solid waste management for carbon credits

8/10/2019 Solid Waste Management for Carbon Credits

1/9

If;,

Solid waste management forcarbon credits

Raman SharmaDepartment of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute ofTechnology Delhi, Hauz Khas, New Delhi -110016, India.Email: [email protected]

Prof. rn ud Delebarre

Director, Ecole Superieure des Sciences et Technologies del Ingenieur de Nancy, Universite Henri Poincare, France.Email: Arnaud.Delebarre@e~tin.uhp-nancy.fr

Prof Babu AlappatDepartment of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute ofTechnology Delhi, Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016, India.Email: [email protected]

AbstractTrading of carbon and nitrogen oxide NOx)

emission reductions is an attractive approach toimplement cleaner treatment technologies to replace

current anaerobic approaches for solid wastemanagement. The presented study is about thedetermination of the greenhouse gas GHG) emissionreductions after implementation of aerobiccomposting in Kottavam town from the Indian stateof Kerala. The aerobic composting unit will generatecompost and carbon dioxide CO~ in place ofmethane CH4). Emission reductions weredetermined using the approved methodology of theUNFCCC. This greenhouse gas GHG) emissionreduction from the baseline can generate carboncredits for the town. These credits can be sold bymunicipality in the carbon market to the developed

countries. Kottayam town generates 52.6 tonnes perday TPD) of municipal solid waste MSW), whichwould result in 5380 t CO2e per year tonnes of CO2equivalent generated per year) of greenhouse gasemissions if dumped according to the UNFCCCmethodology). If the same MSW were compostedaerobically, it may generate about 200 t CO2 e peryear. Hence a reduction of about 5166 t CO2 e peryear can be achieved from the baseline level. Thisreduction can lead to the monetary gain for the towndepending on the market price of carbon credit.

Keywords: Solid Waste Management; Methane

Emission; Kyoto Protocol; Clean DevelopmentMechanism CDM); Aerobic Composting, CarbonCredits.

1 IntroductionIndia generates 100GT ofMSW and per capita

waste generation in major cities ranges from 0.20

* Corresponding author

kg to 0.6 kg Ministry of Urban Development,Government ofIndia, 2000). More than 90 ofthewaste is disposed of by open dumping and a smallamount goes for compo sting, vermicomposting andRefuse Derived Fuel RDF) production. Opendumping of waste is a common practice in Indiancities. Incineration is not a common practice, as thewaste tends to be low in calorific value Narayana,2009).

Municipal Solid Waste Management MSWM)involves activities like generation, storage,collection, transfer and transport, processing anddisposal of solid waste. However in most Indiancities, the MSWM system consists only fouractivities: waste generation, collection,transportation and disposal. In Indian cities,respective municipalities collect, transport anddump MSW in specified disposal sites usually lowlying areas in the outskirts of cities. For metro citiesthe collection rate ranges between 70 to 90whereas for smaller cities it is below 50 . Due tothis, MSWM has become a major environmental

problem in Indian cities Singhal and Pandey, 2001).As estimated the urban municipalities spend about500-1500 Indian Rupees per tonne on solid wastefor collection, transportation and disposal. 60-70ofthis amount is spent on street sweeping, 20-30is spent on transportation and less than 5 is spenton disposal Ministry of Urban Development,Government ofIndia, 2000).

Due to insufficient oxygen during thedecomposition of the organic matter in the landdumps, a mixture of CO2 and CH4 gases are emittedfrom these sites Mollersten and Gronkvist, 2007).Typically, gas from land dumps consists of 50-60

by volume) ofCH4 and 30-40 {by volume) of CO2,and trace amounts of numerous compounds suchas aromatics, chlorinated organic compounds andsulfur compounds Mor et al., 2006). CO2 and CH4,due to their global warming potential, are the mainreason behind the global warming and theassociated climate change Palm et al., 2009). TheCH4 emission from the open dumps contributes to3-19 of the anthropogenic sources in the world Talyan et aI., 2007). Hence CH4 emission reductionfrom the land dumps may make a valuablecontribution to the reduction of GHG emissions.

In developing nations, there is a growingconcern about the improper management of MSW.Proper management requires a suitablemanagement plan with construction and installationof essential facilities Shimura et aI., 2001). Thelimited revenue of the municipalities in thedeveloping nations make them ill-equipped in thecollection, storage, treatment, transportation andproper disposal of MSW due to the high cost

Volume2012-13. Number 2. July 2012 9


2/9

(

Raman Sharma rnaud Delebarre Babu la

associated with MSWM (Singhal and Pandey, 2001).The CDM of the Kyoto Protocol is envisioned toent.O\li'&:ge i).e e\.o})\.1:I.'g \: U'U1:I.\. 't\.\';'O,.'U 1> O.'t\'\.~\.1> O.\.\';. }).

~~~~


3/9

Raman Sharma Arnaud Delebarre Babu Ah1 ppat

Table 1 MSW generation rate in the cities of different states of India.

Data Source: Sharholy et al. (2008).

The rate of solid waste generation and thecorresponding CH4 emissions have increased at anexponential rate since year 2001. By tl:1eyear 2041,the waste will generate about 32 million tonnes ofCH4 and this waste will require about 1100 km2 ofland for disposal. As compared to the westerncountries, the composition of MSW in India differsfrom city to city. On a wet weight basis, the averageIndian MSW consist of 40-60 of organic contents,30-40 ash and fine earth, 3-6 paper, and lessthan 1 each of plastic, glass, and metal. Thecalorific value of the Indian MSW is low due to thehigh inert matter and moisture content and is inthe range 800-1000 kcallkg (Sharholy et aI., 2008).The annual CH4 emissions from landfills in Indiawere 334 Gg in 1990 and are forecasted to be 743Gg in 2020 (Table 2) (ScheBhle, 2002).

Table 2 CH4and NOx Emissions from India 1990-2020.

Data Source: Scheehle (2002).

\ o1ume2012-13. Number 2. July 2012 11

Name of the state No. of cities Municipal MSW (t/day) Per CapitaPopulation (t/day) generated

(kg/day)

Andhra Pradesh 32 10,845,907 3943 0.364Assam 4 878 310 196 0.223

Bihar 17 5,278,361 1479 28

Gujarat 21 8,443,962 3805 0.451

Haryana.10 12 2,254,353 623 0.276

Himachal Pradesh 1 82,054 35 0.427

Karnataka 21 8,283,498 3118 0.376

Kerala 146 3.107.358 22 0.393

Madhya Pradesh 23 7,225,833 2286 0.316

Maharashtra 27 22,727,186 8589 0.378

Manipur 1 198,535 40 0.201

Meghalaya 1 223,366 35 0.157

Mizoram 1 155,240 46 0.296Orissa 7 1,766,021 646 0.366

Punjab 10 3,209,903 1001 0.312

Raj asthan 14 4,979,301 1768 0.355

Tamil Nadu 25 10,745,773 5021 0.467

Tripura 1 157,358 33 0.210

Uttar Pradesh 41 14,480,479 5515 0.381

West Bengal 23 13,943,445 4475 0.321

Chandigarh 1 504,094 200 0.397

Delhi 1 8,419,084 4000 0.475

Pondicherry 1 203,065 60 0.295

299 128,113,865 48,134 0.376

Year Annual CH4 Annual NOxEmission from Emissions fromlandfills (Gg) manure

management (Gg)

1990 334 17

1995 382 18

200Q 436 19

2005 498 20

2010 569 20

2015 650 21

2020 743 22


4/9

Raman Sharma Arnaud Delebarre Bab

4. The Kottayam TownKER.A

4.1. General InformationThe state of Kerala has a large urban

population (Table 1). Hence MSW management andits associated problems like waste disposal and CH4emissions are very important for this state. Thetown has an estimated population of 67000 (Table3). Some facts about the town are mentioned in the

Table 3. ..

Table 3 Some facts about the Kottayam town.

Data Source: Mathew (2009).

4.2. Municipal solid waste from Kottayam Town

Knttaya:m. town is the head Quarter ofKottayamd:\' .t~kt (J~'i'?,'1.~~1.\ ,l\.~n.e~ it l\.as a laT~~ f\.oaUn.~population along. with its native population. Beingan old town, it has narrow roads and streets, so thesystem of waste collection is not efficient. Thenarrow street~ obstruct the movement of thecollection vehicles, disturbing the dailythoroughfare. The Waste is being collected vvith

insufficient and improperly placed bins leading to

. I ] I~scattering of waste and unhygienic conditions(Mathew, 2009). Hence a proper waste collection andwaste management system is required in the town.Presently, waste generated (52.6 TPD) is dumpedin a 18211 m2 area at Vadavathoor, about 5 km aw'ayfrom the town. MSW from Kottayam town is aboutthree-quarters organic materials (Table 4)(Narayana, 2009; Mathew, 2009).

This paper is proposing aerobic composting ofMSW from Kottayam town, leading to the generationofthe compost and the reduction of CH4 emissions.A TPD MSW processing project in New Delhirequired an initial investment of 1741.61 millionIndian Rupees in the year 2007 (UNFCCC, 2008),on the same line we can project that the Kottayamtown will require an investment of 46.97 millionIndian Rupees. Most of the MSWM cost (70%) isassociated with MSW collection. Even after sellingthe compost (43.61 million Indian Rupees per year)the project will not be able to recover its initial andrunning cost. So the contribution ofCDM is requiredio make project economically feasible after fixing

('fJi

Figure 1 Location of Kottayam ( DSource: Maps of Kottayam (2009

Table 4 Physical Characteristics ofwaste from Kottayam.

Data Source: Narayana (2009).

the minimum carbon price. In tbis case theprice of carbon has to be 10 Euros.

5. MethodologyThe prevented CH4emissions from t

that otherwise would occur can be cemission reductions (ER). The emission rcaused by the proposed project areaccording to the approved methodology vofAMO025 Avoided emissions from orgathrough alternative waste treatment procAnnex 14 of EB's 26th meeting repor

V l 2012 13 N b 2 J l 2012 2

Total area of the town 16.44 km2

Total Population 67000

Population Density 3841/ km2 JfTotal number of houses ( 15322 (

Residential Area 90%Commercial Area 10%

Per capita waste generation 0 62 kg/day

lType of solid waste l KottayamPD (% ofOrganic waste 39.5

Paper . 4.6Glass 0 9Textile O.BPlastic 2.6

I

Ash

Sand

Miscellaneous 2.0Total 5

Population 67


5/9

Raman Sharma, Arnaud Delebarre.Bahu Alappai..

determine CH4 emissions avoided from dumping waste at a solid waste disposal site (l.;~ FCCC, 2008Examples of projects using a similar methodology include Composting of organic waste in Dhaka.Bangladesh (ER of 6814 t CO2 e per year from a 100 TPD plant), Composting of organic waste in Wuzhou,China (ER of 7022 t CO2 e per year from a 93 TPDplant), Abidjan municipal solid waste-to-energyproject, Ivory Coast (ER of 7212 t CO2 e per year from a 219 TPD plant), Centro industrial del surorganic waste project, Colombia (ER of 5570 t CO2 e per year from a 500 TPD plant), PT navigat organicenergy Indonesia integrated solid waste management (GALFAD) project in Bali, Indonesia (ER of 4903t CO2 e per year from a 800 TPD plant), Biorganicos organic waste project, Colombia (ER of 27020 t COe per year from a 700 TPD plant) and The Timarpur-Okhala waste management company Pvt. Ltd.'s(TOWMCL) integrated waste to energy project at Delhi, India (ER of 73 t CO2 e per year from a 195TPD plant) (UNFCCC, 2008).

Jo.

5.1. Project Emissions PEy) UNFCCC, 2008)The project emissions PEy during the year y (tC02e) depend on, the on-site emissions from electricity

consumption PEelec,y due to the projet activity in year y (tC02e); the on-site emissions due to fuelconsumption PEfuel,on-site.yin ear y (tC02e); emissions during the composting process PEc,yin year y (tC02e)emissions from the anaerobic digestion process PEa,y in year y (tC02e); emission from the gasificationprocess PEg,yin year y (tC02e) and emissions from the combustion of Refuse Derived Fuel PEr,y (RDF) iyear y (tC02e).

PEy = PEelec,y + PEfuel,on-site,y + PEc,y + PEa,y + PEg,y + PEr,y

In the present case study, we are not considering any electricity usage, anaerobic digestion, on-sitefuel consumption, gasification and RDF consumption on the project site as most of these activities are notcommon with every solid waste management system in India. Also emissions for a single year are presentedhere. Hence the project emissions PEyduring the year y (tC02e) are same as the emission during compostingprocess PEc,yin year y (tC02e).

PEy = PEc,y (

5.1.1. Emissions from composting PEc,y)During the process of compo sting, N2O and CH4 emissions are considered here such that PEc,N2o,ya

the N2O emissions during the composting process in year y (tC02e) and PEc,CH4 y re the CH4 emissionsduring the composting process through anaerobic decomposition of organic material in year y (tC02e).

PEc,y = PEc,N20,y + PEc,CH4 y(

5.1.2. N2O emissions during the composting process PEc,Np,yinyear y tCO2e) UNFCCC, 2008)N2O emissions from composting can be estimated from the total quantity of compost produced Mcomp

in year y (tonnes/annum), the emissions factor EFc,N20for N2O from the composting process (tonnes ofN2O generated per tonnes of waste composted, 0.000043 tNp/tcompost) (UNFCCC, 2010) and GlobalWarming Potential of NO x GWPN20 (310 tC02e/tN20).

PEC,N20,y = Mcompost,y * EFc,N20 * GWPN20 (

As a general rule, 55 of the organic matter gets converted into compost (Ministry of UrbanDevelopment, Government of India, 2010). The quantity of organic waste generated from the Kottayamtown is 39.5 TPD.

t compostMcompost,y0.55 * 39.5 * 365 annum

t compostMcompost,y7929.63 annum

t compost t Np t C02ePEc,N20,y=7929.63 * annum * 0.000043 t compost * 310 t Np

Volume 2012-138 Number 2 8 July 2012


6/9

Raman Sharma, Arnaud Delebarre,Babu Alap

PEc.- 20,y = 105.70t CO2e t CO2eannum ~ 106 annum

5.1.3. CH4 emissions during the composting process PEc,cH4 yn year y (tCO2e) from anaerobic decompositionof organic material (UNFCCC, 2008)

CH4 emission can be estimated from MBcompost,yhe quantity of CH4 that would be produced ilandfill in the absence of composting activity in year y (tCH4), GWPCH4 Global Warming Potential(tCO2/ tCH4) (21 tCO2/ tCH4) and the share ofthe waste that degrades under anaerobic conditionsthe composting plant during year y (%). Ex-ante value 2% will be used here. Ex-post, this value will breplaced by the result of actual measurement on site (UNFCCC, 2008).

PEc,CH4o,y = MBcompost,y * GWPCH4 * Ba,y

BEy

and MBcompost,y = GWPCH4

where BEy is the baseline emission in year y (tCO2e).

5.2. Baseline Emission (BEy) (UNFCCC, 2008)

BEy = en * (1- f) * GWPCH * (1- OX) * 16 * F * (DOC ) * MCF * I,y-1 I,I?-A W * DOC *

't' 4 12 x- 3- J.X J

(1- e-kj) * e-kj(y-x)

where BEy Model correction factor (cp) = 0.9 (standard value); Fraction of the CH4 captured at, thewaste disposal site (j) = 0 (standard value); Global warming potential of the CH4 (GWP CH ) = 21CH4; The Oxidation Factor (OX) =0 as the waste dumping site is not covered with the oxidizing materin our case (Table 5); The fraction of CH4 in the solid waste disposal site gas (volume fraction)(standard value); The fraction of degradable organic carbon (DOC) that can decompose (DOCr) =0.5 (value); The CH4 correction factor 0 = 0.8 for unmanaged solid waste disposal site (Table 6); Wamount of organi cwaste of types j prevented from disposal in the solid waste disposal site in the year x(tons) (Table 4); DOCr = Fraction of degradable organic carbon (by weight) in the waste typej (Table 7= The decay rate for the waste of typej (Table 8); x = The year during the crediting period; y =for which CH4emissions are calculated, here x and y = 1 (as we are considering the emissions for a syear).

Table 5 Values of Oxidation factor for different solid waste disposal sites.

Data Source: UNFCCC (20080.

Table 6 Values of CH4 correction factor for different solid waste disposal sites.

Data Source: UNFCCC (20080

Types of disposal sites Oxidation factor (OX)

Managed solid waste disposal site that are covere d 0.1

with oxidising material such as soil or compost

Other type of solid waste disposal sites 0-

Types of disposal sites Methane correction factor (MCF)

Anaerobic managed solid waste disposal sites 1.0

Semi-aerobic managed solid waste disposal sites 0.5

Unmanaged solid waste disposal sites-deep 0.8

and/or with high water table

Unmanaged - shallow solid waste disposal sites 0.4


7/9

tRaman Sharma, Arnaud Delebarre,Babu Alappat

Table 7: The fraction of degradable organic carbon (by weight) for different types of waste.

Data Source: UNFCCC (2008).

Table 8: The decay rate values for different types of waste

Data Source: UNFCCC (2008). .

BEy =5379.58 tCO2e 5 8 tCO2e

Hence

MBcompost,y =

BEy

GWPCH4

MBcompost,y= 257.17 t CH4

PEc,CH4 = MBcompost,y * GWPCH4 * Sa,y

PEc,CH4 y 107.59t CO2e t CO2eannum ~ 108 annum

PEc,y = PEc,N20,y + PEC,CH4 y

PEc,y= 105.70 + 107.59

PEc,y = 213.29 t CO2e = PEy

5.3. Emissions Reductions ERy)

ERy =BEy- PEyERy= 5379.58 - 213.29

ERy= 5166.29t CO2ein a year ~ 5166t CO2ein a year.

(8)

6. Results and DiscussionCorresponding to the CDM market criteria, the

reduction in the emissions of the GHGs will lead tothe generation of carbon credits for Kottayam town.

Assuming the market price of one carbon credit tobe 10 / tonnes of CO2 e reduced, then 5166 tCO2 ereduction by the Kottayam town will earn(5166*10=51660) 51660 in a year (Indian Rupees3 409 560 per year (l = 66 Indian Rupees). Thisamount can be used by the municipality of theKottayam town to run the proposed compost plant,and upgrade the solid waste management system.In addition, about 7930 tonnes of compost will alsobe generated per annum in the town. This cangenerate additional revenue of 43.61 million IndianRupees per year assuming 5.5 Indian Rupees/kg of

compost. As Kottayam town's proposed compostplant requires an investment of46.97 million IndianRupees and out ofthis amount, 43.61 million IndianRup~es can be recovered from the sale of compost.The remaining amount of3.36 million Indian Rupeesmay be recovered after taking carbon in the CDMmarket corresponding to 5166 tCO2 e reduction. Torecover 3.36 million Indian Rupees, 5166 tCO2ereduction may be sold at a price of 10 , such thatwe earn 5166*10*66 = 3.4 million Indian Rupees.In this scenario project becomes economical andfeasible.

Waae types Degradable organic carbon Degradable organic carbonDOCj ( wet waste) DOCj ( dry waste)

Wood and wood products 43 50

p,paperandcardboard otherthan sludge 40 44.

Food,foodwaste,beveragesandtobacco other than sludge 15 38

Textiles 24 30

Garden, yard and park waste 20 49

Glass, Plas tic, meta l, othe r

inert waste 0 0

Waste types Decay rate kj)

Pulp, paper and cardboard (other than sludge), textiles 0.07

Wood and wood products 0.035

Other (non food) organic puterscible garden and park waste 0.17

Food, food waste, beverages and tobacco (other than sludge) 0040


8/9

Raman Sharma Arnaud Delebarre Babu

With a large amount of unmanaged waste,,;;imi1aTwaste management projects can help theIndian municipalities to generate substantialrevenue under CDM mechanism. This money canbe used by the town authorities to run, maintainand upgrade the waste management system of thetown. With the proper management of waste, theIndian share of CH4emissions due to open dumps

will fall.1 . 7. Conc USlons

Composting as a waste management option forthe Kottayam town can bring down the share of theGHG emissions from the town. The conventionalpractice of waste dumping (52.6 TPD of the MSW)will liberate CH4 of about 5380 tCO2e per annum.On the other hand, if the same waste is composted,it will liberate only 106 tCO2e per annum of N20gas and 108 tCO2e per annum of CH4 gas. So anemission reduction of 5166 tCO2e per annum canbe achieved in this case. These prevented emissionsthat otherwise would occur can be claimed as ERaccording to the approved methodology of theUNFCCC. In addition to 7930 tonnes per annum ofcompost produced, about 3.4 million Indian Rupeescan be generated annually making the wholemunicipal waste management system of Kottayamtown self-sustainable.References. Brechet, T'J Lussis, B., 2006. The Contribution

of the clean development mechanism tonational climate policies. Journal of PolicyModeling, 28, pp. 981-994.

. Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), 2000.Waste generation and Composition. Availableon : (November 6,2008). -. Dechezlepretre, A., Glachant, M., Meniere, V.,2009. Technology transfer by CDM projects: Acomparison of Brazil, China, India and Mexico.Energy Policy, 37, pp. 703-711.. Gaast, W. V. D., Begg, K., Flamos, A., 2 9Promoting sustainable energy technologytransfers to developing countries through theCDM. Applied Energy, 86, pp. 230-236.

. Georgiou, P., Tourkolias, C., Diakoulaki, D.,2008. A roadmap for selecting host countI:iesof wind energy projects in the framework ofthe clean development mechanism. Renewable& Sustainable Energy Reviews, 12, pp. 712-731.. Hayashi, D., Krey M., 2007. Assessment ofclean development mechanism potential oflarge - scale energy efficiency measures inheavy industries. Energy, 32, pp. 1917-1931.. Joseph, K., 2002. Perspectives of solid waste

.

management in India. Proc. InterSymposium on the TechnologyManagement of the treatment & ReMunicipal Solid Waste, Shanghai,Available on :


9/9

Raman Sharma rnaud Delebarre Babu lappat

..~Palm, M., Ostwald, M., Berndes, G.,Ravindranath, N. H., 2009. Application ofcleandeveloplllent lllechanislll to forest plantation

projects and rural develo pment in India. A p pliedGeography, 29, pp. 2-11.Pappu, A., Saxena, M., Asolekar, S. R., 2007.Solid waste generation in India and theirrecycling potential in building materials.Building and Environment, 42, pp. 2311-2320.Pearson, B., 2007. Market failure: why theclean development mechanism won t promoteclean development. Journal of CleanerProduction, 15, pp. 24 7-252.Scheehle, E., 2002. Emission and projectionsof the non-CO2 greenhouse gases fromdeveloping countries: 1990-2020. Available on: (February, 2009).Sharholy, M., Ahmad, K., Mahmood, G.,Trivedi, R. C. 2008. Municipal solid wastemanagement in Indian cities - A review.Waste Management, 28, pp. 459-467.Sharma, C., Dasgupta, A., Mitra, A. P., 2002.

Inven tory of GHGs and other urban pollutantsfrom agriculture and waste sectors in Delhi andCalcutta. Proc. of IGES/APN Mega-CityProject, Rihag Royal Hotel, Kokura, Japan, 23-25 January 2002. Institute for GlobalEnvironmental Strategies.Shimura, S., Yokota, 1., Nitta, Y., 2001.Research for MSW flow analysis in developingnations. Journal of Material Cycles and WasteManagement, 3, pp. 48-59.Shrestha, R. M., Timilsina, G. R., 2002. Theadditionality criterion for identifying cleandevelopment mechanism projects under the

Kyoto protocol. Energy Policy, 30, pp. 73-79.Singhal, S., Pandey, S., 2001. Solid wastemanagement in India: status and future

.

directions. Teri Information Monitor onEnvironmental Science, 6(1), pp.1-4. Availableon: (Feb 11,2009).Talyan, V., Dahiya, R. P., Anand, S.,Sreekrishnan, T. R., 2007. Quantification ofmethane emission from minicipal solid wastedisposal in Delhi. Resources, Conservation andRecycling, 50, pp. 240-259.United Nations Framework Convention onClimate Change (UNFCCC), 2008. KyotoProtocol, Registered Projects, ApprovedMethodologies and The Timarpur-Okhla wastemanagement company Pvt. Ltd. (TOWMCL)integrated waste to energy project at Delhi,Composting of organic waste in Wuzhou.Available on :

(October24, 2008).United Nations Framework Convention onClimate Change (UNFCCCO (2010). GlobalWarming Potential . Available on : (May 24,2010).Wohlgemuth, N., Missfeldt, F., 2000. TheKyoto mechanism and the prospects forenewable energy technologies. Solar Energy,69(4), pp. 305-314.Zegras, P. C., 2007. As if Kyoto mattered: Theclean development mechanism andtransportation. Energy Policy, 35, pp. 5136-5150.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Volume012-13 Number 2 e July 2012

..A..S7 I:N I..A.. I=II= >KAUSHIKDAS: 9339865328 Manufacturers o SUMITDUTTA: 9474 244 8

RCC SPUN PIPES ASSOCIATED CEMENT PRODUCTS OF CLASSNP-2, NP-3 NP-4 OF BOTH SPIGOT SOCKET COLLAR JOINT TYPES)

Regd. Office: Factory:24 RamSwarupKhettryRoad NewAlipore Kolkata 700 053 Barua Midnapur West BengalPh. : 033 2400 7902 64507902; Telefax: 033 24007902 . Ph. : 03222 645489

email: [email protected] website : www.eastindiaspunpipes.com

solid waste management for carbon credits

Documents