Sustainable Assessment Framework for Evaluating Waste Management Technologies

Making Right Choices:
A Framework for Sustainability
Assessment of Technologies (SAT)
Dr Prasad Modak
Environmental Management Centre

Environmental Management Centre 2
Structure of Presentation
 What is Sustainable Development?
 About SAT Methodology
 Key Characteristics of SAT methodology
 Application areas
 Illustration of SAT methodology

What is Sustainable Development?
Like ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom’, ‘Sustainable Development’
means different things to different people.
The most widely accepted definition is:
It is a balance of Economic, Social and
Environmental considerations in all
development”
“Meeting the needs of the present generation
without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs”
- Our Common Future, The World Commission on Environment and
Development, 1997
SocialEconomic
Environmental

 Technology plays an important role in Development
 Today technology selection focuses on economic
considerations and tends to disassociate from social and
environmental factors
 This approach in making technology choices has
implications on sustainability of technology itself
 Integration of Economic, Social and Environmental
considerations ensures Resource Efficiency and Social
Acceptability and Effective Outcomes
Why integrate ‘Sustainable Development’
in Technology Assessment?

Sustainable Assessment of
Technology (SAT)
 SAT Methodology …
… Integrates Environmental, Social and Economic
Considerations
… Focuses on environment and development together and
puts them at the centre of the economic and political
decision making process
... Can be adapted to specific situations/context

SAT – Some Key Characteristics
 It is built on existing Environmental Technology
Assessment (EnTA) framework
 Undergoes progressive assessment (Tiered)
procedure (screening, scoping and detailed
assessment) thereby optimizing information
requirements.
 It operates on strategic as well as operational level

SAT – Some Key Characteristics
 It is a semi-quantitative procedure allowing more
objective assessment, allows sensitivity analyses and
incorporation of scenarios
 It maps well with Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle
 It is not an automated process thereby making human
intervention and adaptation possible

Use of SAT
 SAT can be used at five levels and across
various stakeholders
 Policy and Government
 Financing Institutions
 Operational Level – Technical Staff, Designers
 Community or Cluster Level – Community and
Industrial clusters
 Village / Enterprise Level

Use of SAT
 Policy and Government Level
For Strategic Planning and Policy making
 Financing Institution Level
For Assessing projects for funding
 Operational Level
For assessment of alternative technologies
 Community and Cluster Level
For assessment and comparison of alternative technologies at
programmatic level
 Village / Enterprise Level
For comparing technology options

Application of SAT
 The application areas include
 Environment and health related programs
 Provision of basic infrastructure such as
roads, power, water etc.
 Bio diversity management
 Process technology modernization at shop
floors and at industrial clusters.
 End of pipe waste management technologies
 Remediation and land reclamation
 Waste recycling programs

SAT Methodology
Screening
Public
Information /
Consultation
Define targets
Issues to be
addressed /
Problems to be solved
Strategic Level Assessment
Preferred Technology Options
Operational Level Assessment
Detailed
engineering design
& costing
Monitoring /
Performance
Evaluation
Scoping
Detailed
Assessment
CustomizedCriteriaandIndicators
consideringenvironmental,social
andeconomicconsiderations
Implementation
Situational Analysis
Anticipating Future
Scenarios

SAT Methodology – Situation
Analysis
Situation Analysis and Defining Targets
The Situation Analysis includes:
• Baseline data collection
• Stakeholder consultation
• Mapping and analyses
These two Steps help to identify issues, assess their
significance and leads to setting of targets that should
be addressed by through technology intervention.
Situational
Analysis
Define targets

SAT Methodology – Strategic Level
Assessment
Strategic level assessment
This is done by planners, decision–makers, elected
representatives through participatory sessions
The outcomes are important as it
• Helps to develop criteria and indicators for
operational level.
• Facilitates short-listing and identification of
appropriate technologies
• Provides leads to future scenario building (e.g.
population growth, tightening of legal
requirements) thereby providing more insight for
technology choices.
Strategic Level Assessment

Operational level Assessment
Engineers and technical staff assess the appropriate
technology options
In community or enterprise level, operational level
assessment can be the first step.
The inputs of expert opinion and technical information are
very important.
SAT Methodology – Operational
Level Assessment
Operational Level
Assessment

SAT Methodology : Three -Tier
Assessment
Screening
Scoping
Detailed
Assessment
Criteria and
Indicators
considering
environmental,
social and
economic
considerations

SAT Methodology - Screening
In this Step:
 Objective YES/NO type questions
 Options which do not qualify one or all conditions, are
directly eliminated.
e.g.: Compliance to legal requirements or Use of
hazardous substances

SAT Methodology - Scoping
 More of Qualitative type (High/Medium/Low) assessment
supplemented by information drawn from Experts
 Various technology options are assessed against criteria
and indicators with use of methods such as:
 The weighted sum technique
 Sensitivity analysis

SAT Methodology - Detailed
Assessment
 The options with best overall ratings from Scoping are selected for
further assessment
 This assessment level requires detailed and quantitative
information.
 The outcome is a list of technology options ranked as per scores
 Various technology options are assessed against criteria and indicators with
use of methods such as:
 The weighted sum technique and Sensitivity analysis
 Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM): By ‘Expert choice’, a software
using Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) to carry out MCDM

SAT Methodology - Anticipating
Future Scenarios
In order to check the robustness of selected
technology options, same methodology with
simulated future scenario’s to be applied so
at to confirm that the technology stands the
test of time.

SAT Methodology - Preferred
Technology Options
Before discarding low scoring options and/or final decision on
selection of technology one must keep in mind
 Highest score technology option for current scenario
needs to be carefully reviewed for different scenarios as
it may not be eligible as feasible option
 On the other hand, the technology options with less
score may qualify for different scenarios after suitable
technology transfer/capacity building efforts are taken

SAT Methodology - Implementation
and Monitoring
Once the decision on Suitable Option is made, this step
covers the following:
 Engineering design
 Tendering
 Actual construction and commissioning
Evaluation of technology during operational phase ensures
meeting of desired objective against criteria considered in
SAT process

SAT Methodology – Reporting,
Monitoring and Feedback
 Reporting the outcome of monitoring and evaluation
to stakeholders, govt. agencies and decision makers
acts as basis for situation analysis for future projects
and helps in making informed decisions
 It helps refine and build the Methodology by -
 Inclusion of additional criteria
 Disqualification of technology in future for similar
situations due to negative experiences.

Illustration of SAT Methodology
SAT Application for
Assessing Technology
Options for
Municipal Solid Waste
Management

MSW: Problem statement
 Inafix city with 100 sq. km geographical area in
developing country with population of 5 Million
 Waste generation data:
 Bio-degradable organic waste: 400 t/day
 Soil debris, building material: 216 t/day
 Recyclable dry waste: 50 – 60 t/day
 Sources of waste generation include:
 Households, shops & commercial establishments,
construction activity, hotels, schools, hospitals, silt
removed from drain cleaning activity etc. collected from
60 odd collection points.

MSW: Problem statement
 The Problem:
 The city of Inafix finding it
difficult to dispose of solid
waste in efficient manner.
 Current practice of
unhygienic opening dumping
are almost full to capacity
 Accelerated population
growth and rapid
urbanization resulting into
increase in volume of waste

MSW: Characteristics in %
 Total wet organic material: 57.5
 Total dry organic material: 15.05
 Recyclable with heat value: 18.7
 Recyclable without heat value: 0.93
 Inert material: 11.26
 Calorific value (kcal/kg): 951
 C/N ration: 25
 Moisture: 68.2
 Material suitable for composting: 57.5
 Calorific value after removing inert: 1,070

MSW: Situation analysis
Issues Targets
MSW with high organic content with less
potential for recycle and recovery
Use of technology system working well with such
type of waste
Severe scarcity of land Use of technology requiring less last space and / or
pre-treatment to reduce volume of waste before
land filling
Unsanitary and unscientific MSW disposal
creating environmental and health issues
Use of technology, safe in terms of treatment and
containment of waste and residues generated over
the time (odours, leachate)
Strong public opposition for existing and
future dumping ground site
Use of technology addressing social and cultural
concerns
Lack of skills and technical knowledge to
operate complicated technology
Adoption of user friendly technology
Increase in waste volume in future Use of technology with up-scaling facility and / or
duplication at other locations

MSW: The Approach
 SAT methodology incorporates assessment of
“technology systems” goes beyond assessment of
individual technologies
 SAT proposes most appropriate technology system to
address all issues
 Some systems may need preliminary steps to address
MSW issue completely
 Example of Mass burn practice versus composting

MSW: Strategic Level Assessment
The technologies for MSW management are classified
as Centralised and De-centralised at Strategic Level
Centralised De-centralised
 Mass burn
 Modular (Incineration)
 Fluidized bed incineration
 Refused Derived Fuel (RDF)
 Pyrolysis
 Gasification
 Sanitary land fill
 Aerobic composting
 Anaerobic digestion /
methanation
 Manual land filling
 Vermicomposting

The stakeholder of Inafix city can be classified in two types:
 Mix of Middle and Upper income Urban residents
 Less economically well-off - slum areas
Mix of Middle & Upper
Income Group
 Has lifestyle resembling the
developed world
 Hence method of collection
and disposal of MSW may
resemble to developed world
 Centralised system is feasible
Low Income Group - Slum
area
 Decentralized system is
feasible as centralised
collection and treatment
system is not desirable as
waste characteristics are
different than well-heeled
urban areas.
Hence it was decided to keep technology elements of both
systems at this stage of assessment.

Short-listed Technologies
Selected De-centralised
 Mass burn
 Modular (Incineration)
 Fluidized bed incineration
 Refused Derived Fuel (RDF)
 Sanitary land filling
combined with aerobic
composting
 Sanitary land filling
combined with bio-
methanation
 Manual land filling
combined with
vermicomposting

MSW: Operational level
assessment - Screening
Criteria Mass burn Modular
incineration
Fluidized
bed
incineratio
n
RDF Sanitary land
filling
combined with
aerobic
composting
Sanitary land
filling
combined with
bio-
methanation
Manual land
filling
combined with
vermicomposti
ng
Compliance with
local env. Laws
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Compliance with
national env. laws
Compliance with
MEA’s
Safe to Use Yes No* Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Provides savings on
resources
* There has been widespread concerns over the consistency and adequacy of air pollution controls.

assessment - Scoping
Criteria Weig
ht
(Wt.)
Mass burn Fluidized
bed
incineration
RDF Sanitary land
filling
combined
with aerobic
composting
Sanitary land
filling
combined with
bio-
methanation
Manual land
filling
combined with
vermicompost
ing
Sco
re
Wt.*
scor
e
Scor
e
Wt.*sc
ore
S
co
re
Wt.*s
core
Scor
e
Wt.*sc
ore
Score Wt.*sco
re
Scor
e
Wt.*sco
re
Suitability of waste
characteristics to
technology
application
10
Past experience
(under similar
condition)
10
Land requirements 10
Overall pollutant
removal efficiency
10
Acceptability (to the
public)
10

Criteria Weig
ht
(Wt.)
Mass burn Fluidized
bed
incineration
RDF Sanitary land
filling
combined
with aerobic
composting
Sanitary land
filling
combined with
bio-
methanation
Manual land
filling
combined with
vermicompost
ing
Sco
re
Wt.*
scor
e
Scor
e
Wt.*sc
ore
S
co
re
Wt.*s
core
Scor
e
Wt.*sc
ore
Score Wt.*sco
re
Scor
e
Wt.*sco
re
Income generation
potential
7
TOTAL (Weight *
Assign score)

Rank
Number
Score Technology system
1 Sanitary land filling with bio-methanation
2 Manual land filling with vermicomposting
3 Sanitary land filling with aerobic (windrow)
composting
4 Fluidized bed incineration
5 RDF
6 Mass burn
The first three ranks of technology systems are short
listed for Detailed Assessment

MSW Technologies:
Detailed Assessment
Use of Star Diagrams

133, 126, 149
Secondary contaminant
generation
Noise levelsOdour levels
25
50
75
100
Sanitary landfilling with aerobic composting
Sanitary landfilling with biomethanation
Manual landfilling with vermicomposting
Star Diagram for Detailed
Assessment of criteria
pertaining to Environmental
Aspects only

249, 353, 316
Savings in energy
Capital investment
O & M
costs
Financial incentives
Payback period
NPV / IRR
25
50
75
100
pertaining to Economic
Aspects only)

Process stability
367.5, 387.5,
459
Level of automation
Estimated useful lifePerson-power
requirements
Technical
knowledge
requirements
25
50
75
100
Fuel consumption
Electricity consumption
pertaining to Technical
Aspects only)

Process stability
805.5, 922.5,
1008
Level of automation
Estimated useful life
Fuel consumption
Electricity consumption
Savings in energy
Capital investment
O & M costs
Financial incentivesPayback periodNPV / IRR
Secondary contaminant
generation
PPE requirement
for staff
Safety risk for
workers and
communities
Noise levels
Odour levels
Person-power
requirements
Technical
knowledge
requirements
25
50
75
100
Composite Star Diagram for
Detailed Assessment

Ranking of Technology Options
At this stage the ranking of technology system
options is as follows:
 Option 1: Manual land filling with vermicomposting
 Option 2: Sanitary land filling with bio methanation
 Option 3: Sanitary land filling with aerobic composting

Selection of The Right Technology
Option
Anticipation of future scenarios
In case of Inafix, following aspects considered:
 Possible Increase in amount of waste due to rapid increase
in population
 Possible Change of waste characteristics
 Moderate to strong possibility of increase in amount of
inorganic waste (15-20% annually for next 5 years)
 Little change in the compostable organic fraction

Option
Decision Making on The Preferred Technology
Option
With possibility of changing scenario, technology options of
 Sanitary land filling with bio-methanation
 Sanitary land filling with Aerobic composting
Can stand the test of time
“Vermicomposting” is a de-centralised option, but may not be
feasible due to changes in waste characteristics in future.

Option
Decision making on The Preferred Technology
Option
The slum area is estimated to be between 45%-60% of total
population and it is estimated that not much change
should be observed in the characteristics of waste
Hence the “Vermicomposting” option is retained for
considerations

Ranking of Technology Options
After consideration of the future scenario, the
technology options ranked by the
Stakeholder group is as follows.
 Option 1: Sanitary land filling with bio methanation
 Option 2: Manual land filling with vermicomposting
 Option 3: Sanitary land filling with aerobic composting

SAT Methodology Next Steps
The Next Steps are as follows:
 Detailed engineering design and costing
 Implementation and monitoring / performance
evaluation through feedback

Questions for Discussions
Contact: Dr Prasad Modak
Prasad.modak@emcentre.com

Sustainable Assessment Framework for Evaluating Waste Management Technologies

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (12)

En vedette

En vedette (7)

Similaire à Sustainable Assessment Framework for Evaluating Waste Management Technologies

Similaire à Sustainable Assessment Framework for Evaluating Waste Management Technologies (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Sustainable Assessment Framework for Evaluating Waste Management Technologies