Data is the sword of the 21st century, those who wield it well, the Samurai.
– Jonathan Rosenberg.
We owe our success in the field of waste management to our data driven approach. The approach has helped us in accurate decision-making, development of more agile strategies, and enabled a more comprehensive overview of the enterprise in real time due to the incorporation of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and measurement programs with metrics.
The entire waste management activity is monitored through two sets of Key Performance Indicators – each monitoring the dry and wet components separately, through fourteen KPIs under the Operational KPIs Category. The types used here can be grouped under Process Performance Metrics, and Human Resource & Staffing. They evaluate the quantity and quality of the incoming waste stream, the factors that influence performance, the performance, and the outcomes.
As KPIs are affected by both Intervening and Confounding Variables, care is also taken to record and correlate them. The reason – whilst the first explains a cause or connection between other study variables – the next on the other hand is an extra variables which the researcher does not account for, and can disguise another variable’s effects and show a false correlation. A simple example is that of the re-sorting process which is totally independent of baling operations – but a breakdown of the concerned machinery will cause an apparent lowering of the sorting rate for the quantum re-sorted cannot be determined as only baled material can be conveniently weighed.
In a bid to reduce the carbon footprint generated by the activities, the CO2 Equivalent of Emissions is monitored for both wet and dry waste handling.
The reality is that in today’s data-driven world, numbers are important no matter where you work.
The Summary Since Inception
The past 5 years with their ups and downs have proved that solid waste management is a dynamic process and can never be implemented through a set piece model based on rules. A programatic approach requires a certain degree of flexibility that involves local-based solutions for local-based problems and a set of guidelines rather than rigid rules.
The pandemic has made a deep impact on the way we generate waste. A more sedentary lifestyle and consumerism has led to an increase in the generation of plastic waste which cannot be easily recycled. We seem to be moving on from generating discards which leave a lower carbon footprint, to those that which have a higher.
Space constraints prevent us from penning down all our observations – but the ultimate conclusion is that, in waste management, Reduction and Reuse, appear to be of prime importance and the rest secondary.
Deliveries
Characterisation
Dry Waste Handling
(Nov 2019 onwards)
The first parameter to be monitored is the Collection Gap. Though the Unit Utilisation Rate currently stands at around 75% – and a part of the collection gap can be attributed to reduced waste generation during the Covid lockdowns – it must be accepted that a major portion has been irretrievably lost. The lesson learnt here is simple, any attempt to establish a Resource Recovery Centre must be accompanied by measures to ensure proper collection of waste. Ignoring the latter will not only lead to underutilisation of the unit which is not only a drain on the economy, but will as well lead to dumping and open burning – and the the attendant ill consequences which are many.
The next is the percentile of waste which has been recovered for reuse, repurposing and recycling. Although it is accepted that a Recovery Centre which takes in a mixed stream of both recyclables and non-recyclables can have recyclables recovery rates as low as 10%, with the rest being subjected to landfilling or incineration – this being a hilly district a much higher average is aimed for. The reasons – landfilling is both unacceptable and impractical, and incineration without energy capture is again a waste of resources. Whenever market forces and economics permit combustible non-recyclables and low-value plastics are converted into Alternate Fuel (AFR) and sent out for co-processing as fuel in waste to energy plants and cement kilns.
The third indicator is safe disposal which refers to the means by which non-recyclables are dealt with – either through soil amelioration or by incineration. The latter is usually avoided, but is adopted as a mid-recourse, where circumstances prevent production of AFR. This methodology subjects non-plastic combustibles on-site to no-fuel high-temperature closed-burning which carries a lesser carbon footprint than conventional incineration with low-value plastics alone being sent out either for pyrolysis or energy capture.
The last indicator is monitoring the despatch of the recovered material to recycling units and is also of vital importance as it prevents stockpiling.
Wet Waste Composting
(May 2022 onwards)
As with dry waste – collection is again of vital importance in wet waste handling, and although there appears to be no apparent collection gap it should also be taken into consideration that the projected wet waste generation for the town is 11.2 tons per day whereas the unit capacity is 8 tons per day.
The next index monitored is the percentage of the waste received subjected to pulverising whereby the entire mass is homogenised and reduced in volume. The ideal is above 90% with the margin being meant for power outages and machinery breakdowns, wherein the wet waste received is subjected to composting in its true form.
Next comes the quantum to be bagged. An average of 10-15% of the waste converts into fertiliser and has to be screened, sieved and packed. Any lag on this part can lead to adverse moisture and pH conditions which may affect the quality of the compost – the remedial of which adds up to the cost of production and has environmental implications.
Again as with dry waste, timely despatch is of importance to prevent moisture loss and proliferation of vectors.
The Carbon Footprint
The only viable alternatives for running a Resource Recovery Centre for handling dry waste and a Composting Unit for the wet component – are incineration of the former – and landfill of the latter. The solutions may sound to be cost-effective but leave a much higher Carbon Footprint.
Our activities have roughly on a monthly average, saved about 71 tonnes equivalent of CO2 emissions on the dry waste front, and yet another 15 on the wet.
The savings for dry waste are measured against the projected emission of .0012 kg of CO2 eq for each kg incinerated. As for wet waste the reduction is based on the release of 0.27 kg CO2 eq for each kg composted as against the 0.35 when the same is landfilled.
