Life cycle assessment of municipal solid waste management – comparison of results using different LCA models

• Autorzy: Kulczycka J. , Lelek L. , Lewandowska A. , Zarebska J.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

LCA is a popular tool widely used to assess the environmental impact of waste management systems, which is illustrated by the substantial number of LCA computer models specifically addressing this subject. Due to the complex nature of waste management modelling and the range of country-specific data, as well as lack of harmonization, it has been observed that there are large discrepancies between the results using different models. Many studies have underlined the necessity of clearly identifying both the scope and methodological assumptions of LCAs in order to have confidence in the results. Therefore, the paper presented here reveals several methodology-related issues. The study tests two different pieces of LCA software, i.e. IWM-2 (designed specifically for MSW) and SimaPro (a generic and widely used LCA software). The pieces of software were used to LCA an MSW scenario and the results obtained (calculated using Ecoindicator’99 H/A) were compared to show the strengths and weaknesses of these tools, i.e., generic software usually treats the waste as a set of separate fractions, not as a whole mass, which means that the software is not highly sensitive to the composition of the waste and does not take into account the environmental impacts produced as a result of the interaction between the waste components after mixing. As waste composition is very important in planning, one study combines these two software packages to get final results, i.e., data generated by IWM-2 were entered into SimaPro. The discussion is built around a case study in Poland where waste management scenarios have been analyzed. The research carried out has shown that having the same initial inventory data collected on the basis of the same assumptions and with the same boundaries to the system model used and using the same method of LCIA to assess the impact on the environment, may not produce the same end results. In the presented study, the main differences in the LCIA results appeared in four output-related impact categories: carcinogens, climate change, ecotoxicity, and eutrophication/acidification, and for one input related impact category – fossil fuels. Four reasons responsible for these differences are identified: (1) The IWM-2 program identified a smaller number of substances emitted to air and water associated with landfill and recycling than the Ecoinvent database (IWM-2 identified a total of 31 types of emissions to air and water for landfill while Ecoinvent identified 405 types, IWM-2 identified 39 types of emissions for recycling while Ecoinvent identified 403 types) (2) The IWM-2 program did not cover emissions to the soil, while the Ecoinvent database identified 60 types of such impact for landfill and 58 for recycling (3) The IWM-2 program does not cover consumption of resources, while the Ecoinvent database covered the use of 198 kinds of raw material (including 100 different minerals and fossil fuels) (4) In each case a different total mass of emissions and resources consumed was identified in the analysis of the inventory included in both analyses.

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Polish Journal of Environmental Studies
• Rocznik: 2015
• Tom: 24
• Numer: 1
• Opis fizyczny: p.125-140,fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Kulczycka J.

• Faculty of Management, AGH University of Science and Technology, Aleja Mickiewicza 30, 30-059 Krakow, Poland

autor

Lelek L.

• The Mineral and Energy Economy Research, Institute of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Aleja Wybickiego 7, 31-261 Krakow, Poland

autor

Lewandowska A.

• Faculty of Commodity Science, Poznan University of Economics, Aleje Niepodleglosci 10, 61-875 Poznan, Poland

autor

Zarebska J.

• Faculty of Economics and Management, University of Zielona Gora, Podgorna 50, 65-246 Zielona Gora, Poland

Bibliografia

• 1. CENTRAL STATISTICAL OFFICE. Environment. Statistical information and elaborations, 2012. Central Statistical Office Report, Warsaw, 2012.
• 2. KULCZYCKA J., KOWALSKI Z., CHOLEWA M. Municipal waste management in Polish National and Local Plans. Czasopismo Techniczne Chemia. Wydawnictwo Politechniki Krakowskiej. 2008.
• 3. KULCZYCKA J., KOWALSKI Z. Valorisation of Packaging Waste Material – The Case of Poland. International Conference on Engineering for Waste and Biomass Valorisation in China, Beijing, 2010.
• 4. KULCZYCKA J., PIETRZYK-SOKULSKA E. Evaluation of municipal waste management in Poland. Wydawnictwo IGSMiE PAN, Kraków 2009.
• 5. DIRECTIVE 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives, 2008.
• 6. Waste management in European Union. The Office of the Committee of European Integration. 2003 [In Polish].
• 7. KONECZNY K., DRAGUSANU V., BERSANI R., PENNINGTON D.W. Environmental Assessment of Municipal Waste Management Scenarios.” European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment And Sustainability, Italy, 2007.
• 8. GENTIL E.C., DAMGAARD A., HAUSCHILD M., FINNVEDEN G., ERIKSSON O., THORNELOE S., KAPLAN P.O., BARLAZ M., MULLER O., MATSUI Y., RYOTA II, CHRISTENSEN T.H. Models for waste life cycle assessment: Review of technical assumptions. Waste Manage. 30, 2636, 2010.
• 9. WINKLER, J., BILITEWSKI, B. Comparative evaluation of life cycle assessment models for solid waste management, Waste Manage. 27, 1021, 2007.
• 10. CLEARY J. Life cycle assessments of municipal solid waste management systems: A comparative analysis of selected peer-reviewed literature. Environ. Int. 35, 1256, 2009.
• 11. CZARNECKA W., KULCZYCKA J., KOWALSKI Z. Basic principles of waste management in the municipal and economic sectors in the Świętokrzyskie Province in the years 2003-2006. Czasopismo Techniczne. Chemia. 2, 25, 2008.
• 12. www.ecoinvent.ch, accessed on: 01.08.2013.
• 13. MCDOUGALL F., WHITE P., FRANKE M., HINDLE P. Integrated solid waste management: a life cycle inventory. Blackwell Science, 2nd Edition, pp. 544, 2003.
• 14. MENIKPURA S. N. M., GHEEWALA S.H., BONNET S. Sustainability assessment of municipal solid waste management in Sri Lanka: problems and prospects. J. Mater Cycles Waste Manag. 14, 181, 2013.
• 15. SONG Q., WANG Z., LI J., ZENG X. The life cycle assessment of an e-waste treatment enterprise in China. J. Mater Cycles Waste Manage. 15, 469, 2013.
• 16. AYE L., WIDJAYA E.R. Environmental and economic analyses of waste disposal options for traditional markets in Indonesia. Waste Manage. 26, 1180, 2006.
• 17. BANAR M., COKAYGIL Z., OZKAN A. Life cycle assessment of solid waste management options for Eskisehir, Turkey. Waste Manage. 29, 54, 2009.
• 18. BATOOL S.A., CHUADHRY. M. N. The impact of municipal solid waste treatment methods on greenhouse gas emissions in Lahore, Pakistan. Waste Manage. 29, 63, 2009.
• 19. BERNSTAD A., LA COUR JANSEN J. Review of comparative LCAs of food waste management systems – Current status and potential improvements. Waste Manage. 32, 2439, 2012.
• 20. BHANDER G. S., CHRISTENSEN T.H., HAUSCHILD M.Z. Easewaste – life cycle modelling capabilities for waste management technologies. Int. J Life Cycle Assess. 15, 403, 2010.
• 21. BJORKLUND A.E., FINNVEDEN G. Life cycle assessment of a national policy proposal – The case of a Swedish waste incineration tax. Waste Manage. 27, 1046, 2007.
• 22. BLENGINI G.A. Using LCA to evaluate impacts and resources conservation potential of composting: A case study of the Asti District in Italy. Resour Conserv Recy. 52, 1373, 2008.
• 23. BOLDRIN A., NEIDEL T.N., DAMGAARD A., BHANDER G.S., MØLLER J., CHRISTENSEN T.H. Modelling of environmental impacts from biological treatment of organic municipal waste in Easewaste. Waste Manage. 31, 619, 2011.
• 24. BRINKMANN A.J.F., SCHELLEMAN F.J.M. Strategic Environmental Assessment use in waste management planning. Guidelines and recommendations. EVD, Haga, 2005.
• 25. BURNLEY S., PHILLIPS R., COLEMAN T. Carbon and life cycle implications of thermal recovery from the organic fractions of municipal waste. Int J Life Cycle Assess. 17, 1015, 2012.
• 26. BUTTOL P., MASONI P., BONOLI A., GOLDONI S., BELLADONNA V., CAVAZZUTI C. LCA of integrated MSW management systems: Case study of the Bologna District. Waste Manage. 27, 1059, 2007.
• 27. CHAYA W., GHEEWALA S.H. Life cycle assessment of MSW-to-energy schemes in Thailand. J Clean Prod. 15, 1463, 2007.
• 28. DE FEO G., MALVANO C. The use of LCA in selecting the best MSW management system. Waste Manage. 29, 1901, 2009.
• 29. DEN BOER E., JEDRCZAK A., KOWALSKI Z., KULCZYCKA J., SZPAD R. A review of municipal solid waste composition and quantities in Poland. Waste Manage. 30, 369, 2010.
• 30. EL HANANDEH A., EL-ZEIN A. Strategies for the municipal waste management system to take advantage of carbon trading under competing policies: The role of energy from waste in Sydney. Waste Manage. 29, 2188, 2009.
• 31. EMERY A., ANTHONY DAVIES A., GRIFFITHS A., WILLIAMS K. Environmental and economic modelling: A case study of municipal solid waste management scenarios in Wales. Resour Conserv Recy. 49, 244, 2007.
• 32. ERIKSSON O., BISAILLON M. Multiple system modelling of waste management Waste Manage. 31, 2620, 2011.
• 33. GUERECA L.P., GASS´O S., BALDASANO J.M., JIM´ENEZ-GUERRERO P. Life cycle assessment of two biowaste management systems for Barcelona, Spain. Resour Conserv Recyc. 49, 32, 2006.
• 34. KHOO H.H. Life cycle impact assessment of various waste conversion Technologies. Waste Manage. 29, 1892, 2009.
• 35. LUNDIE S., PETERS G.M. Life cycle assessment of food waste management options. J Clean Prod. 13, 275, 2005.
• 36. MANFREDI S., TONINI D., CHRISTENSEN T.H. Environmental assessment of different management options for individual waste fractions by means of life-cycle assessment modelling, Resour Conserv Recy. 55, 995, 2011.
• 37. ORTIZ O., PASQUALINO J.C., CASTELLS F. Environmental performance of construction waste: Comparing three scenarios from a case study in Catalonia, Spain, Waste Manage. 30, 646, 2010.
• 38. SEONG-RIN LIM, SCHOENUNG J., M. Toxicity potentials from waste cellular phones, and a waste management policy integrating consumer, corporate, and government responsibilities, Waste Manage. 30, 1653, 2010.
• 39. SLAGSTAD H., BRATTEBØ H. Influence of assumptions about household waste composition in waste management LCAs, Waste Manage. 33, 212, 2013.
• 40. VALERIO F. Environmental impacts of post-consumer material managements: Recycling, biological treatments, incineration. Waste Manage. 30, 2354, 2010.
• 41. VERGARA S.E., DAMGAARD A., HORVATH A. Boundaries matter: Greenhouse gas emission reductions from alternative waste treatment strategies for California’s municipal solid waste, Resour Conserv Recy. 57, 87, 2011.
• 42. DEN BOER E., DEN BOER J., JAGER J. Waste Management planning and optimisation. Handbook for municipal waste prognosis and sustainability assessment of waste management systems. LCA-IWM. Ibidem Verlag. pp. 306, 2007.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.15244/pjoes/26960