ASSESSMENT REPORT

Dhapa Disposal Site

Kolkata, India
Prepared for:
Kolkata Municipal Corporation

Prepared under the support of:

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Landfill Methane Outreach Program

Prepared by:

File No. 02205942.00

April 2010

Dhapa Disposal Site

Table of Contents
Section
1.0
2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

Page

Executive Summary................................................................................................................................ 1
Introduction.............................................................................................................................................. 2
2.1 Purpose of the Assessment Report ............................................................................................2
2.2 Data Sources.................................................................................................................................2
2.3 Project Limitations ........................................................................................................................3
Site Description....................................................................................................................................... 3
3.1 Waste Disposal Information ......................................................................................................4
Annual Waste Disposal Rates....................................................................................................4
Waste Composition Data ...........................................................................................................7
Landfill Gas Generation and Recovery Projections ........................................................................ 8
4.1 Background on the SCS International LFG Model .................................................................8
4.2 Effects of Site Conditions on LFG Generation and Recovery..............................................9
4.3 Site Remediation Activities .........................................................................................................9
4.4 Model Parameters .................................................................................................................... 10
Model k Values ......................................................................................................................... 10
Methane Correction Factor ..................................................................................................... 10
Model Lo Values ....................................................................................................................... 10
Collection Efficiency.................................................................................................................. 11
4.5 Model Results............................................................................................................................. 12
Landfill Gas Project Options .............................................................................................................13
5.1 Electricity Generation............................................................................................................... 13
5.2 Direct Use ................................................................................................................................... 16
5.3 Flaring Only and Emissions Trading ...................................................................................... 17
Other Issues...........................................................................................................................................18
6.1 LFG Rights .................................................................................................................................. 18
6.2 Security and Scavangers......................................................................................................... 18
Recommendations ................................................................................................................................18
7.1 Site Management...................................................................................................................... 18
7.2 Project Implementation............................................................................................................. 19
Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................20
List of Figures

No.
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.

Page
Leachate Ponding at Dhapa Disposal Site ............................................................................ 4
Waste Pickers at Dhapa Disposal Site................................................................................... 4
Composting Plant ......................................................................................................................14
Composting Equipment.............................................................................................................14

Dhapa Disposal Site

List of Tables
No.
Table 1.
Table 2.

Page
Waste Disposal Estimates Dhapa Disposal Site ................................................................ 5
Waste Composition Data Dhapa Disposal Site................................................................. 7
List of Attachments

Attachment A Dhapa Waste Disposal Site

Attachment B - LFG Model Results

ii

Dhapa Disposal Site

ASSESSMENT REPORT DHAPA LANDFILL, KOLKATA INDIA

1.0

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A RY

This assessment report for a landfill gas (LFG) utilization or flaring only project has been
prepared by SCS Engineers (SCS) for the Dhapa Disposal Site in Kolkata, India. The
assessment was prepared based on the information provided by the Kolkata Municipal
Corporation (KMC) and observations made during a site visit on October 20, 2009.
The disposal site has served the City of Kolkata as an uncontrolled dumping ground since 1981.
Based on site volume and waste density estimates, the site is estimated to have received
approximately 7 million metric tonnes (Mg) of municipal solid waste (MSW) as of the time of
the site visit in October 2009, and has the capacity to receive another 4 million Mg of waste, for
a total of 11 million Mg at closure. This future capacity estimate assumes a 10 hectare (ha)
expansion occurs and that all disposal areas reach maximum height of 40 m (10 m above October
2009 levels). Based on 2009 disposal rates (3,500 Mg per day) and an assumed growth rate of
two percent, the site will be full by late 2012. At that time, either a new landfill site will need to
be ready for use, or disposal will need to continue outside of current disposal area boundaries
and/or above reported maximum height limits.
Areas of the site targeted for installing LFG collection wells will require closure and remediation
prior to development. Site remediation activities are already planned for the 8.1 ha Western
Mound, starting in 2010. Remediation is assumed to be completed in the Western Mound in
2011 to allow LFG project start-up in that disposal area in 2012. Remediation is also assumed to
occur in the remaining disposal areas to allow the project to collect LFG from the 13.3 ha
Eastern Mound by 2013 and the 10 ha Expansion Area by 2014. Because site remediation
activities are expected to include grading and slope reduction, additional disposal areas will need
to be acquired to accommodate expansion of the waste footprint,.
An LFG generation and recovery model was prepared based on the estimated waste disposal
rates, waste composition, climate, site conditions, and estimated achievable collection
efficiencies. The model assumes site closure occurs in late 2012, followed by completion of site
remediation activities for the entire disposal site, and projects that an LFG project could yield a
total of about 771,000 Mg of CO2-equivalent emission reduction credits (CERs) over a 10-year
period (2012-2021). Based on the projected quantities of recoverable LFG and a review of
available project options, this assessment report indicates that the Dhapa Disposal Site could be a
candidate for an LFG utilization project. A more in-depth analysis would be required to evaluate
the economic feasibility of various project options presented in this assessment report.

Dhapa Disposal Site

2.0

INTRODUCTION

This assessment report for the Dhapa Disposal Site has been prepared by SCS Engineers (SCS)
for the U. S. EPAs Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP), as part of the Methane-toMarkets Program, an international initiative to help partner countries reduce global methane
emissions in order to enhance economic growth, strengthen energy security, improve air quality,
improve industrial safety, and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

2.1

PURPOSE OF THE ASSESSMENT REPORT

The overall purpose of the Dhapa Disposal Site Assessment Report is to perform an assessment
of potential LFG recovery rates and a preliminary evaluation of options for the utilization of the
LFG. This overall purpose is achieved through the pursuit of the following objectives:

Summarize and evaluate available information on the disposal site, including its
physical characteristics, site management, and waste disposal data.

Evaluate technical considerations for LFG project development, including estimates

of the amount of recoverable LFG over the project period.

Examine available LFG utilization options, including electricity generation, direct

use, and flaring only projects.

2.2

DATA SOURCES

The following information which was used in the preparation of this report was (1) based on
observations by SCS personnel during the site visit performed on October 20, 2009; (2) provided
by Mr. Arun Sarkar, Principal Chief Engineer of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC)
during a meeting on the day of the site visit; (3) provided in a data profile form completed by Dr.
Suneel Pandey of KMC; or (4) provided by KMC via email (sent April 10, 2010 by Arpita
Chatterjee to P.U. Asnani).

Estimated site opening date (1981).

The size of the areas used for disposal, including a proposed expansion area.

Estimated maximum current waste depths.

Average waste disposal rates in 2008 and 2009 based on scalehouse data.

Waste composition data.

Estimate of height to be added to the existing waste mounds.

Assertion that the West Bengal Pollution Control Board plans to remediate the
western portion of the site (Western Mound).

Assertion that site closure will not occur before a new site for an engineered landfill
is acquired and available for use.
2

Dhapa Disposal Site

2.3

PROJECT LIMITATIONS

The information and estimates contained within this assessment report are based on the data
provided by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC). Neither the U.S. EPA nor its
contractors can take responsibility for the accuracy of this data. Measurements, assessments, and
projections presented in this report are based on the data and physical conditions of the landfill
observed at the time of the site visit. No warranty, express or implied, is made as to the
professional opinions presented herein. Changes in the property use and conditions (for
example: variations in rainfall, water levels, site operations, final cover systems, or other factors)
may affect future gas recovery at the disposal site. The U.S. EPA and SCS Engineers do not
guarantee the quantity or the quality of the available landfill gas.

3.0

SITE DESCRIPTION

The Dhapa Disposal Site is located in Kolkata, India in the state of West Bengal. The climate in
Kolkata is tropical and rainy. The 24-hour average temperature is 26.6 degrees C (79.9 degrees
F). Average annual precipitation in Kolkata is 1,625 mm (64 inches), of which over 95 percent
falls in the monsoon months of June through September.1
The Dhapa Disposal Site is owned by the KMC. The disposal site has been operating as an open
dump serving the City of Kolkata (estimated 2009 population of 5 million2) since 1981. The site
currently accepts waste from both KMCs public waste haulers and private haulers. Little or no
soil cover has been applied historically, and waste is deposited in an uncontrolled manner that
has resulted in steep, unstable slopes, leachate accumulation within the waste mass, and leachate
runoff into nearby water bodies (see Figure 1 below). Besides the creation of environmental
hazards, these conditions limit both LFG generation and the potential for efficient LFG
extraction.
The disposal site property covers 34.2 hectares (ha), of which approximately 21.5 ha consists of
waste disposal areas. The site has been divided into an eastern disposal area (Eastern Mound),
which receives waste from KMCs waste haulers, and a western disposal area (Western
Mound), which receives waste from private haulers. A composting facility is located between
the two disposal areas and receives selected waste loads from organics-rich sources such as food
markets. The composting facility is privately owned and covers 12.2 ha of the disposal site
property. In addition, there are about 200 waste pickers at the site who scavenge through the
waste daily (see Figure 2). A schematic drawing of the site is provided in Attachment A, which
shows the areas and relative locations of the composting facility and disposal areas, including a
proposed 10 ha Expansion Area.

1. Source: www.worldclimate.com.
2. Source: www.world-gazetteer.com.

Dhapa Disposal Site

Figure 1.

Leachate Ponding at Dhapa Disposal Site

Figure 2.

3.1

Waste Pickers at Dhapa Disposal Site

WASTE DISPOSAL INFORMATION

Annual Waste Disposal Rates

The Western Mound covers 8.1-ha and reaches a maximum height of 30 meters (m). The
Eastern Mound covers 13.3-ha and also reaches a maximum height of 30 m. The volume of
waste in place was calculated using a scaled aerial photograph obtained from Google Earth and
AutoCADD software to be 2,275,290 cubic meters (m3) in the Western Mound and 3,535,710 m3
in the Eastern Mound, for a total volume of 5,793,000 m3. This estimated volume was assumed
to reflect the amount of waste in place as of October 2009.

Dhapa Disposal Site

The in-place waste density is estimated to be 1.2 Mg per cubic meter (Mg/m3) based on waste
composition, age, and the estimated volume loss due to waste decomposition over the sites
disposal history. This results in an estimated total of approximately 7 million Mg waste in place
as of October 2009. KMC reported that the site received an average of about 2,500 Mg/day in
2008 and 3,500 Mg/day of waste in 2009, based on scalehouse records. Historical annual waste
disposal estimates were developed based on the 7 million Mg total, the reported opening date
(1981) and the reported 2008 and 2009 disposal rates (912,000 Mg/year and 1,277,500 Mg/year,
respectively). An annual growth rate of 15 percent was required for historical disposal estimates
to be consistent with the amount of waste in place, the number of years of disposal, and the
reported 2008 and 2009 disposal rates. The resulting historical disposal rates are shown in Table
1.
Table 1.

Waste Disposal Estimates Dhapa Disposal Site

Year

Annual
Disposal (Mg)

Waste In Place
(Mg)

Year

Annual Disposal
(Mg)

Waste In Place
(Mg)

1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996

18,000
20,700
23,800
27,400
31,500
36,200
41,600
47,800
55,000
63,300
72,800
83,700
96,300
110,700
127,300
146,400

18,000
38,700
62,500
89,900
121,400
157,600
199,200
247,000
302,000
365,300
438,100
521,800
618,100
728,800
856,100
1,002,500

1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012

168,400
193,700
222,800
256,200
294,600
338,800
389,600
448,000
515,200
592,500
681,400
912,000
1,277,500
1,303,100
1,329,200
1,042,100

1,170,900
1,364,600
1,587,400
1,843,600
2,138,200
2,477,000
2,866,600
3,314,600
3,829,800
4,422,300
5,103,700
6,015,700
7,293,200
8,596,300
9,925,500
10,967,600

KMC estimated that the disposal site has capacity for receiving wastes for another 5 years. This
estimate was evaluated by the LMOP Project Team based on waste volume calculations and
projected future disposal rates that were developed using the following information and
assumptions:

KMC projects that there is capacity for an additional 10 m of height on top of the
existing disposal mounds. This report assumes that the 10 m of additional height will
be applied to all disposal areas (present and future) and will set a limit on the disposal
capacity, along with the available area for disposal.

Dhapa Disposal Site

KMC has allocated an additional 10 ha on the south side of the Eastern Mound
(Expansion Area) to allow for expansion of that disposal area.

KMC will likely continue current disposal practices of piling waste in steep mounds,
until the disposal area is closed. LMOP and SCS do not recommend or condone this
practice, but recognize that it is likely to continue at the Dhapa Disposal Site.

Because the average age of waste deposited after October 2009 will be relatively
young at the time of site closure, the average in-place density for future waste is much
less than the historical density, and is estimated to be about 0.8 Mg/m3.

Future disposal rates are assumed to increase at a rate of two percent per year starting
from the reported 2009 disposal rate of 3,500 Mg/day (1,277,500 Mg).

Using the above assumptions, the Project Team performed a volume calculation using a scaled
aerial photograph obtained from Google Earth and AutoCADD software. The volume estimates
show that there appears to be additional capacity for about 779,000 m3 in the Western Mound,
929,000 m3 in the existing portion of the Eastern Mound, and 3,285,000 m3 in the 10 ha
Expansion Area, for a total of about 5 million m3. Applying the estimated in-place waste density
of 0.8 Mg/m3, there is additional capacity for about 623,000 Mg in the Western Mound, 743,000
Mg in the existing Eastern Mound, and about 2.63 million Mg in the Expansion Area, for a total
of 4 million Mg. This provides a final site capacity of 10.97 million Mg. Applying estimated
future disposal rates, there is enough capacity for about three years of waste disposal after
October 2009. The resulting future waste disposal estimates are shown in Table 1.
KMC has indicated that the West Bengal Pollution Control Board is planning to remediate the
Western Mound with the financial assistance of the World Bank and the Government of India.
The Western Mound holds approximately 39 percent of the total volume of disposed waste. A
feasibility study to select the remediation technology had been scheduled to begin in April 2009,
and the actual remediation work was to start in April, 2010.3 As of April 2010, the feasibility
study has not yet been released, but the remediation project reportedly has been approved and is
expected to begin soon. This assessment report assumes that the West Mound will be closed in
2010, with remediation completed before 2012 (assumed date of LFG project start-up).
In addition, this study assumes that the rest of the site will eventually be closed and remediated
after remediation of the Western Mound is completed. The Eastern Mound is projected to reach
the 10 m additional height limit by the end of 2010 and be available for closure and remediation
in 2011 and 2012, when waste disposal would move into the 10 ha Expansion Area.
This report assumes that the entire site will be closed in late 2012, based on the estimated
remaining capacities of the existing and planned disposal areas, which were calculated by setting
a maximum height of 10 m above top deck elevations existing in October 2009. The actual site
closure date will depend on the date that a new landfill is available. KMC has stated in an email
to Mr. P.U. Asnani that the East Mound and 10 Ha. Expansion area...can only be closed

3. Source: Dhapa Landfill Profile Form filled out by Mr. Arun Sarkar on March, 2008 and West Bengal Pollution
Control Board Memo #389/3S-187/2008

Dhapa Disposal Site

immediately after availability of the land for new Engineered Landfill and the same is ready for
operation. At present Kolkata Municipal Corporation has no other alternative but to utilize the
East Mound and 10 Ha. Expansion area for waste disposal system within this period. (See
discussion of possible impacts of a delay in site closure on LFG recovery in a later section of this
report.)
Waste Composition Data
Waste composition and moisture conditions in a landfill are primary considerations when
estimating LFG model Lo and k values. This report applies waste composition data provided by
KMC in a completed data form for the Dhapa site. Because the data was grouped into only four
waste categories food and garden/park waste combined (50.56%); wood (1.15%); paper and
textiles combined (7.94%); and all inert waste (29.60%) details on the breakdown of inert
waste categories were developed using waste composition information developed for the Gorai
Landfill Assessment Report.4 The estimated waste composition percentages are summarized in
Table 2.
Table 2.

Waste Composition Data Dhapa

Disposal Site

Waste Material

Estimated %

Food Waste
Garden Waste
Paper
Textiles
Wood
Plastics
Construction and Demolition Waste
Metals
Glass and Ceramics
Other Organics
Other Inorganics
Total
Organic Fraction (wet basis)
Organic Fraction (dry basis)

45.5%
5.1%
4.0%
4.0%
1.2%
3.3%
29.6%
0.5%
0.3%
3.4%
3.4%
100.0%
63.0%
25.9%

Sources: Data form completed by Arun Sarkar, KMC. A

breakdown of reported percentages into specific waste
materials was estimated based on information provided
in the draft Gorai Landfill Assessment Report.

4. Assessment Report Gorai Landfill, Mumbai, India. Draft report submitted December 2009.

Dhapa Disposal Site

4.0

L A N D F I L L G A S G E N E R AT I O N A N D R E C O V E RY
PROJECTIONS

4.1

BACKGROUND ON THE SCS INTERNATIONAL LFG

MODEL

SCS has developed a proprietary international LFG model that employs a first-order decay
equation for estimating LFG generation based on annual waste disposal rates, the amount of
methane one tonne of waste produces (Lo value), and the rate that waste decays and produces
LFG (k value). The model k and Lo variables are based on estimated waste composition and
local climate information. Data used for developing model input parameters are discussed in
later sections of this report.
The SCS International Model uses the same input variables (k and Lo) and is generally similar to
the U.S. EPAs Landfill Gas Emissions Model (LandGEM). The most significant difference
between the models is the assignment of multiple k and Lo values in the SCS International
Model. While the simple (single k and Lo) first order decay equation used in LandGEM is
appropriate for modeling U.S. landfills, it is SCSs opinion that LFG generation at sites in
developing countries may not be adequately modeled using this approach, primarily due to the
significantly different waste composition and site conditions which create different patterns of
waste decay and LFG generation over time.
The SCS International LFG model employs separate modules with different k and Lo values that
separately calculate LFG generation from the different waste components. This multi-phased
first-order decay model approach recognizes that the significant differences in the types of waste
disposed in developing countries require changes to the model structure as well as to the values
of the input variables. A similar approach has been adopted by the Inter-governmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC), which released a landfill methane generation model in 2006 that applies
separate modules for four different waste categories.5
LFG generation estimates produced by the model are used to project LFG recovery following
installation of a collection system based on the estimated collection efficiency. Collection
efficiency, defined as the percentage of generated LFG that is recovered by the LFG extraction
system, is affected by a number of factors, including: collection system design, extent of
wellfield coverage, waste depth, type of liner and cover, leachate management issues, landfill
management practices, and collection system operations.

5. IPCC, 2006. IPCC Spreadsheet for Estimating Methane Emissions from Solid Waste Disposal Sites.

Dhapa Disposal Site

4.2

EFFECTS OF SITE CONDITIONS ON LFG GENERATION

AND RECOVERY

Site conditions at the landfill can impact LFG recovery either indirectly (by their effects on LFG
generation) or directly (by their effects on achievable collection efficiency). Site conditions
impacting LFG generation and recovery which were considered in the development of the model
estimates are summarized below:

4.3

Moisture conditions. Annual average precipitation was used to evaluate moisture

conditions at the site and to estimate appropriate model k values. According to
www.worldclimate.com, annual average precipitation in Kolkata is approximately
1,625 mm.

Landfill management practices. As noted previously, the site has been operated as an
open dump throughout its active lifetime. Shallow and/or uncovered waste piles
typically experience aerobic conditions near the surface, that are toxic to methane
generating bacteria. As a result, dump sites generate significantly less methane than
managed landfills that control the size of the active disposal area, compact waste, and
apply soil cover on a frequent basis. This effect is accounted for in the model by
modifying the Lo values through the application of a methane correction factor
(MCF) that is assigned based on the estimated fraction of waste which decays
aerobically and does not produce methane. The historically poor conditions at dump
sites also tend to contribute to low collection efficiencies.

SITE REMEDIATION ACTIVITIES

Site remediation activities planned for the Western Mound would be expected to include at least
the following: waste consolidation, re-grading, intermediate or final cover installation, and
construction of stormwater drainage features. Site remediation will lessen environmental
impacts of the disposal site, including water pollution from leachate runoff into nearby wetlands.
Re-grading of the existing sloped areas to more stable (e.g. 3 to 1) slopes will require a larger
area than the disposal area currently occupies. Remediation of nearby wetlands may be required
to offset possible expansion of the disposal area.
While environmental improvements would be the primary reason for site remediation, site
remediation also would make conditions more suitable for the installation and operation of an
LFG collection system. Given the existing conditions (no soil cover, steep and unstable side
slopes, poor drainage), a properly functioning LFG collection system cannot be installed at the
site except in areas that first undergo remediation. For this reason, this report assumes that the
entire disposal site will be remediated. Remediation of the Western Mound is assumed to be
completed in 2011 in time to allow for installation of the LFG collection system and system
start-up by mid-2012. Remediation of the Eastern Mound is assumed to occur in 2012 and 2013,
and remediation of the 10 ha Expansion Area in 2013 and 2014.

Dhapa Disposal Site

Disposal areas must first stop receiving waste before beginning remediation activities. Any
delays in the assumed remediation schedule due to disposal areas continuing to receive waste
past projected closure dates will cause delays in LFG system installation.
Even after an area is remediated, the long history of leachate accumulation in exposed waste
without proper drainage will likely create leachate problems that can persist for years.
Furthermore, the process of waste excavation and re-grading to stabilize slopes will expose
buried wastes to aerobic conditions and decrease methane generation.
Additional discussion of model inputs and assumptions that reflect the site conditions is provided
below.

4.4

MODEL PARAMETERS

Model k Values
Based on the precipitation rate and estimated waste moisture conditions at the disposal site, SCS
assigned the model k values of 0.360, 0.072, and 0.018 per year for the fast, medium, and slowly
decaying organic waste fractions, respectively.
Methane Correction Factor
Based on an assessment of the effects of historic site management practices and expectations of
disposal area re-grading, a MCF of 0.7 was assigned to account for aerobic waste decay. Prior to
remediation, waste areas would be expected to generate greater amounts of methane than
assumed in the model (i.e., a MCF of 0.8 would be appropriate based on the IPCC recommended
value for unmanaged disposal sites less than 5 m deep). However, since all disposal areas are
assumed to eventually be remediated before wells are installed, a 0.7 MCF was applied to reflect
the impacts of site re-grading on average rates of aerobic decay. The MCF adjustment was
applied to the Lo values.
Model Lo Values
Waste composition data was used to estimate Lo values for the fast, medium, and slowly
decaying organic waste categories, based on the dry organic content of the disposed waste (as
compared to average U.S. waste) multiplied by the estimated MCF. Separate Lo values were
calculated for the different organic waste categories which are as follows (after applying a MCF
of 0.7):

Fast-decay waste (food and a portion of the garden waste): 51 m3/Mg.

Medium-decay waste (paper, textiles, and a portion of the garden waste): 136 m3/Mg.
Slow-decay waste (wood): 129 m3/Mg.

The fraction of waste consisting of inert materials (e.g., construction and demolition waste,
metals, plastics, glass and ceramics) was assigned an Lo value of 0 as it is not expected to
contribute to LFG generation.

10

Dhapa Disposal Site

Collection Efficiency
As discussed above, conditions at the disposal site would be expected to limit the efficiency of
the collection system to low levels and would require site remediation before system installation.
Three LFG recovery scenarios were developed to reflect a range of achievable collection
efficiencies that vary depending on the level of effort and amount of resources available to
operate the collection systems. All three scenarios assume that the Western Mound would be
remediated in 2010 and 2011, followed by installation of a collection system and system start-up
in 2012, and complete system coverage of the Western Mound by 2013. Site remediation and
system expansion into the remaining disposal areas is assumed to occur from 2013 through 2015.
Maximum collection efficiency levels will occur from 2015 onwards, when remediation, final
cover installation, and collection system installation in all disposal areas are assumed to be
complete. Any delays in the assumed schedule for site remediation and system installation (i.e.,
if the East Mound and/or Expansion Area remain open past projected closure dates), would cause
significant decreases in projected collection efficiencies under all scenarios. The three recovery
scenarios are described as follows:
1. The low recovery scenario assumes that a moderate level of skill and effort is
employed in the operation and maintenance of the collection system (e.g., including
wellfield monitoring and adjustment about once per month). Collection efficiency is
assumed to be 10 percent in the West Mound in 2012 and 35 percent starting in 2013.
Collection efficiency in the East Mound is assumed to be 10 percent in 2013 and 35
percent starting in 2014. Collection efficiency in the Expansion Area is assumed to
be 10 percent in 2014 and 35 percent starting in 2015. Using the above assumptions,
site-wide collection efficiency is calculated to increase from 2 percent in 2012 to 35
percent in 2015. The Project Team considers the low recovery estimates to be
conservative and should be employed only if a large margin of safety is needed.
2. The mid-range recovery scenario assumes that a moderately high level of skill and
effort is employed in the operation and maintenance of the collection system (e.g.,
including wellfield monitoring and adjustment 2 to 3 times per month). Collection
efficiency is assumed to be 25 percent in the West Mound in 2012 and 50 percent
starting in 2013. Collection efficiency in the East Mound is assumed to be 25 percent
in 2013 and 50 percent starting in 2014. Collection efficiency in the Expansion Area
is assumed to be 25 percent in 2014 and 50 percent starting in 2015. Using the above
assumptions, site-wide collection efficiency is calculated to increase from 6 percent in
2012 to 50 percent in 2015. The Project Team considers the mid-range recovery
scenario to be its best estimates of likely recovery and recommends its use in the
economic evaluation.
3. The high recovery scenario assumes that highest possible level of skill and effort is
employed in the operation and maintenance of the collection system (e.g., including
weekly or more frequent wellfield monitoring and adjustment). Collection efficiency
is assumed to be 35 percent in the West Mound in 2012 and 60 percent starting in
2013. Collection efficiency in the East Mound is assumed to be 35 percent in 2013

11

Dhapa Disposal Site

and 60 percent starting in 2014. Collection efficiency in the Expansion Area is

assumed to be 35 percent in 2014 and 60 percent starting in 2015. Using the above
assumptions, site-wide collection efficiency is calculated to increase from 8 percent in
2012 to 60 percent starting in 2015. The Project Team considers the high recovery
estimates to be ambitious and attainable only if the maintenance of an optimal LFG
recovery system is considered to be a top priority.
Note that, in addition to the potential variability in collection efficiency and the level of
operation and maintenance, mathematical modeling of LFG is inherently uncertain. The Project
Team considered (and tried to account for) this modeling uncertainty in selecting the values for
the high and low recovery scenarios when projecting LFG recovery rates.

4.5

MODEL RESULTS

LFG generation projections for the Dhapa Disposal Site are provided in Table B-1 and Figure B1 in Attachment B. LFG recovery projections under alternative collection system efficiency
scenarios (low, mid-range, and high) are provided in Tables B-1 and B-2 and Figure B-1 in
Attachment B.
As shown in Table B-1, projected LFG generation increases from about 5,250 m3/hour in 2010 to
a maximum of about 7,000 m3/hour in 2013. LFG generation is projected to decline steeply
thereafter, reaching about 4,100 m3/hour in 2015, 1,500 m3/hour in 2020, and 820 m3/hour in
2025.
Under the mid-range collection efficiency scenario, LFG recovery is projected to be about 400
m3/hour in 2012, and to steadily increase to a maximum of about 2,070 m3/hour in 2015 when
collection efficiency increases to maximum levels. After 2015, LFG recovery is projected to
decline rapidly due to declining LFG generation. Table B-1 also shows that the potential for
power generation from LFG is estimated to exceed 1 MW over a 9-year period (2013-2021), and
exceed 0.5 MW for a 17-year period (2012-2028), under the mid-range recovery projections.
Certified emission reductions (CERs) achieved by this project through the combustion of landfill
methane under the mid-range recovery projections are estimated to exceed 770,000 tonnes of
carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions for the 10-year period from 2012 through 2021.
Section 3.1 noted that the projected site closure date based on remaining volume would not apply
as long as an alternative site for an engineered landfill is not available. If waste disposal
continues past 2012, LFG recovery would be impacted largely by any changes to the assumed
schedule for site closure, remediation, and LFG system development. Unless disposal moves
into a new expansion area to allow for closure and project development of existing areas,
increases in future LFG generation from ongoing waste disposal in the existing areas would be
more than offset by delays in project development in the near future, resulting in significantly
lower LFG recovery rates until at least 2015.

12

Dhapa Disposal Site

5.0

LANDFILL GAS PROJECT OPTIONS

LFG project options examined in this study include: (1) on-site electricity generation; (2) direct
use for heating/boiler fuel (medium-Btu application), and (3) flaring only for obtaining emission
reduction credits (CERs) under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). Both utilization
options would require construction of new facilities, including an LFG-to-electricity (LFGE)
power plant in the case of the electricity generation option and an LFG processing and delivery
system (pipeline) in the case of the direct use option. All three options would require operation
of the LFG collection and flaring system and are expected to generate revenues from the sale of
CERs. The utilization options also would be expected to generate revenues from the sale of
electricity or LFG.
Capital costs for a GCCS will depend to a large extent on LFG flows, landfill size, and waste
depth. A typical range for GCCS costs, including flare start-up and source test and engineering
and contingency costs, is about $70,000 to $120,000 (U.S.) per hectare of landfill area. Annual
GCCS operation and maintenance (O&M) costs typically average from 7 to 10 percent of capital
costs, not including costs of electricity or system expansions.

5.1

ELECTRICITY GENERATION

The projected LFG recovery rates under the mid-range recovery scenario indicate that the
disposal site could support approximately a 1 MW power plant from 2013 through 2021, and a
0.5 MW power plant from 2012 to 2028, using reciprocating engines. To evaluate whether an
electricity generation project is economically feasible, the estimated project revenues,
construction costs (capital costs), and operating costs for the following alternatives should be
considered:

Selling generated electricity to a nearby end-user through a dedicated line.

Selling generated electricity to the power grid.
Utilizing generated electricity to offset electricity purchases for on-site uses.

The revenues produced by these project alternatives should be compared to the estimated project
construction and operating costs. Estimated revenues from electricity sales will depend on the
quantity of electricity sold and the electricity sales price. Costs associated with an LFGE project
at the Dhapa Disposal Site will depend not only on the cost of constructing and operating the
power plant but also the cost of the electrical interconnection to the grid. All of the above
alternatives will require either a new interconnect or modifications to the existing interconnect.
At most sites with LFG generation rates similar to the amounts estimated for this disposal site,
traditional electricity generation projects that sell power onto the grid often are difficult to justify
on an economic basis. Because small to medium sized electric generation projects typically have
higher investment costs when compared to larger facilities on a cost per installed kW basis, these
electric generation projects are typically not feasible without some kind of project competitive
advantage. The high investment costs result from the following drivers:

13

Dhapa Disposal Site

Smaller projects require similar fixed cost investments as larger projects, including
electric transmission lines and interconnection infrastructure to the closest substation.

Smaller engine-generator units cost more per installed kW and have lower
efficiencies compared to larger units.

To offset the high investment costs, smaller electric projects typically require some kind of
project competitive advantage such as:

High on-site electricity usage paying high retail rates which can be offset by the
projects electricity generation.

Existence of a high electricity tariff, renewable tariff, or renewable portfolio standard,

and the existence of markets where the renewable attributes can be sold.

Existence of a large electricity user close by paying high retail rates which can
directly take the power generated at the facility.

Existence of an electric interconnect to the grid nearby which can be utilized with
little additional infrastructure investment.

The Dhapa Disposal Site has some of the competitive advantages listed above, including the
existence of a fairly large electricity user on the site property (composting facility), and the
possible existence of three-phase distribution lines suitable for connecting to a small LFGE
project close to the disposal site.
The composting facility located at the disposal site is expected to have significant electrical and
thermal energy needs based on the observed size of the facility. The composting facility may be
able to use both electricity and thermal energy from the LFG and would be an excellent facility
to approach regarding the use of LFG-based energy, given its close proximity. The composting
plant can be seen in Figures 3 and 4.

Figure 3.

Composting Plant

Figure 4.

14

Composting Equipment

Dhapa Disposal Site

The alternative to selling generated renewable electricity directly to a nearby end-user or

utilizing the electricity for on-site load is selling renewable electricity to the electrical grid. This
would require an interconnect to the local power grid. During the site visit, a three-phase
distribution power line going to the landfill was observed. This line, which was used to supply
on-site power to the composting operations, may have adequate capacity to be used to connect
the electricity generation project to the grid, but a more detailed interconnect study would be
required to evaluate its suitability. If the existing distribution line is not adequate, an assessment
of the interconnection options and the suitability of nearby substations to accept the power would
be required. Interconnection options may include upgrades to the existing line or constructing a
new dedicated line to a nearby substation. Further study also would be needed to evaluate the
regulatory requirements for renewable energy sources to connect to the state grid, as well as to
sell power directly to a third party end user.
The National Electricity Policy of 2005 states that the purchase of electricity from nonconventional sources by distribution companies must occur through a competitive bidding
process. The Electricity Act of 2003 also provides guidelines for setting up generation tariffs for
renewable-based electricity, including a suggestion to link the generation tariff to the highest
power purchase cost (fixed + variable) from the conventional plant in the state.
Although the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE)6 has stated that LFG is a source
of renewable energy, to date no renewable energy tariff has been announced for waste-to-energy
projects, which include LFG recovery projects. However, the MNRE does offer financial
assistance to waste-to-energy projects. For LFG recovery projects, financial assistance would be
provided under the scheme of demonstration projects for power generation from MSW through
new technologies, and the project would receive financial assistance of up to 50 percent of the
project cost or a maximum of 3 million Rupees per megawatt of capacity.
In the State of West Bengal, the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (WBERC) has
determined the tariffs for electricity from renewable sources in the regulations for Cogeneration
and Generation of Electricity from Renewable Sources of Energy. 7 This regulation establishes
that distribution companies in the State of West Bengal have a quota of electricity to be
purchased from cogeneration and renewable sources expressed as percentage of their total
consumption of electricity in a year. The quota varies depending on the established licensee
and increases on year by year basis. The regulation recommends that the tariff for the purchase
of electricity from cogeneration and renewable sources is agreed mutually between the licensee
and the supplier at a level not above the price cap for each type of source of energy specified in
this regulation. The price cap for renewable energy from MSW is $4.50 Indian Rupees per kWh
(U.S. $0.097 per kWh)8 and will remain fixed for a period of five years, which started when the
regulation came into force in March 25, 2008. Furthermore, the generating entity has open

6. Formerly the Ministry of Non-conventional Energy Sources (MNES)

7. West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (Cogeneration & Generation of Electricity from Renewable
Sources of Energy) Regulations, 2008. Notification No. 39/WBERC; dated March 25, 2008.
8. Using an exchange rate of $US 0.0216 per Indian Rupee as of February 24, 2010.

15

Dhapa Disposal Site

access to any transmission company system within the State of West Bengal, once payment has
been made for open access, transmission, wheeling, reactive energy, and other charges.
Based on an estimated electricity sales rate of $0.097 per kW-hr, and assuming a 93 percent
capacity factor (percent of plant operating time) and a 7 percent parasitic load (percent of
generated electricity required to run the power plant), a 1 MW plant could generate revenues of
approximately $730,000 per year. Based on the estimated construction and operating costs per
kW of facility capacity, construction costs for a 1 MW LFGE facility at the Dhapa Disposal Site
will likely exceed $2 million, and facility operating costs will likely exceed $175,000 per year.
These construction cost estimates do not include the cost of an electrical interconnect to a local
substation, which could range substantially depending on the availability and suitability of
nearby distribution lines and/or substations.

5.2

DIRECT USE

The sale of LFG for direct use at a nearby industrial facility can generate significant revenues
while requiring less initial facility costs than an electricity generating facility. The projected
LFG recovery rates under the mid-range recovery scenario indicate that the disposal site could
support a 1,000 m3/hr direct use LFG project from 2013 through 2018, and a 400 m3/hr direct use
LFG project from 2012 through 2025. Project feasibility is largely determined by distances to
end users. Unless the direct use client is located at a very short distance from the disposal site,
an LFG transmission pipeline will be required. If the direct use project requires transporting the
LFG a significant distance to the end user, it typically requires a gas compression and treatment
skid (filter, compressor or blower, de-hydration unit). LFG treatment requirements also are
driven by the equipment that will utilize the LFG. Gas compression and treatment skid costs will
be about $500,000 to $1 million, depending on the volume of LFG treated, distances to end
users, and end user delivery pressure requirements. Pipeline construction will be about $100,000
per km (assuming open trenching and not including payments for right-of-way easements).
Annual O&M costs are estimated to be approximately $35,000 to $55,000 per year, depending
on the project size and labor costs.
The Dhapa Disposal Site is located in an isolated area, and no industries were observed near the
disposal site during the site visit, other than the on-site composting facility. Unless other
facilities can be identified that are located nearby and could serve as potential end-users of LFG,
an off-site direct use project does not appear to be a feasible option. The only potential option
for utilizing recovered LFG appears to be on-site uses that do not generate revenues (only
potential cost savings). As discussed above, the potential for using LFG as a source of thermal
energy at the composting facility should be explored. Another potential on-site use for recovered
LFG could be combustion in a leachate evaporation system. The economic viability of a
leachate evaporation project will be driven primarily by the all-in cost incurred by the landfill to
treat and dispose of its leachate.
In sum, the viability of a direct use project will be driven by the following key factors: (1) the
end users distance from the landfill; (2) the quantity and timing of the end users demand for
thermal energy (i.e., a large and steady demand would be best); (3) the end users cost of current

16

Dhapa Disposal Site

fuel; (4) complexity and cost to convert existing systems to utilize LFG; and (5) quality of LFG
required by the end user for its processes.

5.3

FLARING ONLY AND EMISSIONS TRADING

It is now possible to account for, and transfer, the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions
resulting from activities that reduce or capture any of the six main greenhouse gases. Because
methane generated from solid waste disposal on land is one of the major sources of greenhouse
gas emissions, its capture and oxidation to carbon dioxide results in an environmental benefit.
This benefit may be measured and traded under a number of different emission reduction trading
schemes world wide, including the sale of CERs under the CDM.
In order to qualify for trading of emission reductions, normally a project must be able to prove
that there is no requirement under law, or mandated by waste disposal licenses or other
regulations, to control the emission of the particular greenhouse gas relating to the project. This
appears to be the case at the Dhapa Disposal Site.
While flaring is the normal method for thermal oxidation of LFG, any process which prevents
the emission of methane to the atmosphere would also qualify for tradable emission reductions.
The carbon dioxide created by the thermal oxidation of methane is considered to be "short cycle"
and the product of the normal carbon cycle, and therefore does not need to be accounted for
under the current methodologies.
If electrical energy production is also included, and that power is either exported to the local
distribution network or used to displace other usage of electricity generated by the combustion of
fossil fuels, it is possible to gain additional emission reductions as a result of the displacement of
fossil fuel use.
Although not a utilization option, flaring collected LFG would therefore produce significant
environmental benefits and potential revenues from the sale of CERs. Because CERs are
typically the only source of revenues from a flaring only project, prices received for the emission
reductions will largely determine economic feasibility. A flaring only project would likely
produce lower revenues than the other project options but may be more economically feasible to
develop due to much lower capital investment costs. In addition, a flaring only project does not
preclude a landfill from subsequently developing and implementing an LFG utilization project.
A phased approach can reduce project risk by allowing for the proving of LFG quantities that the
landfill can produce, recover the cost of the LFG collection system (and thus not burden the
utilization project with having to fund the capital for the collection system), and provide a
revenue base to help support the development and financing of the utilization project. It is very
important that the concept for a second phase LFG utilization project be included in any project
design document (PDD). Even if all the details are not known, a general concept should be
introduced to allow for the modification of the PDD in lieu of a complete PDD resubmission.

17

Dhapa Disposal Site

6.0

OTHER ISSUES

6.1

LFG RIGHTS

For any LFG project to occur, the ownership of the gas rights needs to be clearly defined.
Potential disputes over gas rights need to be settled before there can be decisions regarding
proceeding with a project, contract negotiations, or revenue sharing.

6.2

SECURITY AND SCAVANGERS

The Dhapa Disposal Site currently does not block public access to the site, and a large number of
scavengers work the active disposal areas on a daily basis. To prevent theft and vandalism, LFG
extraction equipment can only be installed in secured areas. Thus, security fencing will need to
be installed to protect any areas that are to be developed.

7.0

R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S

This section presents general recommendations aimed at improving the chances of developing a
successful LFG utilization or flaring only project.

7.1

SITE MANAGEMENT

Site Closure Plan. In order to develop a realistic plan for the implementation of the LFG
recovery system, the site should first prepare a closure plan. The following considerations
should guide the preparation of the site closure plan:

Closure plan: A site closure plan will give more certainty to the schedule for
implementing the LFG project and expanding the collection system to cover all disposal
areas. This plan also will provide information to determine how the system coverage can
be maximized through the life of the LFG project. Current uncertainties regarding the
closure dates for the Eastern Mound and the Expansion Area make developing a closure
plan for the Dhapa Disposal Site difficult at present.

Side slopes: Side slopes should be at grades that are stable while providing adequate
drainage of stormwater. Historical disposal practices at the site have resulted in steep,
unstable slopes that exceed 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) ratios in many places. Side slopes
of approximately 3:1 are generally recommended, but a slope stability analysis should be
performed to determine grading requirements. Currently, there is a conflict between the
need to expand the waste footprint to provide proper slope grading, and the limited
amount of area available. KMC will need to address this conflict by acquiring additional
land adjacent to the existing disposal areas.

18

Dhapa Disposal Site

Access roads: Access to all areas of the site must be provided for heavy equipment such
as drilling rigs, backhoes, etc. potentially needed during the construction of the LFG
system.

Active Disposal Area. The active disposal area should be minimized. Considering that
stormwater that infiltrates through the active disposal area becomes leachate, the smaller the
active disposal area the less leachate will be generated.
Stormwater Management. The site does not have any soil cover and does not use tarps to
prevent stormwater that falls on the landfill surface to infiltrate into the waste and turn into
leachate. The site remediation process should include final cover installation and provide
adequate slopes and runoff features (ditches, benches, etc.) to avoid ponding of water and
excessive erosion.
Leachate Management. All landfills considering an LFG project must implement a leachate
management system that evacuates leachate from the waste mass, limits additional rainfall
infiltration, controls leachate runoff, and properly treats generated leachate. The site has no
bottom liner or leachate drainage system. High rainfall rates in the region and the lack of cover
have caused leachate accumulation within the waste and leachate runoff into nearby water
bodies. Leachate accumulation problems often are the primary cause of LFG project
underperformance. Final cover installation and site remediation should help limit future leachate
generation and provide drainage, but dewatering of the site will likely take years to complete.

7.2

PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

The following are recommended next steps for implementing an LFG utilization or flaring only
project:

LFG Rights: To clarify any potential uncertainty regarding the rights to the LFG,
legitimate stakeholders should work together to equitably share the benefits and
document any agreement. As a general guideline, we recommend that any benefit
received resulting from the LFG should be commensurate with the level of risk incurred.
For example, the entity responsible for addressing environmental liabilities (including
incurring the costs of site closure and remediation) should also receive benefits from the
LFG.

Solicit Offers: The project owner should solicit offers to develop the LFG utilization
project and/or a flaring only (GHG reduction) project. If the successful bidder is
obligated to put up significant capital, then the LFG rights will most likely have to be
transferred to the successful bidder in return for some kind of benefit (typically a
payment based on the amount of LFG available or used).

Other Considerations: If the project is to be implemented first as a flaring only project

and later expanded to a utilization project, make sure the possibility of an LFG utilization
project is preserved. Include the concept for a second phase LFG utilization project in

19

Dhapa Disposal Site

the PDD. Even if all the details are not known, a general utilization project concept
should be introduced to allow for the modification of the PDD in lieu of a complete PDD
resubmission. Give the developer a reasonable timeframe to implement the utilization
project; after that period, they would lose their rights to the project. If the developer does
not intend to develop or is not awarded the rights to an LFG utilization project, the owner
should preserve its rights to develop a utilization project in the future, along with the any
environmental attributes associated with the utilization project (e.g., CERs).

8.0

CONCLUSIONS

The Dhapa Disposal Site is a large disposal site with fairly significant projected LFG generation
rates, but relatively modest quantities of recoverable LFG due to the limitations that site
conditions impose on achievable collection efficiencies. Because peak LFG generation rates
occur shortly after disposal stops, the need to close and remediate disposal areas prior to project
development causes delays in LFG capture that lower overall collection efficiency. Maximum
collection efficiency will not occur until the LFG system build-out is completed, which is not
projected to occur until after all areas have been remediated (2015) and LFG generation has
declined 40 percent from peak levels. Delays in LFG project implementation due to disposal
continuing past projected area closure dates will lower collection efficiencies further and will
lower LFG recovery rates (at least through 2015), despite potentially higher LFG generation.
Based on a preliminary evaluation of potential LFG recovery rates, there appears to be sufficient
LFG to support a 1 MW LFGE project over a 9-year period (2013-2021) and a 0.5 MW project
over an 17-year period (2012-2028). Electricity generated from LFG potentially could be used at
the composting facility on-site or sold to the grid. LFG also may be able to be used directly at
the composting facility as a source of thermal energy.
Other potential LFG utilization project options appear to be limited due to the lack of nearby
industrial facilities. Due to its lower capital costs, a flaring only project may be the most
economically feasible alternative. A more detailed study would be required to evaluate the
specific project options identified, including a detailed analysis of revenues, capital and
operating costs, financing, end user location and demand, and technology considerations, and to
determine which if any project options are the most economically viable.

20

Dhapa Disposal Site

AT T AC H M E N T A
D H A PA WA S T E D I S P O S A L S I T E

Dhapa Disposal Site

AT T AC H M E N T B
L F G M O D E L R E S U LT S

TABLE B-1
PROJECTION OF LANDFILL GAS GENERATION AND RECOVERY UNDER MID-RANGE SCENARIO
DHAPA DISPOSAL SITE, KOLKATTA, INDIA

Year
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016

Disposal
Rate

Refuse
In-Place

(Mg/yr)
18,000
20,700
23,800
27,400
31,500
36,200
41,600
47,800
55,000
63,300
72,800
83,700
96,300
110,700
127,300
146,400
168,400
193,700
222,800
256,200
294,600
338,800
389,600
448,000
515,200
592,500
681,400
912,000
1,277,500
1,303,100
1,329,200
1,042,100
0
0
0
0

(Mg)
18,000
38,700
62,500
89,900
121,400
157,600
199,200
247,000
302,000
365,300
438,100
521,800
618,100
728,800
856,100
1,002,500
1,170,900
1,364,600
1,587,400
1,843,600
2,138,200
2,477,000
2,866,600
3,314,600
3,829,800
4,422,300
5,103,700
6,015,700
7,293,200
8,596,300
9,925,500
10,967,600
10,967,600
10,967,600
10,967,600
10,967,600

Dhapa Kolkatta model final 4-13-10.xls

LFG
Generation
3

(m /hr)
0
30
57
82
107
133
160
190
223
261
303
351
406
470
542
625
720
829
955
1,100
1,266
1,457
1,677
1,929
2,219
2,553
2,936
3,378
4,095
5,249
6,178
6,920
7,017
5,382
4,131
3,233

(scfm)
0
17
34
48
63
78
94
112
131
153
178
207
239
276
319
368
424
488
562
647
745
858
987
1,135
1,306
1,503
1,728
1,988
2,411
3,090
3,636
4,073
4,130
3,168
2,431
1,903

(mmBtu/hr)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
1.9
2.4
2.9
3.4
4.0
4.7
5.4
6.3
7.3
8.4
9.7
11.2
12.9
14.8
17.1
19.7
22.6
26.0
30.0
34.5
39.7
45.6
52.5
60.4
73.2
93.8
110.4
123.7
125.4
96.2
73.8
57.8

Collection
System
Efficiency
(%)

(m /hr)

0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
6%
15%
36%
50%
50%

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
405
1,068
1,927
2,066
1,617

MID-RANGE RECOVERY SCENARIO

Predicted LFG
Maximum
Baseline**
Recovery
Power Plant LFG Flow
Capacity*
3
(MW)
(m /hr)
(scfm)
(mmBtu/hr)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
238
629
1,134
1,216
951

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.2
19.1
34.4
36.9
28.9

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.7
1.8
3.2
3.4
2.7

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Methane Emissions
Reduction Estimates**
(tonnes
(tonnes
CH4/yr)
CO2eq/yr)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,270
26,672
3,354
70,436
6,050
127,054
6,485
136,181
5,075
106,578

4/20/2010

TABLE B-1
PROJECTION OF LANDFILL GAS GENERATION AND RECOVERY UNDER MID-RANGE SCENARIO
DHAPA DISPOSAL SITE, KOLKATTA, INDIA

Year
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035

Disposal
Rate

Refuse
In-Place

(Mg/yr)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

(Mg)
10,967,600
10,967,600
10,967,600
10,967,600
10,967,600
10,967,600
10,967,600
10,967,600
10,967,600
10,967,600
10,967,600
10,967,600
10,967,600
10,967,600
10,967,600
10,967,600
10,967,600
10,967,600
10,967,600

MODEL INPUT PARAMETERS:

Assumed Methane Content of LFG:
Decay Rate Constant (k):
CH4 Generation Pot. (Lo) (ft3/ton):
Metric Equivalent Lo (m3/Mg):

Dhapa Kolkatta model final 4-13-10.xls

LFG
Generation
3

(m /hr)
2,583
2,108
1,755
1,491
1,288
1,131
1,005
904
819
748
687
633
586
544
505
470
439
409
382

(scfm)
1,520
1,240
1,033
877
758
666
592
532
482
440
404
373
345
320
297
277
258
241
225

50%
Fast Decay Med. Decay
0.360
0.072
1,622
4,343
51
136

(mmBtu/hr)
46.2
37.7
31.4
26.6
23.0
20.2
18.0
16.1
14.6
13.4
12.3
11.3
10.5
9.7
9.0
8.4
7.8
7.3
6.8

Collection
System
Efficiency
(%)

(m /hr)

50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%

1,291
1,054
878
745
644
565
503
452
410
374
343
317
293
272
253
235
219
205
191

MID-RANGE RECOVERY SCENARIO

Predicted LFG
Maximum
Baseline**
Recovery
Power Plant LFG Flow
Capacity*
3
(MW)
(m /hr)
(scfm)
(mmBtu/hr)
760
620
517
439
379
333
296
266
241
220
202
186
172
160
149
138
129
120
113

23.1
18.8
15.7
13.3
11.5
10.1
9.0
8.1
7.3
6.7
6.1
5.7
5.2
4.9
4.5
4.2
3.9
3.7
3.4

2.1
1.7
1.5
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Methane Emissions
Reduction Estimates**
(tonnes
(tonnes
CH4/yr)
CO2eq/yr)
4,055
85,149
3,308
69,476
2,756
57,868
2,340
49,143
2,022
42,472
1,775
37,275
1,578
33,143
1,418
29,788
1,286
27,009
1,174
24,660
1,078
22,641
994
20,877
920
19,316
853
17,919
793
16,656
738
15,508
688
14,458
643
13,493
600
12,603

NOTES:
* Maximum power plant capacity assumes a gross heat rate of 10,800 Btus per kW-hr (hhv).
Slow Decay Total Site Lo **Baseline LFG flow assumes no LFG recovery (no combustion). CERs do not include electricity
0.018
generation, system down-time, or methane destruction efficiency assumptions.
4,123
1,336
Total estimated CERs for the 2012-2021 period =
771,031 tonnes CO2e
129
42

4/20/2010

TABLE B-2
PROJECTION OF LANDFILL GAS RECOVERY UNDER HIGH AND LOW RECOVERY SCENARIOS
DHAPA DISPOSAL SITE, KOLKATTA, INDIA

Year
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027

Collection
System
Efficiency
(%)

3
(m /hr)

0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
8%
20%
46%
60%
60%
60%
60%
60%
60%
60%
60%
60%
60%
60%
60%
60%

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
566
1,372
2,465
2,479
1,940
1,550
1,265
1,053
894
773
678
603
542
492
449
412

Dhapa Kolkatta model final 4-13-10.xls

Predicted LFG
Recovery
(scfm)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
333
807
1,451
1,459
1,142
912
744
620
526
455
399
355
319
289
264
243

HIGH RECOVERY SCENARIO

Maximum
Baseline**
Power Plant LFG Flow
Capacity*
(MW)
(m3/hr)
(mmBtu/hr)
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
10.1
0.9
0
24.5
2.3
0
44.1
4.1
0
44.3
4.1
0
34.7
3.2
0
27.7
2.6
0
22.6
2.1
0
18.8
1.7
0
16.0
1.5
0
13.8
1.3
0
12.1
1.1
0
10.8
1.0
0
9.7
0.9
0
8.8
0.8
0
8.0
0.7
0
7.4
0.7
0

Methane Emissions
Reduction Estimates**
(tonnes
(tonnes
CH4/yr)
CO2eq/yr)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,778
37,341
4,307
90,438
7,740
162,538
7,782
163,417
6,090
127,894
4,866
102,179
3,970
83,371
3,307
69,442
2,808
58,972
2,427
50,967
2,130
44,730
1,894
39,771
1,702
35,746
1,543
32,410
1,409
29,592
1,294
27,169

Collection
System
Efficiency
(%)

(m3/hr)

0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
2%
9%
21%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
162
613
1,120
1,446
1,132
904
738
614
522
451
396
352
316
287
262
240

Predicted LFG
Recovery
(scfm)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
95
361
659
851
666
532
434
362
307
265
233
207
186
169
154
141

LOW RECOVERY SCENARIO

Maximum
Baseline**
Power Plant LFG Flow
Capacity*
(MW)
(m3/hr)
(mmBtu/hr)
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
2.9
0.3
0
11.0
1.0
0
20.0
1.9
0
25.8
2.4
0
20.2
1.9
0
16.2
1.5
0
13.2
1.2
0
11.0
1.0
0
9.3
0.9
0
8.1
0.7
0
7.1
0.7
0
6.3
0.6
0
5.7
0.5
0
5.1
0.5
0
4.7
0.4
0
4.3
0.4
0

Methane Emissions
Reduction Estimates**
(tonnes
(tonnes
CH4/yr)
CO2eq/yr)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
508
10,669
1,925
40,433
3,516
73,829
4,539
95,327
3,553
74,605
2,838
59,604
2,316
48,633
1,929
40,508
1,638
34,400
1,416
29,731
1,242
26,092
1,105
23,200
993
20,852
900
18,906
822
17,262
755
15,849

4/20/2010

TABLE B-2
PROJECTION OF LANDFILL GAS RECOVERY UNDER HIGH AND LOW RECOVERY SCENARIOS
DHAPA DISPOSAL SITE, KOLKATTA, INDIA

Year
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035

Collection
System
Efficiency
(%)

3
(m /hr)

60%
60%
60%
60%
60%
60%
60%
60%

380
352
326
303
282
263
246
229

Predicted LFG
Recovery
(scfm)
224
207
192
178
166
155
145
135

HIGH RECOVERY SCENARIO

Maximum
Baseline**
Power Plant LFG Flow
Capacity*
(MW)
(m3/hr)
(mmBtu/hr)
6.8
0.6
0
6.3
0.6
0
5.8
0.5
0
5.4
0.5
0
5.0
0.5
0
4.7
0.4
0
4.4
0.4
0
4.1
0.4
0

Methane Emissions
Reduction Estimates**
(tonnes
(tonnes
CH4/yr)
CO2eq/yr)
1,193
25,053
1,104
23,179
1,024
21,502
952
19,988
886
18,610
826
17,350
771
16,191
720
15,123

NOTES:
* Maximum power plant capacity assumes a gross heat rate of 10,800 Btus per kW-hr (hhv).
**Baseline LFG flow assumes no LFG recovery (no combustion). CERs do not include electricity
generation, system down-time, or methane destruction efficiency assumptions.
Total estimated CERs for the 2012-2021 period =
946,559 tonnes CO2e

Dhapa Kolkatta model final 4-13-10.xls

Collection
System
Efficiency
(%)

(m3/hr)

35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%

222
205
190
177
165
154
143
134

Predicted LFG
Recovery
(scfm)
130
121
112
104
97
90
84
79

LOW RECOVERY SCENARIO

Maximum
Baseline**
Power Plant LFG Flow
Capacity*
(MW)
(m3/hr)
(mmBtu/hr)
4.0
0.4
0
3.7
0.3
0
3.4
0.3
0
3.2
0.3
0
2.9
0.3
0
2.7
0.3
0
2.6
0.2
0
2.4
0.2
0

Methane Emissions
Reduction Estimates**
(tonnes
(tonnes
CH4/yr)
CO2eq/yr)
696
14,614
644
13,521
597
12,543
555
11,659
517
10,856
482
10,121
450
9,445
420
8,822

NOTES:
* Maximum power plant capacity assumes a gross heat rate of 10,800 Btus per kW-hr (hhv).
**Baseline LFG flow assumes no LFG recovery (no combustion). CERs do not include electricity
generation, system down-time, or methane destruction efficiency assumptions.
Total estimated CERs for the 2012-2021 period =
507,739 tonnes CO2e

4/20/2010

Figure B-1. LFG Generation and Recovery Projection

Dhapa Dump Site, Kolkatta, India
8,000
500,000

400,000

6,000

5,000
300,000
4,000

200,000

3,000

CERs (tonnes CO2e)

LFG Flow at 50% Methane (m3/hr)

7,000

2,000
100,000
1,000

0
2000

2005

2010

2015

LFG Generation
Predicted recovery - High range

2020

2025

2030

0
2035

Predicted recovery - Mid Range

Predicted recovery - Low range
4/20/2010