Contribution of individual waste fractions to the environmental impacts from landfilling of municipal solid waste

A number of LCA-based studies have reported on the environmental performance of landfilling of mixed waste, but little is known about the relative contributions of individual waste fractions to the overall impact potentials estimated for the mixed waste. In this paper, an empirical model has been used to estimate the emissions to the environment from landfilling of individual waste fractions. By means of the LCA-model EASEWASTE, the emissions estimated have been used to quantify how much of the overall impact potential for each impact category is to be attributed to the individual waste fractions. Impact potentials are estimated for 1 tonne of mixed waste disposed off in a conventional landfill with bottom liner, leachate collection and treatment and gas collection and utilization for electricity generation. All the environmental aspects are accounted for 100 years after disposal and several impact categories have been considered, including standard categories, toxicity-related categories and groundwater contamination.Amongst the standard and toxicity-related categories, the highest potential impact is estimated for human toxicity via soil (HTs; 12 mPE/tonne). This is mostly caused by leaching of heavy metals from ashes (e.g. residues from roads cleaning and vacuum cleaning bags), batteries, paper and metals. On the other hand, substantial net environmental savings are estimated for the categories Global Warming (GW; ?31 mPE/tonne) and Eco-Toxicity in water chronic (ETwc; ?53 mPE/tonne). These savings are mostly determined by the waste fractions characterized by a high content of biogenic carbon (paper, organics, other combustible waste). These savings are due to emissions from energy generation avoided by landfill gas utilization, and by the storage of biogenic carbon in the landfill due to incomplete waste degradation.     

Environmental assessment of solid waste landfilling technologies by means of LCA-modeling

By using life cycle assessment (LCA) modeling, this paper compares the environmental performance of six landfilling technologies (open dump, conventional landfill with flares, conventional landfill with energy recovery, standard bioreactor landfill, flushing bioreactor landfill and semi-aerobic landfill) and assesses the influence of the active operations practiced on these performances. The environmental assessments have been performed by means of the LCA-based tool EASEWASTE, whereby the functional unit utilized for the LCA is "landfilling of 1ton of wet household waste in a 10m deep landfill for 100 years". The assessment criteria include standard categories (global warming, nutrient enrichment, ozone depletion, photo-chemical ozone formation and acidification), toxicity-related categories (human toxicity and ecotoxicity) and impact on spoiled groundwater resources. Results demonstrate that it is crucially important to ensure the highest collection efficiency of landfill gas and leachate since a poor capture compromises the overall environmental performance. Once gas and leachate are collected and treated, the potential impacts in the standard environmental categories and on spoiled groundwater resources significantly decrease, although at the same time specific emissions from gas treatment lead to increased impact potentials in the toxicity-related categories. Gas utilization for energy recovery leads to saved emissions and avoided impact potentials in several environmental categories. Measures should be taken to prevent leachate infiltration to groundwater and it is essential to collect and treat the generated leachate. The bioreactor technologies recirculate the collected leachate to enhance the waste degradation process. This allows the gas collection period to be reduced from 40 to 15 years, although it does not lead to noticeable environmental benefits when considering a 100 years LCA-perspective. In order to more comprehensively understand the influence of the active operations (i.e., leachate recirculation, waste flushing and air injection) on the environmental performance, the time horizon of the assessment has been split into two time periods: years 0-15 and 16-100. Results show that if these operations are combined with gas utilization and leachate treatment, they are able to shorten the time frame that emissions lead to environmental impacts of concern.     

Environmental assessment of solid waste systems and technologies: EASEWASTE.

A new model has been developed for evaluating the overall resource consumption and environmental impacts of municipal solid waste management systems by the use of life cycle assessment. The model is named EASEWASTE (Environmental Assessment of Solid Waste Systems and Technologies) and is able to compare different waste management strategies, waste treatment methods and waste process technologies. The potential environmental impacts can be traced back to the most important processes and waste fractions that contribute to the relevant impacts. A model like EASEWASTE can be used by waste planners to optimize current waste management systems with respect to environmental achievements and by authorities to set guidelines and regulations and to evaluate different strategies for handling of waste. The waste hierarchy has for decades been governing waste management but the ranking of handling approaches may not always be the most environmentally friendly. The EASEWASTE model can identify the most environmentally sustainable solution, which may differ among waste materials and regions and can add valuable information about environmental achievements from each process in a solid waste management system.     

Environmental impact assessment of solid waste management in Beijing City, China

The environmental impacts of municipal solid waste management in Beijing City were evaluated using a life-cycle-based model, EASEWASTE, to take into account waste generation, collection, transportation, treatment/disposal technologies, and savings obtained by energy and material recovery. The current system, mainly involving the use of landfills, has manifested significant adverse environmental impacts caused by methane emissions from landfills and many other emissions from transfer stations. A short-term future scenario, where some of the landfills (which soon will reach their capacity because of rising amount of waste in Beijing City) are substituted by incinerators with energy recovery, would not result in significant environmental improvement. This is primarily because of the low calorific value of mixed waste, and it is likely that the incinerators would require significant amounts of auxiliary fuels to support combustion of wet waste. As for the long-term future scenario, efficient source separation of food waste could result in significant environmental improvements, primarily because of increase in calorific value of remaining waste incinerated with energy recovery. Sensitivity analysis emphasized the importance of efficient source separation of food waste, as well as the electricity recovery in incinerators, in order to obtain an environmentally friendly waste management system in Beijing City.     

Environmental evaluation of municipal waste prevention

Waste prevention has been addressed in the literature in terms of the social and behavioural aspects, but very little quantitative assessment exists of the environmental benefits. Our study evaluates the environmental consequences of waste prevention on waste management systems and on the wider society, using life-cycle thinking. The partial prevention of unsolicited mail, beverage packaging and food waste is tested for a "High-tech" waste management system relying on high energy and material recovery and for a "Low-tech" waste management system with less recycling and relying on landfilling. Prevention of 13% of the waste mass entering the waste management system generates a reduction of loads and savings in the waste management system for the different impacts categories; 45% net reduction for nutrient enrichment and 12% reduction for global warming potential. When expanding our system and including avoided production incurred by the prevention measures, large savings are observed (15-fold improvement for nutrient enrichment and 2-fold for global warming potential). Prevention of food waste has the highest environmental impact saving. Prevention generates relatively higher overall relative benefit for "Low-tech" systems depending on landfilling. The paper provides clear evidence of the environmental benefits of waste prevention and has specific relevance in climate change mitigation.     

Environmental impact assessment of the incineration of municipal solid waste with auxiliary coal in China

The environmental impacts of waste incineration with auxiliary coal were investigated using the life-cycle-based software, EASEWASTE, based on the municipal solid waste (MSW) management system in Shuozhou City. In the current system, MSW is collected, transported, and incinerated with 250kg of coal per ton of waste. Based on observed environmental impacts of incineration, fossil CO(2) and heavy metals were primary contributors to global warming and ecotoxicity in soil, respectively. Compared with incinerators using excess coal, incineration with adequate coal presents significant benefits in mitigating global warming, whereas incineration with a mass of coal can avoid more impacts to acidification, photochemical ozone and nutrient enrichment because of increased electricity substitution and reduced emission from coal power plants. The "Emission standard of air pollutants for thermal power plants (GB13223-2011)" implemented in 2012 introduced stricter policies on controlling SO(2) and NO(x) emissions from coal power plants. Thus, increased use of auxiliary coal during incineration yields fewer avoided impacts on acidification and nutrient enrichment. When two-thirds of ash is source-separated and landfilled, the incineration of rest-waste presents better results on global warming, acidification, nutrient enrichment, and even ecotoxicity in soil. This process is considered a promising solution for MSW management in Shuozhou City. Weighted normalized environmental impacts were assessed based on Chinese political reduction targets. Results indicate that heavy metal and acidic gas emissions should be given more attention in waste incineration. This study provides scientific support for the management of MSW systems dominated by incineration with auxiliary coal in China.     

Life-cycle-assessment of the historical development of air pollution control and energy recovery in waste incineration

Incineration of municipal solid waste is a debated waste management technology. In some countries it is the main waste management option whereas in other countries it has been disregarded. The main discussion point on waste incineration is the release of air emissions from the combustion of the waste, but also the energy recovery efficiency has a large importance.The historical development of air pollution control in waste incineration was studied through life-cycle-assessment modelling of eight different air pollution control technologies. The results showed a drastic reduction in the release of air emissions and consequently a significant reduction in the potential environmental impacts of waste incineration. Improvements of a factor 0.85–174 were obtained in the different impact potentials as technology developed from no emission control at all, to the best available emission control technologies of today (2010).The importance of efficient energy recovery was studied through seven different combinations of heat and electricity recovery, which were modelled to substitute energy produced from either coal or natural gas. The best air pollution control technology was used at the incinerator. It was found that when substituting coal based energy production total net savings were obtained in both the standard and toxic impact categories. However, if the substituted energy production was based on natural gas, only the most efficient recovery options yielded net savings with respect to the standard impacts. With regards to the toxic impact categories, emissions from the waste incineration process were always larger than those from the avoided energy production based on natural gas. The results shows that the potential environmental impacts from air emissions have decreased drastically during the last 35 years and that these impacts can be partly or fully offset by recovering energy which otherwise should have been produced from fossil fuels like coal or natural gas.     

Home composting as an alternative treatment option for organic household waste in Denmark: An environmental assessment using life cycle assessment-modelling

An environmental assessment of the management of organic household waste (OHW) was performed from a life cycle perspective by means of the waste-life cycle assessment (LCA) model EASEWASTE. The focus was on home composting of OHW in Denmark and six different home composting units (with different input and different mixing frequencies) were modelled. In addition, incineration and landfilling was modelled as alternatives to home composting. The most important processes contributing to the environmental impact of home composting were identified as greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (load) and the avoided emissions in relation to the substitution of fertiliser and peat when compost was used in hobby gardening (saving). The replacement of fertiliser and peat was also identified as one of the most sensible parameters, which could potentially have a significant environmental benefit. Many of the impact categories (especially human toxicity via water (HTw) and soil (HTs)) were affected by the heavy metal contents of the incoming OHW. The concentrations of heavy metals in the compost were below the threshold values for compost used on land and were thus not considered to constitute a problem. The GHG emissions were, on the other hand, dependent on the management of the composting units. The frequently mixed composting units had the highest GHG emissions. The environmental profiles of the home composting scenarios were in the order of −2 to 16 milli person equivalents (mPE) Mg⁻¹ wet waste (ww) for the non-toxic categories and −0.9 to 28 mPE Mg⁻¹ ww for the toxic categories. Home composting performed better than or as good as incineration and landfilling in several of the potential impact categories. One exception was the global warming (GW) category, in which incineration performed better due to the substitution of heat and electricity based on fossil fuels.     

Environmental assessment of waste incineration in a life-cycle-perspective (EASEWASTE).

A model for life-cycle assessment of waste incinerators is described and applied to a case study for illustrative purposes. As life-cycle thinking becomes more integrated into waste management, quantitative tools for assessing waste management technologies are needed. The presented model is a module in the life-cycle assessment model EASEWASTE. The module accounts for all uses of materials and energy and credits the incinerator for electricity and heat recovered. The energy recovered is defined by the user as a percentage of the energy produced, calculated on the lower heating value of the wet waste incinerated. Emissions are either process-specific (related to the amount of waste incinerated) or input-specific (related to the composition of the waste incinerated), while mass transfer to solid outputs are governed by transfer coefficients specified by the user. The waste input is defined by 48 material fractions and their chemical composition. The model was used to quantify the environmental performance of the incineration plant in Aarhus, Denmark before and after its upgrading in terms of improved flue gas cleaning and energy recovery. It demonstrated its usefulness in identifying the various processes and substances that contributed to environmental loadings as well as to environmental savings. The model was instrumental in demonstrating the importance of the energy recovery system not only for electricity but also heat from the incinerator.     

Preliminary assessment of plastic waste valorization via sequential pyrolysis and catalytic reforming

In this article, a life cycle assessment approach is used to carry out a preliminary assessment of the environmental and energy performance of a specific chemical recycling and recovery system that supplies a variety of petrochemical blendstocks through the sequential pyrolysis and catalytic reforming of plastic wastes. Characterization results are presented for a selection of seven impact categories: abiotic depletion, global warming, acidification, eutrophication, ozone layer depletion, photochemical oxidant formation and cumulative non-renewable energy demand. From a combined environmental and energy perspective, the results suggest the suitability of this system for plastic waste valorization. However, improvement actions aimed at reducing the thermal energy demand and mitigating direct emissions to the air should be undertaken. Furthermore, the environmental profiles of the proposed petrochemical blendstocks are compared with those of conventional energy products. A comparison among this chemical recycling and recovery system and two conventional management practices (municipal incineration and landfilling) is also addressed. The results show that the considered system could entail relevant environmental and energy benefits when compared to conventional energy systems and waste management strategies.     

Tools for evaluation of impact associated with MSW incineration: LCA and integrated environmental monitoring system

The identification of significant pollutants emitted from the contamination source is the first step in evaluating the impact associated with anthropic activity. Municipal solid waste (MSW) incinerators are still generally perceived as great pollutant sources, in particular due to their gaseous emissions from the stack, which constitute the major effluent from the plant. In this work a life cycle assessment and an integrated environmental monitoring system were applied together, in order to obtain complete information about the incineration process and its environmental impact. The former is a proven methodology, but its application to waste management systems constitutes a relatively new field of application with a great developmental potential. The contribution of the incineration process to the different environmental impact categories was investigated, finding many avoided impacts due to energy recovery. The latter is an innovative approach that allows a remarkable understanding of impact due to a contamination source; interesting correlations were found between heavy metals both in gas emissions and in natural matrices in the surroundings.     

Evaluation of environmental impacts from municipal solid waste management in the municipality of Aarhus, Denmark (EASEWASTE).

A new computer based life cycle assessment model (EASEWASTE) was used to evaluate a municipal solid waste system with the purpose of identifying environmental benefits and disadvantages by anaerobic digestion of source-separated household waste and incineration. The most important processes that were included in the study are optical sorting and pre-treatment, anaerobic digestion with heat and power recovery, incineration with heat and power recovery, use of digested biomass on arable soils and finally, an estimated surplus consumption of plastic in order to achieve a higher quality and quantity of organic waste to the biogas plant. Results showed that there were no significant differences in most of the assessed environmental impacts for the two scenarios. However, the use of digested biomass may cause a potential toxicity impact on human health due to the heavy metal content of the organic waste. A sensitivity analysis showed that the results are sensitive to the energy recovery efficiencies, to the extra plastic consumption for waste bags and to the content of heavy metals in the waste. A model such as EASEWASTE is very suitable for evaluating the overall environmental consequences of different waste management strategies and technologies, and can be used for most waste material fractions existing in household waste.     

Environmental modelling of use of treated organic waste on agricultural land: a comparison of existing models for life cycle assessment of waste systems.

Modelling of environmental impacts from the application of treated organic municipal solid waste (MSW) in agriculture differs widely between different models for environmental assessment of waste systems. In this comparative study five models were examined concerning quantification and impact assessment of environmental effects from land application of treated organic MSW: DST (Decision Support Tool, USA), IWM (Integrated Waste Management, U.K.), THE IFEU PROJECT (Germany), ORWARE (ORganic WAste REsearch, Sweden) and EASEWASTE (Environmental Assessment of Solid Waste Systems and Technologies, Denmark). DST and IWM are life cycle inventory (LCI) models, thus not performing actual impact assessment. The DST model includes only one water emission (biological oxygen demand) from compost leaching in the results and IWM considers only air emissions from avoided production of commercial fertilizers. THE IFEU PROJECT, ORWARE and EASEWASTE are life cycle assessment (LCA) models containing more detailed land application modules. A case study estimating the environmental impacts from land application of 1 ton of composted source sorted organic household waste was performed to compare the results from the different models and investigate the origin of any difference in type or magnitude of the results. The contributions from the LCI models were limited and did not depend on waste composition or local agricultural conditions. The three LCA models use the same overall approach for quantifying the impacts of the system. However, due to slightly different assumptions, quantification methods and environmental impact assessment, the obtained results varied clearly between the models. Furthermore, local conditions (e.g. soil type, farm type, climate and legal regulation) and waste composition strongly influenced the results of the environmental assessment.     

Optimal utilization of waste-to-energy in an LCA perspective

Energy production from two types of municipal solid waste was evaluated using life cycle assessment (LCA): (1) mixed high calorific waste suitable for production of solid recovered fuels (SRF) and (2) source separated organic waste. For SRF, co-combustion was compared with mass burn incineration. For organic waste, anaerobic digestion (AD) was compared with mass burn incineration. In the case of mass burn incineration, incineration with and without energy recovery was modelled. Biogas produced from anaerobic digestion was evaluated for use both as transportation fuel and for heat and power production. All relevant consequences for energy and resource consumptions, emissions to air, water and soil, upstream processes and downstream processes were included in the LCA. Energy substitutions were considered with respect to two different energy systems: a present-day Danish system based on fossil fuels and a potential future system based on 100% renewable energy. It was found that mass burn incineration of SRF with energy recovery provided savings in all impact categories, but co-combustion was better with respect to Global Warming (GW). If all heat from incineration could be utilized, however, the two alternatives were comparable for SRF. For organic waste, mass burn incineration with energy recovery was preferable over anaerobic digestion in most impact categories. Waste composition and flue gas cleaning at co-combustion plants were critical for the environmental performance of SRF treatment, while the impacts related to utilization of the digestate were significant for the outcome of organic waste treatment. The conclusions were robust in a present-day as well as in a future energy system. This indicated that mass burn incineration with efficient energy recovery is a very environmentally competitive solution overall.     

Life cycle modelling of environmental impacts of application of processed organic municipal solid waste on agricultural land (EASEWASTE).

A model capable of quantifying the potential environmental impacts of agricultural application of composted or anaerobically digested source-separated organic municipal solid waste (MSW) is presented. In addition to the direct impacts, the model accounts for savings by avoiding the production and use of commercial fertilizers. The model is part of a larger model, Environmental Assessment of Solid Waste Systems and Technology (EASEWASTE), developed as a decision-support model, focusing on assessment of alternative waste management options. The environmental impacts of the land application of processed organic waste are quantified by emission coefficients referring to the composition of the processed waste and related to specific crop rotation as well as soil type. The model contains several default parameters based on literature data, field experiments and modelling by the agro-ecosystem model, Daisy. All data can be modified by the user allowing application of the model to other situations. A case study including four scenarios was performed to illustrate the use of the model. One tonne of nitrogen in composted and anaerobically digested MSW was applied as fertilizer to loamy and sandy soil at a plant farm in western Denmark. Application of the processed organic waste mainly affected the environmental impact categories global warming (0.4-0.7 PE), acidification (-0.06 (saving)-1.6 PE), nutrient enrichment (-1.0 (saving)-3.1 PE), and toxicity. The main contributors to these categories were nitrous oxide formation (global warming), ammonia volatilization (acidification and nutrient enrichment), nitrate losses (nutrient enrichment and groundwater contamination), and heavy metal input to soil (toxicity potentials). The local agricultural conditions as well as the composition of the processed MSW showed large influence on the environmental impacts. A range of benefits, mainly related to improved soil quality from long-term application of the processed organic waste, could not be generally quantified with respect to the chosen life cycle assessment impact categories and were therefore not included in the model. These effects should be considered in conjunction with the results of the life cycle assessment.     

Environmental impact assessment of leachate recirculation in landfill of municipal solid waste by comparing with evaporation and discharge (EASEWASTE)

In some arid regions where landfill produces minimal amount of leachate, leachate recirculation is suggested as a cost-effective option. However, its long-term impacts to environment remain disputed. For the purpose of revealing the environmental impacts of leachate recirculation in landfill, four scenarios were modeled using EASEWASTE, comparing the strategies of leachate recirculation (with or without gas management), evaporation and discharge. In the current situation (Scenario A), a total of 280 t of waste was generated and then transported to a conventional landfill for disposal. A number of contaminants derived from waste can be stored in the landfill for long periods, with 11.69 person equivalent (PE) for stored ecotoxicity in water and 29.62 PE for stored ecotoxicity in soil, considered as potential risks of releasing to the environment someday. Meanwhile, impacts to ecotoxicity and human toxicity in surface water, and those to groundwater, present relatively low levels. In Scenario B, leachate evaporation in a collecting pool has minimal impacts on surface water. However, this strategy significantly impacts groundwater (1055.16 PE) because of the potential infiltration of leachate, with major contaminants of As, ammonia, and Cd. A number of ions, such as Cl^?, Mg²⁺, and Ca²⁺, may also contaminate groundwater. In Scenario C, the direct discharge of leachate to surface water may result in acidification (2.71 PE) and nutrient enrichment (2.88 PE), primarily attributed to soluble ammonia in leachate and the depositional ammonia from biogas. Moreover, the direct discharge of leachate may also result in ecotoxicity and human toxicity via water contaminated by heavy metals in leachate, with 3.96 PE and 11.64 PE respectively. The results also show that landfill gas is the main contributor to global warming and photochemical ozone formation due to methane emission. In Scenario D, landfill gas flaring was thus be modeled and proven to be efficient for reducing impacts by approximately 90% in most categories, like global warming, photochemical ozone formation, acidification, nutrient enrichment, ecotoxicity, and human toxicity. Therefore, leachate recirculation is considered a cost-effective and environmentally viable solution for the current situation, and landfill gas treatment is urgently required. These results can provide important evidence for leachate and gas management of landfill in arid regions.     

Separate collection of household food waste for anaerobic degradation - Comparison of different techniques from a systems perspective

Four systems for household food waste collection are compared in relation the environmental impact categories eutrophication potential, acidification potential, global warming potential as well as energy use. Also, a hotspot analysis is performed in order to suggest improvements in each of the compared collection systems. Separate collection of household food waste in paper bags (with and without drying prior to collection) with use of kitchen grinders and with use of vacuum system in kitchen sinks were compared. In all cases, food waste was used for anaerobic digestion with energy and nutrient recovery in all cases. Compared systems all resulted in net avoidance of assessed environmental impact categories; eutrophication potential (-0.1 to -2.4kg NO(3)(-)eq/ton food waste), acidification potential (-0.4 to -1.0kg SO(2)(-)eq/ton food waste), global warming potential (-790 to -960kg CO(2)(-)eq/ton food waste) and primary energy use (-1.7 to -3.6GJ/ton food waste). Collection with vacuum system results in the largest net avoidence of primary energy use, while disposal of food waste in paper bags for decentralized drying before collection result in a larger net avoidence of global warming, eutrophication and acidification. However, both these systems not have been taken into use in large scale systems yet and further investigations are needed in order to confirm the outcomes from the comparison. Ranking of scenarios differ largely if considering only emissions in the foreground system, indicating the importance of taking also downstream emissions into consideration when comparing different collection systems. The hot spot identification shows that losses of organic matter in mechanical pretreatment as well as tank connected food waste disposal systems and energy in drying and vacuum systems reply to the largest impact on the results in each system respectively.     

Environmental assessment of gas management options at the Old Ämmässuo landfill (Finland) by means of LCA-modeling (EASEWASTE)

The current landfill gas (LFG) management (based on flaring and utilization for heat generation of the collected gas) and three potential future gas management options (LFG flaring, heat generation and combined heat and power generation) for the Old Ämmässuo landfill (Espoo, Finland) were evaluated by life-cycle assessment modeling. The evaluation accounts for all resource utilization and emissions to the environment related to the gas generation and management for a life-cycle time horizon of 100 yr. The assessment criteria comprise standard impact categories (global warming, photo-chemical ozone formation, stratospheric ozone depletion, acidification and nutrient enrichment) and toxicity-related impact categories (human toxicity via soil, via water and via air, eco-toxicity in soil and in water chronic).The results of the life-cycle impact assessment show that disperse emissions of LFG from the landfill surface determine the highest potential impacts in terms of global warming, stratospheric ozone depletion, and human toxicity via soil. Conversely, the impact potentials estimated for other categories are numerically-negative when the collected LFG is utilized for energy generation, demonstrating that net environmental savings can be obtained. Such savings are proportional to the amount of gas utilized for energy generation and the gas energy recovery efficiency achieved, which thus have to be regarded as key parameters. As a result, the overall best performance is found for the heat generation option – as it has the highest LFG utilization/energy recovery rates – whereas the worst performance is estimated for the LFG flaring option, as no LFG is here utilized for energy generation.Therefore, to reduce the environmental burdens caused by the current gas management strategy, more LFG should be used for energy generation. This inherently requires a superior LFG capture rate that, in addition, would reduce fugitive emissions of LFG from the landfill surface, bringing further environmental benefits.     

Modelling of environmental impacts of solid waste landfilling within the life-cycle analysis program EASEWASTE

A new computer-based life-cycle assessment model (EASEWASTE) has been developed to evaluate resource and environmental consequences of solid waste management systems. This paper describes the landfilling sub-model used in the life-cycle assessment program EASEWASTE, and examines some of the implications of this sub-model. All quantities and concentrations of leachate and landfill gas can be modified by the user in order to bring them in agreement with the actual landfill that is assessed by the model. All emissions, except the generation of landfill gas, are process specific. The landfill gas generation is calculated on the basis of organic matter in the landfilled waste. A landfill assessment example is provided. For this example, the normalised environmental effects of landfill gas on global warming and photochemical smog are much greater than the environmental effects for landfill leachate or for landfill construction. A sensitivity analysis for this example indicates that the overall environmental impact is sensitive to the gas collection efficiency and the use of the gas, but not to the amount of leachate generated, or the amount of soil or liner material used in construction. The landfill model can be used for evaluating different technologies with different liners, gas and leachate collection efficiencies, and to compare the environmental consequences of landfilling with alternative waste treatment options such as incineration or anaerobic digestion.     

LCA of selective waste collection systems in dense urban areas

This paper presents research concerning the environmental analysis of the selective collection management of municipal solid waste. The main goal of this study is to quantify and to compare, by means of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), the potential environmental impacts of three selective collection systems modelled on densely populated urban areas. These systems are: the mobile pneumatic, the multi-container and the door-to-door. Impact assessment method based on CML 2 baseline 2000 is applied to the different systems. The study separates and analyzes the collection systems in substages: two urban substages and one inter-city substage. At the urban level, the multi-container system has the least environmental impact of all systems. The mobile pneumatic system has greater environmental impacts in terms of global warming, fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity, terrestrial ecotoxicity, acidification and eutrophication. In this system, the pipes and the pneumatic transport have the greatest impacts. The door-to-door system has a greatest environmental impact in terms of abiotic depletion, ozone layer depletion and human toxicity. An overall evaluation of the three substages, with a sensitivity analysis, indicates that the mobile pneumatic system at an inter-city distance of 20 km shows the greatest environmental impacts and the greatest energy demand. Inter-city transport is key; the results show that from an inter-city distance of 11 km onwards, this becomes the substage which most contributes to global warming impact and energy demand, in all the systems.