LCA and GIS for Municipal Solid Waste Management.pptx

life cycle assessment and GIS for MSW

1. Life Cycle Assessment of Comprehensive Municipal Solid Waste Management in Yangon City, Myanmar: Integrated Approach Towards Waste to Energy Recovery Student Name: Tin Min Htoo Academic Supervisor: Prof. Helmut Yabar The Master’s Thesis Presentation Conference University of Tsukuba 1

2. Contents Introduction Problem Statement Objective Methodology Results and Discussion Conclusion and Recommendation 2

3. Introduction Source: JICA & YCDC 2014a China Laos Thailand India Bangladesh Yangon City Yangon City Area 759 Population About 5.2 million (2014) Population Density 723 House hold size 4.4 township 33 GDP 22% of National GDP 14.1526 billion $ (2014) Yangon City Area Population About 5.2 million (2014) Population Density House hold size 4.4 township 33 GDP 22% of National GDP 14.1526 billion $ (2014) 3

4. Introduction Source: ( Dickella Gamaralalage Jagath Premakumara & Hengesbaugh 2016) and YCDC MSW = Municipal Solid Waste 4

5. Introduction Current Waste Management System Landfill (Open Dumping) 69 % of Collection Collection 74 % Household and Commercial Waste Generation 2814 ton/day Informal Recycling (3 %) of Collection Small Incineration (2 %) of Collection Uncollected Waste (26 %) Of Generation Source: YCDC 5

6. Introduction Source: National Waste Management Strategy(1 st Draft) City Waste Management Future Plan 6

7. Problem Current Waste Management System Environmental Impact Most Open Dumping And Landfill life limited Waste Generation Increasing Insufficient Treatment Facilities and Technology Air Pollutants Water Pollutants Social Impact Social Cost 7

8. Objective 8

9. Methodology 9 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Social Cost Assessment by Other Countries' Damage Cost Factor Suitability Analysis by Arc GIS 10.2

10. Methodology Goal and Scoping of LCA Landfill Collection Household, Commercial Waste Generation 2814 ton/day Energy Recycling GWP,EP, AP and HTP Bio gasification Incineration Energy Recovery Final Residual Waste GWP= Global Warming Potential EP= Eutrophication Potential AP= Acidification Potential HTP= Human Toxicity Potential 10

11. Methodology Five Scenarios by LCA 11 No. Generation Collection (% of Generation) Recycling (% of Generation) Bio- Gasification (% of Generation) Incineration (% of Generation) Landfill (% of Generation) Open Dumping Sanitary Landfill with Gas Flaring Sanitary Landfill with Heat Recovery S1 1027110 761390 31390 21900 708100     (100%) (74%) (3%)   (2%) (69%)     S2 1027110 1027110 31390 21900 973820   (100%) (100%) (3%)   (2%)   (95%)   S3 1027110 1027110 31390 151293   844427 (100%) (100%) (3%)   (15%)     (82%) S4 1027110 1027110 31390 210524 21900   763296 (100%) (100%) (3%) (21%) (2%)     (74%) S5 1027110 1027110 31390 210524 151293 633903   (100%) (100%) (3%) (21%) (15%)   (62%)

12. Results and Discussion Landfill life (Year) Energy Recovery Potential (10 3 GJ) GWP 10^3 (ton CO 2 eq ) EP (kg PO 4 3- eq) AP (kg SO 2 eq *10 3 ) HTP (kg 1.4 DB eq *10 7 ) S1 9 -987 1,920 6,550 47.5 -3.18 S2 9 -971 566 -1,384 -10.8 -3.19 S3 11 -2,845 734 2,215 -159.5 -5.78 S4 11 -1,068 414 238 -290.5 -3.62 S5 13 -2,447 602 3,849 -191.2 -5.84 Environmental Impact Potential of each Scenario (positive)Sign Producing Potential impact (negative)Sign Saving Potential Impact 12

13. Results and Discussion GWP EP AP HTP Environment Change and its Consequence E.g. health Problem, Environmental Damage Contingent Valuation Method(WTP,WTA) Preventive and restorative expenditures Method External Cost Damage Cost Assessment (Impact to Monetarization) Source:( Vymetal et al., 2011) 13

14. Results and Discussion Impacts Damage Cost Factor (Data Source) Unit ( Vymetal et al., 2011) (European Commission, 2005) impact pathway analysis (RDC and Pria, 2003) Damage and Prevention Cost (Joseph V. Spadaro, 1999) impact pathway analysis  This Study   GWP 0.019 to 0.048   0.01344 0.029 0.019 €/kg CO 2 eq. EP 4.7 1.5 4.7   1.5 €/kg P eq AP 0.11*10 -3 to 5.25*10 -3 1.07 to 15.9     0.11*10 -3 €/kg SO 2 . HTP       1,5   M€/YOLL  As 171     171 171 €/kg As Ni  2.87     2.87 2.87 €/kg Ni Cd  20.9   22 20.9 20.9 €/kg Cd Cr(VI)  140     140 140 €/kg Cr(VI) 14

15. Results and Discussion 15

16. Results and Discussion Next Step is Location of Treatment Facilities and Disposal Sites ? 16 According to the P otentials of Environmental Benefits and D amage C ost A ssessment, Suitable Scenarios are

17. Results and Discussion Suitability Analysis (Conceptual Model) Suitable Treatment/ Disposal Sites Restricted Area Priority Area Water Body Park, Grass, Forest, Farm Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Road Near Road Near Commercial, Market Buffer Distance Criteria Weight 30% Weight 30% Away Residential Weight 40% 17

18. Results and Discussion Buffer Distance Criteria (CPHEEO (Central Public Health and Environmental Engineering Organisation), 2016) (Central Pollution Control Board & Delhi, 2000) (Department of Environment Malaysia, 2012) Devon City Council (UK) (Central Pollution Control Board & Delhi, 2000) China (Central Pollution Control Board & Delhi, 2000) Study Area Water Body and Water Way 100   350 m 500 m   500 m Residential   100 m 350 m 500 m 300 m 500 m Commercial   100 m 350 m (Industrial350m) 500 m   500 m park and forest 300 m   350 m     350 m road 200 m         100 m Buffer Distance for Treatment Facilities Sites 18

19. Results and Discussion EPA landfill manual 2006 (Ethel NWOSU & Tamunobiekiri PEPPLE, 2016) (CPHEEO (Central Public Health and Environmental Engineering Organization), 2016) (NSW Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), 2016) (Central Pollution Control Board & Delhi, 2000) (Department of Environment Malaysia, 2012) Environment Protection Authority (South Australia) (Central Pollution Control Board & Delhi, 2000) Study Area Water 480-960 m 200 m 40 m 500 m 500 m 500 m 500 m Residential 500-800 m   250 m 250 m 500 m 500 m 500 m park and forest     250 m       350 m Road/rail Way 100-1000 m (road) 500 m (road) 250 m (road) 200 m (road)   500 m (road) 100 m Buffer Distance for Disposal Sites 19

20. Results and Discussion Restriction Model of ARC GIS 10.2 R=Restriction Model rj =r (residential, commercial, Industrial), r (farm, grass, forest,park ), . r waterbody . r road . r railway .   Restriction Source Buffer Distance Waterway and water body 500 m Residential, Commercial, Industrial, 500 m Park, Grass, Forest, Farm 500 m road 100 m Railway 200 m 20

21. Results and Discussion Final Restriction Map Restriction Areas 21

22. Results and Discussion Weight and Priority model by ARC GIS W= Weight and Priority Model Wr Pr = weigh for road=30 % Wc Pc= weigh for Commercial =30% Wr Pr = weigh for Residential =40%   22

23. Results and Discussion Priority Area Map Index 2 low Priority Area Index 8 High Priority Area 23

24. Results and Discussion Suitability Model of Arc GIS S = W. R S= Suitability Model R= Restriction Model W=Weight and Priority Model   Suitable Area=? 24

25. Results and Discussion Suitable Areas Suitable Areas > Rank 6 Final Suitable Areas 25

26. Results and Discussion No. Area(ha) Location Township 1 12.23 96°10'50.649"E 16°42'58.943"N Dala 2 12.61 96°8'51.409"E 16°41'27.8"N Dala 3 15.81 96°10'41.055"E 16°42'34.958"N Dala 4 16.1 96°10'58.872"E 16°41'55.897"N Dala 5 16.21 96°5'53.235"E 16°44'20.834"N Dala 6 17.62 96°8'44.899"E 16°42'25.707"N Dala 7 27.38 96°7'50.419"E 16°42'50.377"N Dala 26 Area and Location of Final Suitability

27. Results and Discussion 27 Based Map of Final Suitable Areas

28. Conclusion Current Municipal Solid Waste Management System must be changed because of a huge environmental impacts Two options under integrated solid waste management with waste to energy recovery are suitable to reduce the environmental impact and social cost. There are 7 No. suitable areas 12.23 to 27.38 ha for Treatment and Disposal Sites in Dala township, Yangon City 28 Option One (Scenario Three) Option Two (Scenario Five) Collection and Sorting Formal Recycling Large scale Incineration Sanitary landfill with heat recovery Collection and Sorting Formal Recycling Bio gasification Large scale Incineration Sanitary Landfill with gas flaring system

29. Recommendation Detail Analysis of Social Cost and Benefits for economic perspective using local real Data resources should be conducted in the future study To optimize the Collection and Transportation Cost under the operation and maintenance of proposed system, Network Analysis by arc GIS should also be conducted 29

30. References 30 CPHEEO (Central Public Health and Environmental Engineering Organisation ). (2016). Municipal Solid Waste Management Manual Part II: The Manual. Ministry of Urban Development. Retrieved from http://sac.ap.gov.in/sac/UserInterface/Downlaods/MSWMReports/Book 2.pdf Central Pollution Control Board, & Delhi. (2000). Draft GUIDELINES FOR MAINTAINING BUFFER AROUND WASTE PROCESSING AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES. Department of Environment Malaysia. (2012). Guidelines for Siting and Zoning of Industry and Residential Areas. Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Malaysia. Dickella Gamaralalage Jagath Premakumara , Matthew Hengesbaugh , K. O. and O. M. T. H. (2017). Waste Management in Myanmar . Dickella Gamaralalage Jagath Premakumara and Hengesbaugh , M. (2016). QUICK STUDY ON WASTE MANAGEMENT IN MYANMAR . Ethel NWOSU, E., & Tamunobiekiri PEPPLE, G. (2016). Site Selection and Analysis of Solid Waste Dumpsites in Ile-Ife, Nigeria, (8363).

31. References 31 European Commission. (2005). ExternE Externalities of Energy ExternE Externalities of Energy. Reproduction (Vol. EUR 21951). https://doi.org/ISBN 92-79- 00423-9 JICA, & YCDC. (2014). The Republic of the Union of Myanmar - A Strategic Urban Development Plan of Greater Yangon: The Project for the Strategic Urban Development Plan of the Greater Yangon Summary Report II. NSW Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). (2016). Environmental Guidelines: Solid Waste Landfills, Second edition. RDC and Pria . (2003). Evaluation of costs and benefits for the achievement of Reuse and Recycling targets for the Different Packaging Materials in the Frame of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive 94/62/EC – Final consolidated report. Report to the EU Commission DG Environment, (March). Vymetal , S., Deistler , A., Bering, R., Schedlich , C., Rooze , M., Orengo , F., … Krtickova , M. (2011). European Commission Project: European Guideline for Target Group-Oriented Psychosocial Aftercare—Implementation. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, 26(3), 234–236. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049023X11006303

32. 32 Thank You So Much

33. Appendix 1 Source:Forbes Mcdougall , Peter White, MariNa franke , Peter Hindle 2001) The Republic of the Union of Myanmar Situated in-South East Asia Area-677,000 sq km Population-51.48 million Density-80 per sq km Administrative -14 regions GDP-$ 64.33 billion(2014) 33

34. According to 1st Draft of National waste management strategy Goal A: Extending sound waste management practices for all types of waste to eliminate uncontrolled treatment, disposal and open burning Goal B: Promote waste minimization, reuse, recycling and recovery to establish a resource circular society City level policy introduction of a Waste to Energy Plant under the “ JCM ( the Joint Crediting Mechanism) Model Project”(JFE Engineering, 2014) JCM Concept Facilitating diffusion of leading low carbon technologies, products, systems, services, and infrastructure as well as implementation of mitigation actions, and contributing to sustainable development of developing countries. Appropriately evaluating contributions from Japan to GHG emission reductions or removals in a quantitative manner and use them to achieve Japan’s emission reduction target. Contributing to the ultimate objective of the UNFCCC by facilitating global actions for GHG emission reductions or removals. Insufficient Electricity is one of the Problem for Yangon City and Waste to Energy is one of the additional solution for insufficient electricity Appendix 2 (Why waste to energy recovery Policy) 34

35. Appendix 3 35

36. Appendix 4 Integrated Approach for Solid Waste Management System Source:Forbes Mcdougall , Peter White, MariNa franke , Peter Hindle 2001) 36

37. Appendix 5 Source: Stirling et al. (2002) 37

38. Appendix 6 Interpretation Goal definition Scope Inventory Analysis Impact Assessment Direct Application Product Development and Improvement Strategic Planning Public Policy Making Marketing Other According to the ISO 14040 environmental management-LCA-principles and framework(IS) 1997) 38

39. Impact Categories Method Source FRW IWM 2 Model Unit Ton (Forbes Mcdougall, Peter White, MariNa franke, Peter Hindle, 2001) Energy IWM 2 Model Unit GJ (Forbes Mcdougall, Peter White, MariNa franke, Peter Hindle, 2001) GWP IWM 2 Model (IPCC 1996) Characterization Factor Unit ton CO 2 eq (Forbes Mcdougall, Peter White, MariNa franke, Peter Hindle, 2001)   CO 2 1       CH 4 21       N 2 O 310     EP Heijungs et al.,1992 Characterization Factor Unit (Guinée et al., 2001b) Air Water kg PO 4 3- eq./kg   Nitrate, NO3 0.1 0.1     Ammonia, NH 3 0.35 0.35     Ammonium, NH 4 0.33 0.33       Phosphate 1 1       COD 0.22 0.22     AP Heijungs et al., 1992     kg SO 2 eq (Guinée et al., 2001b) Ammonia NH 3 1.88     Hydrogen sulphide , H 2 S 1.88       Hydrogen chloride , HCl 0.88       Hydrogen fluoride, HF 1.6       Nitrogen Dioxide, N 2 O 0.7         Nitrogen oxide, NOX 0.7       HTP Heijungs et al., 1992     kg DB eq (Guinée et al., 2001b) As 350000 130     Ni 35000 43     Cd 150000 11     Cr III 37 1.1     39

40. Impact Categories Characterization Factor Model GWP IPCC 2006 EP the stoichiometric procedure, which identifies the equivalence between N and P for both terrestrial and aquatic systems   AP RAINS10 model, developed at IIASA, describing the fate and deposition of acidifying substances, adapted to LCA deposition/acidification HTP USES 2.0 model developed at RIVM, describing fate, exposure and effects of toxic substances, adapted to LCA 40 Appendix 8

41. Appendix 9 41

42. Appendix 10 42

43. Appendix 11 43

44. Appendix 12 44

45. Appendix 13 45

46. Appendix 14 46

47. Appendix 15 Damage Cost Assessment for Impact Categories Damage cost is the cost incurred by repercussions (effects) of direct environmental impacts (for example, from the emission of pollutants) such as the degradation of land or human—made structures and health effects. Source: OECD (2001) 47

48. Appendix 16 External Cost Analysis (Impact to Monetarization) environmental impacts assessed from LC Inventory inputs and outputs were monetarized. No ready-for-use database about external cost factors exist today in such a macro-economic and LCA-context. External cost factors used in this study were predominantly derived from existing cost factors resulting from “ impact pathway” approaches. The Impact pathway approach (also called Dose-response or Damage costs approach) sits between life cycle assessment and valuation. It is based on the use of a damage functions to link an environmental alteration to its consequences (e.g. on health) and then the imputation of the costs of these consequences to the environmental damage. In particular contingent valuation, preventive and restorative expenditures provide the data that are used for valuation in the impact pathway approach Uncertainties regarding the quantification of external cost due to the current state of the art of LCAs carried out at a macro-economic level monetarization and environmental taxes applied to LCAs 48

49. Appendix 17 Contingent Valuation is a method of estimating the value that a person places on a good. The approach asks people to directly report their willingness to pay (WTP) to obtain a specified good, or willingness to accept (WTA) to give up a good, rather than inferring them from observed behaviors in regular market places. Applications of the contingent valuation method in developing countries www.fao.org/docrep/003/x8955e/x8955e03.htm 49

50. 50 Raster Calculator Final Restriction Residential, Commercial, Industrial Union Buffer R, C, I Buffer Yangon, Admin Con Raster, R, C, I Union R, C, I Feature To Raster Input False Raster or Input True Raster or Raster, R, C, I Water Body, Water Way Union Buffer Water Buffer Yangon, Admin Con Raster, Water Union Water Feature To Raster Input False Raster or Input True Raster or Raster, Water Road and Rail Way Union Buffer Water Buffer Yangon, Admin Con Raster, R, R Union Water Feature To Raster Input False Raster or Input True Raster or Raster, R,R Forest, Grass, Farm, Park Union Buffer Water Buffer Yangon, Admin Con Raster, F,G,F,P Union F,G,F,P Feature To Raster Input False Raster or Input True Raster or Raster, F,G,F,P Appendix 18

51. Appendix 19 Model Builder of Arc GIS For Weight and Priority 51

52. Appendix 20 Model Builder of Arc GIS for Suitability 52