operation of each candidate MSW incinerator）. The Chinese national, EU and US standards are also included for the purpose of comparison. The concentration ranges in the table are maximum values of each test. Overall observation about these inspection monitoring results can be made, as following. 1) The four incinerators have relatively modern air pollution control (APC) facilities in place, which include dry or slurry Ca(OH)2 (slaked lime) that removes acidic flue gases, i.e. SO2 and HCl; activated carbon injection that adsorbs dioxins and heavy metals; and a bag house that collects particulates. These facilities are critical for the four incinerators to control air emissions effectively. The monitoring results indicate that emissions fully met 23 EA Executive Summary for China: GEF MSW Project limits prescribed by national regulation GB18485-2001 and those prescribed by the incinerators’ approved EIA documents. Nevertheless, caveats exist, including inadequate monitoring frequencies and parameters. Project technical assistance for a pilot integrated permit system in Kunming will improve local EPBs’ capacity to carry out inspection monitoring. 2) The acidic air pollutant NOx cannot be removed by slaked lime in scrubber. The EHS guidelines recommend combustion-related measures and/or selective catalytic reduction (SCR) or selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) systems for NOx control. Neither SCR nor SNCR is adopted by the four incinerators; and applying the techniques would require substantial investment or changes to furnace. However, NOx emissions from the four incinerators do not seem to be a significant issue. One reason is that NOx is generated significantly at temperature above 1400 degrees Celsius in the furnace; while normally the furnace temperatures in the four incinerators are kept below that level. 3) The Carbon Monoxide（CO） concentration in flue gas reflects the completeness of combustion and is indicative of dioxin existence in flue gas. It is widely acknowledged that when CO concentration is in the range of 50-150 mg/m3 (as is the EU standard), combustion is complete and dioxins are effectively destructed. However, only Konggang has inspection monitoring data for CO available, and even there, the monitoring data seem to be very low (Table 5.2.) This is another issue that will be addressed under the operational and environmental performance audits under the project. 4) The MEP requirement issued in 2008 only stipulates tightened dioxin emission levels for new incinerators. However, it is reasonable to say that, by tightening dioxin emission levels, other air pollutants are effectively reduced as well. Therefore, Konggang and Xishan’s air emissions are obviously lower than Wuhua and Dongjiao. During the project appraisal, Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP) issued Standard for Pollution Control on the MSW Incineration (GB18485-2014) issued in May 2014. The existing 4 MSW incinerators will have to meet the new standard starting from January 1st, 2016, while the existing GB18485-2001 will remain effective until December 31, 2015. In general the Chinese new standard is at the same level of EU and US, despite there are differences in several parameters and monitoring durations. 24 EA Executive Summary for China: GEF MSW Project Table 5-2 Other Air Emissions (Based on Inspections Monitoring) N ote: Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP) issued Standard for Pollution Control on the MSW Incineration (GB18485-2014) issued in May 2014. The existing 4 MSW incinerators will have to meet the new standard starting from January 1st, 2016, while the existing GB18485-2001 will remain effective until December 31, 2015. National National US WuHua DongJiao XiShan KongGang Standard Standard EU (unit converted) (GB18485-2001) (GB18485-2014) Testing 2010~2013, 2010~2013, 2012~2013, 2013, Periods and 4-9 samples per 6-18 samples per 12-15 samples per 12 samples per / / / / samples pollutant pollutant pollutant pollutant 20(24-hr average) 10 (24-hr Flue gas 16-79.9 10.71-34 18.3-32 1.87-6.19 80 average) 20 dust/TSP 30 (1-hr average) 30 (1-hr average) 100(24-hr average) CO n/a n/a n/a 6-12 150 50-150 62.5-187.5 80 (1-hr average) 250 (24-hr average) 200-400 150ppmv NOx 140-334 19-149 76-178 172-245 400 300 (1-hr average) (24-hr average) (24-hr average) 400(1-hr average) 80 (24-hr average) 85.7 or 80% 50(24-hr average) reduction, SO2 24.1-148 25-211 53-87 7-37 260 100 (1-hr average) whichever is less 200 1-hr average) strigent 50 (24-hr average) 10 (24-hr 40.7 or 95% HCl 0.56-8.09 1-4.87 average) reduction, 11.74-33.24 0.88-1.59 75 60 (1-hr average) whichever is less 60 (1-hr average) strigent 25 EA Executive Summary for China: GEF MSW Project 0.05 0.05 or 80% Hg 0.031-0.05 0.000147-0.0031 reduction, 0.0438 Not Detected 0.2 0.05-0.1 whichever is less strigent 0.5-1(0.5-8 hr 1.0 for Pb 0.063-0.071 0.0017-0.061 0.00732-0.18 0.016-0.068 1.6 (Sb+As+Pb+Cr+Co average) 0.14 +Cu+Mn+Ni+V) for total metals 0.1 for (Tl+Cd) 0.05-0.1 Cd ND DL-0.077 0.000144-0.00428 ND-0.00375 0.1 0.01 (0.5-8 hr average) HF n/a n/a n/a Not detected n/a n/a 1 n/a 26 EA Executive Summary for China: GEF MSW Project Notably, for each incinerator the following findings on the results of inspection monitoring should be noted. 1) Wuhua and Dongjiao Incinerators. The maximum tested levels of TSP and SO2 concentration did not fully meet the most stringent levels of GB18485-2014, EU and US, and are also higher than Konggang and Xishan. Wuhua’s NOx emission was also higher than Konggang and Xishan. 2) Xishan Incinerator’s TSP and SO2 did not fully meet the most stringent levels of GB18485-2014, EU and US either, but overall were lower than Wuhua and Dongjiao. 3) Heavy metals covered by the inspection monitoring include Hg, Pb and Cd. Except that Xishan’s Pb emission did not fully meet US standards, and Dongjiao’s Cd emission did not fully meet US standards, the rest of the monitoring results met GB18485-2014, EU or US standards. 4) Konggang Incinerator’s air emissions obviously are the lowest among the four; and basically can fully meet the EU and US standards. It should be noted that available inspection monitoring reports are limited. In particular, Wuhua, the oldest incinerator of the four, had only 4-9 results to report over the period of 2010-2013. This may indicate inadequacy of inspection monitoring. 2. Online Monitoring All four incinerators have installed the required online monitoring equipment and transmitted data to local environmental protection bureaus continuously. Online monitoring covered TSP, CO, NOx, SO2, HCl, O2 and flue gas flow rate. The environmental audit reviewed 1-2 year data recorded in the four incinerators, and found the emissions levels of each incinerator were generally consistent with inspection monitoring. However, it is also noted that some online monitoring data were either too high or too low, indicating the maintenance and validation of this online monitoring equipment may not be adequate. 3. Conclusions and Recommendations For conventional air pollutants other than dioxins, the aforementioned issue of reliable monitoring is still valid. Therefore, enhanced online monitoring and operating audit in the first year project implementation will cover these air pollutants. The incinerator-specific operating improvement program will also aim to achieve consistent low emission of these air pollutants and meet newly issued Standard for Pollution Control on the MSW Incineration (GB18485-2014) by January 1st, 2016. 5.2.3 Odor Control Odor and other air pollutants, including H2S, NH3 and TSP, arise from non-point sources such as garbage pit (bunker) at pretreatment unit. Local communities are sensitive to odor if the smell is obvious. As previously discussed, all four incinerators have a protection distances ranging from 500-800m that comply with domestic regulations. The four 27 EA Executive Summary for China: GEF MSW Project incinerators have odor control measures, such as maintaining bunkers in a negative-pressure condition, fully-closed bunker and spraying of plant extract liquid to remove odor. Monitoring of the above mentioned air pollutants at the boundary of an incineration plant met domestic standards. Figure 5-1 Spraying of plant extract liquid through fans at offloading area (Xishan Incinerator) Odor does not seem to be an issue at Konggang and Dongjiao as these plants are located far away from populated areas. Specifically, Dongjiao is located by a former landfill that was closed several years ago. Local communities used to be disturbed by strong odor from the landfill. Dongjiao planted and maintained woods on top of the closed landfill (see photo below), which helped suppress odor significantly and are much welcomed by local communities, according to public consultations carried out during project preparation. Figure 5-2 A closed landfill revegetated Among the four incinerators, Wuhua has the most populated communities in its vicinity. Wuhua used to receive complaints from local communities for odor. It installed odor control facilities (plant extract spraying) in August 2013. As of April 2014, no complaint on odor 28 EA Executive Summary for China: GEF MSW Project has been reported. During public consultations, people living in the vicinity of Xishan incinerator also indicated there was smell from the incinerator. The follow-up survey shows that there are other industrial facilities in the area that may be sources of the odor. Close monitoring of odor and control measures shall be continued during the operation of those incinerators. 5.2.4 Fly Ash and Solid Wastes According to Stockholm Convention BAT/BEP Guidelines, fly ash is disposed of in dedicated landfills in many countries. However, pre-treatment is likely to be required for this to constitute BAT. Treatment and disposal options for solid residues from flue gas control systems include solidification or stabilization with Portland cement (or other pozzolanic materials), alone or with additives or a number of thermally based treatments, followed by appropriate disposal (based on anticipated releases from the treated residuals). Some residues with low levels of contamination may require no treatment before disposal in a landfill, based on an assessment of their contaminant release potential. Solid wastes in the four incinerators include fly ash and bottom slag generated from combustion, sludge from leachate treatment and garbage. Bottom slag is a non-hazardous solid waste and can be recycled. The four incinerators manage slag separately from fly ash and send it to construction material plants. Garbage and sludge are incinerated in the incinerators. Table 5-3 Fly Ash and Slag in 2013 Solid Wastes (t/a) WuHua DongJiao XiShan KongGang Fly ash 16,960 24,972 16,960 5,655 Slag 21,486 52,552 21,500 50,994 Sludge / 1,200 / 400 Fly ash collected at the bag house often contains heavy metals and dioxins; hence it is considered hazardous solid waste. CFB incinerators (i.e. Wuhua, Dongjiao and Xishan) produce more fly ash as a result of more complete combustion in furnace, accounting for about 6-8% of the MSW incinerated in weight; while the grate incinerator (Konggang) produces less, accounting for around 3%. Fly ash shall either be sent to local hazardous waste treatment facility or to a landfill on the condition that it meets the specifications set at the landfill. Kunming’s current hazardous waste treatment facility was put into operation in 2012 and its capacity is inadequate to receive the fly ash produced in these incinerators. Therefore, the four incinerators all adopted onsite solidification of the fly ash by mixing them with cement and chelating agent in order to stabilize the fly ash. The solidified fly ash from all four incinerators is sent to Kunming Xijiao Landfill for final disposal. According to leaching toxicity tests, the solidified fly ash of the four incinerators meets the Standard for Pollution Control on the Landfill Site of MSW (GB16889-2008). Therefore it is appropriate to dispose the solidified ash in the landfill. 29 EA Executive Summary for China: GEF MSW Project Figure 5-3 Fly ash solidification workshop and stabilized fly ash in Konggang Incinerator 5.2.5 Wastewater Management Wastewater generated in the four incinerators includes leachate from garbage pit. Often raw MSW is quite humid and has to be retained in the garbage pit for 3-5 days before it can be fed into the furnace. Leachate generated through the dewatering process has to be properly managed. Wuhua does not have a leachate treatment system. By design, its leachate is fed into the furnace for burning. In case the leachate amount is too large, the leachate is transported to a designated leachate treatment facility. Its domestic wastewater is discharged into the municipal sewer system. Dongjiao, Xishan and Konggang all have leachate treatment facilities that comprise anaerobic digestion, aerobic, and membrane processes such as membrane biological reactor (MBR) or nanofilter. Final discharges meet reuse standards and are used in the plants. There is no outlet wastewater discharges to the environment from these three incinerators. Overall, the wastewater streams in the four incinerators are well managed. 30 EA Executive Summary for China: GEF MSW Project Dongjiao nanofilter system Dongjiao aerobic nitrification tank From left to right: leachate-anaerobic-aerobic-nanofiltered- Treated wastewater reused at fountain in tap water Xishan Figure 5-4 Wastewater Treatment in Kunming MSW Incinerators 5.2.6 Noise Noise does not tend to be an issue at all four incinerators. Sources of noise include crushers, draft fan, turbine and other mechanical equipment. Noise control measures taken by the incinerators include sound insulation, damping pad and silencer, etc. Monitoring of noise have been carried out regularly, and no noncompliance has been reported. 5.3 EHS Management System Each candidate incinerator has established environmental, health, safety and emergency response system in accordance with national and local requirements, including an environmental and safety office with dedicated staff, environmental management and occupational safety regulations, operational monitoring and emergency management plan. The dedicated staff is trained regularly to understand the law and regulation on incinerator, and is responsible to the daily maintenance of pollution control equipment, online 31 EA Executive Summary for China: GEF MSW Project monitoring equipment, emergency reaction, etc. As mentioned before, local EPBs have carried out inspection monitoring to each incinerator. Intervals of such inspection monitoring are uneven, ranging from 4 months or even more. All pilot incinerators have compiled a site specific safety and emergency response procedures manual. 5.4 Findings and Issues Based on the environmental audit and technical evaluation carried out during project preparation, the following conclusions are made. • By design, all four incinerators have adopt “3T+E” incineration technology, i.e. after the last injection of air the gas is raised to a temperature of 850 degrees Celsius; residence time is 2 seconds; adequate gas-solids turbulence; and excessive air to keep oxygen concentration at 6~11% in the flue gas. These incineration conditions can minimize the formation of dioxins in the furnace. The four incinerators also adopt rapid quenching of the flue gas after leaving all combustion chambers in order to minimize reformation of dioxins at the temperature range of 200-400 degrees Celsius. • At flue gas treatment stage, all four incinerators use activated carbon injection plus a bag house. The activated carbon significantly improves capture of super fine particulates that attach the majority of dioxins and heavy metals. In addition, all four incinerators use semi-dry scrubber to remove acidic gases (SO2 and HCl). The abovementioned technologies, in combination, can help those incinerators meet relatively stringent air emission standards at reasonable costs. A review of international MSW technologies shows that the semi-dry scrubber+activitated carbon injection+baghouse process is the most common flue gas treatment technologies for MSW incineration, and is recommended by USEPA and EU. In 2001, this combined process accounted for 75% of all in the world. In recent years, acidic gas removal has drawn more attention and more advanced technologies such as wet gas scrubbing and SCR (selective catalytic reduction) or SNCR (selective non-catalytic reduction) have been used in developed countries. However, wet gas scrubbing and SCR require high capital investment and result in more complicated operation and operating costs, and thus have been rarely used in China in MSW incinerators. In recent years, the SNCR technology, which balances the NOx removal efficiency and cost/operating complexities compared to SCR, is more seen in new MSW incinerators built in large cities such as Beijing and Shanghai. None of the four incinerators in Kunming has used SNCR or wet gas scrubbing, their NOx and SO2emission levels do not seem to be a significant issue compared to EU or US standards and in view of the ambient air quality in Kunming. If legally required, there is the option to retroactively fit in advanced NOx removal facilities. The environmental audit and technical evaluation of the four incinerators also examined operating data, instrument and control system, emission monitoring data of the four incinerators in Kunming. Several rounds of interview and technical discussions with the 32 EA Executive Summary for China: GEF MSW Project incinerator operators were carried out during project preparation. It is noted that each incinerator has maintenance plans to examine its operation and make improvements as needed. For example, some incinerators installed odor removal facilities in response to public concerns, and shredder to deal with abnormal-sized garbage. Based on the overall operating track records and the discussions, it is considered that those incinerators are adequately managed by well-trained and experienced operators, albeit at uneven levels. Several measures to improve flue gas treatment are proposed, including using Polytetrafluoroethene (PTFE) coated bag and bag leaking detection, improving activated carbon injection and lime dosing. However, several aspects may have compromised the incinerators’ capacity to operate at their best conditions consistently. • The four incinerators often received highly humid and abnormal-sized garbage due to poor at-source segregation in the city, which compromise good combustion and result in frequent fire-pressing and restart in furnaces. The below photo shows segregated abnormal-sized objects at pre-treatment unit in Xishan incinerator. Compared to mass burn furnace, CFB furnace (i.e. Wuhua, Dongjiao and Xishan) are less capable of dealing with the abnormal-sized garbage. According to the information provided by incinerator operators, CFB furnaces experienced fire-pressing/restart once a day to three days in order to remove big object stuck at furnace slag outlet. The fire-pressing/restart operation may result in uncertain emissions. The poor at-source segregation is a common issue facing Chinese cities, and will probably continue in coming years because changing social behavior is difficult. Figure 5-5 Sorted Garbage at Xishan Incinerator • The incinerators’ instrumentation and automatic control system shall be further enhanced. Precise and reliable measurement of operating parameter, such as furnace temperatures and CO concentration, are good indicators of combustion conditions. It is noted that in at least two incinerators the thermometers for flue 33 EA Executive Summary for China: GEF MSW Project gas, after second-injection of air, may need to be put at a higher location in order to accurately measure the temperatures. There is also a lack of CO measurement after furnace. If reliable measurements of the parameters are in place, and corresponding control loops built into the incinerators’ control strategy, the incinerators can achieve more steady operation and better manage low quality garbage. • Environmental monitoring seems to be inadequate due to technical and capacity constraints. Per Chinese regulation, the inspection monitoring carried out by local environmental bureaus is the basis for environmental enforcement. Investigation of the inspection monitoring results shows that the inspection intervals were uneven. Some incinerators received quarterly inspections, others were inspected even less. This is common elsewhere in China because local environmental monitoring stations are often overwhelmed and give priority to ambient environmental quality monitoring and national/provincial key emission sources such as big power plant or heavy industries. In addition, the online monitoring equipment in the four incinerators don’t work well all time; some monitoring results seem to be either too low or too high, indicating there is room for improving maintenance and validation. Furthermore, online monitoring shall be expanded to cover operating parameters and made accessible to the UMB and EPB, which will enable them to better enforce. • Incinerator operators’ knowledge of process control, comprehensive application of BAT/BEP and environmental compliance need to be further enhanced. Systematic and regular training are needed. • In addition to technical measures, international experience shows that close public oversight is critical to the incinerators’ environmental compliance. This is also a best environmental practice highlighted by Stockholm Convention BAT/BEP guidelines. The public oversight approaches were developed through public consultation during project preparation (see Section 6). 34 EA Executive Summary for China: GEF MSW Project 6 Public Consultation 6.1 Public Consultation and Information Disclosure During project preparation, two rounds of public consultations were conducted in accordance with World Bank OP 4.01. Social assessment was considered part of environmental assessment process, and the public consultations were carried out in an integrated manner to address the social and environmental concerns of the public. A combination of questionnaire surveys, focused group meetings, interviews and public meetings was carried out. The first round of public participation was carried out in May, 2013; the second round was carried out in March 2014 when the draft full environmental audit, environmental management plan and social assessment reports had been disclosed locally on March 10, 2014. The public consultations show that communities lack knowledge of MSW incineration, dioxins and other air emissions from MSW incinerators. They also lack confidence in the information shared with the public on the environmental management and emissions of the incinerators. These findings reinforced the fact that public reactions against dioxin emissions from MSW incinerators have become more common in China’s large cities in recent years. Based on the public consultations, the social assessment concluded that women know less than men about hazardous emissions from MSW incinerators, but women expressed more concern about the impacts on health and quality of life. Women were also less aware than men of environmental information disclosed by incinerators and less satisfied with the information disclosed. Of the four incinerators, Wuhua incinerator has mostly populated communities in its vicinity, and the opinions obtained from the people consulted show obvious concerns to the MSW incineration. However, through the public consultations, people consulted understood the objectives, approaches and design of the project, and expressed welcome to the project and willingness to join the designed public engagement programs. Information disclosure has been carried out as part of the environmental and social assessments through public bulletins, internet and at village offices. All draft full environmental audit reports, environmental management plans and social assessment reports were made available locally on March 10, 2014, and in the InfoShop on March 20, 2014, and as such, are accessible to the general public. 35 EA Executive Summary for China: GEF MSW Project Group meeting in Wuhua Group meeting in Xishan Group meeting in Dongjiao Group meeting in Konggang Figure 6-1 Group meetings of the second round public consultation 6.2 Public Engagement Plan Based on the public consultations carried out during project preparation, a comprehensive public engagement program was developed and incorporated in the project design, including: 1) information disclosure and public participation program including public disclosure of real-time incinerator emission and operating data, dioxin monitoring data, knowledge dissemination of MSW incineration and health impacts, MSW segregation and its linkage with incineration, interactions between incinerators and nearby communities, and 2) grievance redresses mechanism that includes a telephone hotline, document filing and specialized complaint institution located at incinerators, community/village, environmental protection bureau, urban management bureau. The budget for the public engagement plan is included in the project. 36 EA Executive Summary for China: GEF MSW Project 7 Environmental Management Plan 7.1 EMP Design The project will be implemented in two phases. The first phase will be an operating and environmental performance audit in the first year of project implementation, emission targets for each incinerator will be determined and are expected to meet or close to US and EU standards that are referenced in the EHS Guidelines. In the second phase the project will implement operational improvement programs in selected incinerators among the four in Kunming. Incinerators that commit to implementing these programs and fulfill financial eligibility conditions will be supported, including through grant funding for necessary upgrades of equipment relevant for dioxin emission reduction. The project by nature can be considered action plans to help the incinerators improve its operations and environmental compliance. The EMP includes the following aspects. An EMP for each incinerator was prepared by incorporating designed project interventions. Key highlights of the EMP include the following. • BAT/BEP and other mitigation measures. The EMP includes mitigation measures that address environmental compliance associated with MSW incineration. Applicable domestic regulations, Stockholm Convention BAT/BEP and WBG EHS guidelines were taken into account in designing these mitigation measures. • Monitoring Plan that includes existing inspection monitoring, online monitoring and additional dioxin stack monitoring, online monitoring of operating parameters supported by the project. • Public Engagement plan that is developed based on public consultations carried out through social assessment and environmental audit process. • Capacity training plan that includes existing training programs in the incineration plants and operator/regulator training supported by the project. 7.2 Institutional Arrangement MEP/FECO will be responsible for overall environmental management during project implementation. Kunming and Ningbo have established project management offices to manage the project implementation including investment and TA activities. In Kunming, each incinerator will be responsible for the implementation of its site-specific EMP. Environmental management responsibility will be built into the project management structure within MEP/FECO, provincial/local EPBs, and participating incinerators’ management, through their existing environmental management office and dedicated staff. Environmental mitigation measures developed in the EMP will be fully incorporated into the environmental, health and safety management systems. 7.3 EMP Budget The GEF grant for the project is USD12 Million, while counterpart funding for equipment enhancement at the MSW incinerators will be provided by the incinerators themselves. In 37 EA Executive Summary for China: GEF MSW Project total the project costs will be USD 60 million. Each incinerator will receive USD 1-2 million GEF grant. Operational costs of the incinerators will be fully borne by the incinerator owners. 38