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.     

Life cycle assessment of disposal of residues from municipal solid waste incineration: recycling of bottom ash in road construction or landfilling in Denmark evaluated in the ROAD-RES model

Two disposal methods for MSWI bottom ash were assessed in a new life cycle assessment (LCA) model for road construction and disposal of residues. The two scenarios evaluated in the model were: (i) landfilling of bottom ash in a coastal landfill in Denmark and (ii) recycling of bottom ash as subbase layer in an asphalted secondary road. The LCA included resource and energy consumption, and emissions associated with upgrading of bottom ash, transport, landfilling processes, incorporation of bottom ash in road, substitution of natural gravel as road construction material and leaching of heavy metals and salts from bottom ash in road as well as in landfill. Environmental impacts associated with emissions to air, fresh surface water, marine surface water, groundwater and soil were aggregated into 12 environmental impact categories: Global Warming, Photochemical Ozone Formation, Nutrient Enrichment, Acidification, Stratospheric Ozone Depletion, Human Toxicity via air/water/soil, Ecotoxicity in water/soil, and a new impact category, Stored Ecotoxicity to water/soil that accounts for the presence of heavy metals and very persistent organic compounds that in the long-term might leach. Leaching of heavy metals and salts from bottom ash was estimated from a series of laboratory leaching tests. For both scenarios, Ecotoxicity(water) was, when evaluated for the first 100 yr, the most important among the twelve impact categories involved in the assessment. Human Toxicity(soil) was also important, especially for the Road scenario. When the long-term leaching of heavy metals from bottom ash was evaluated, based on the total content of heavy metals in bottom ash, all impact categories became negligible compared to the potential Stored Ecotoxicity, which was two orders of magnitudes greater than Ecotoxicity(water). Copper was the constituent that gave the strongest contributions to the ecotoxicities. The most important resources consumed were clay as liner in landfill and the groundwater resource which was potentially spoiled due to leaching of salts from bottom ash in road. The difference in environmental impacts between landfilling and utilization of bottom ash in road was marginal when these alternatives were assessed in a life cycle perspective.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Modelling of environmental impacts from biological treatment of organic municipal waste in EASEWASTE

The waste-LCA model EASEWASTE quantifies potential environmental effects from biological treatment of organic waste, based on mass and energy flows, emissions to air, water, soil and groundwater as well as effects from upstream and downstream processes. Default technologies for composting, anaerobic digestion and combinations hereof are available in the model, but the user can change all key parameters in the biological treatment module so that specific local plants and processes can be modelled. EASEWASTE is one of the newest waste LCA models and the biological treatment module was built partly on features of earlier waste-LCA models, but offers additional facilities, more flexibility, transparency and user-friendliness. The paper presents the main features of the module and provides some examples illustrating the capability of the model in environmentally assessing and discriminating the environmental performance of alternative biological treatment technologies in relation to their mass flows, energy consumption, gaseous emissions, biogas recovery and compost/digestate utilization.     

Experience with the use of LCA-modelling (EASEWASTE) in waste management.

Life-cycle assessment (LCA) models are becoming the principal decision support tools of waste management systems. This paper describes our experience with the use of EASEWASTE (Environmental Assessment of Solid Waste Systems and Technologies), a new computerized LCA-based model for integrated waste management. Our findings provide a quantitative understanding of waste management systems and may reveal consistent approaches to improve their environmental performances. EASEWASTE provides a versatile system modelling facility combined with a complete life-cycle impact assessment and in addition to the traditional impact categories addresses toxicity-related categories. New categories dealing with stored ecotoxicity and spoiled groundwater resources have been introduced. EASEWASTE has been applied in several studies, including full-scale assessments of waste management in Danish municipalities. These studies led to numerous modelling issues: the need of combining process-specific and input-specific emissions, the choice of a meaningful time horizon, the way of accounting for biological carbon emissions, the problem of stored ecotoxicity and aspects of crediting the waste management system with the savings inherent in avoided production of energy and materials. Interpretation of results showed that waste management systems can be designed in an environmentally sustainable manner where energy recovery processes lead to substantial avoidance of emissions and savings of resources.     

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.