Linking Data Choices and Context Specificity in Life Cycle Assessment of Waste Treatment Technologies: A Landfill Case Study

To generate meaningful results, life cycle assessments (LCAs) require accurate technology data that are consistent with the goal and scope of the analysis. While literature data are available for many products and processes, finding representative data for highly site‐specific technologies, such as waste treatment processes, remains a challenge. This study investigated representative life cycle inventory (LCI) modeling of waste treatment technologies in consideration of variations in technological level and climate. The objectives were to demonstrate the importance of representative LCI modeling as a function of the specificity of the study, and to illustrate the necessity of iteratively refining the goal and scope of the study as data are developed. A landfill case study was performed where 52 discrete landfill data sets were built and grouped to represent different technology options and geographical sites, potential impacts were calculated, and minimum/maximum (min‐max) intervals were generated for each group. The results showed decreasing min‐max intervals with increasing specificity of the scope of study, which indicates that compatibility between the scope of study and LCI model is critical. Hereby, this study quantitatively demonstrates the influence of representative modeling on LCA results. The results indicate that technology variations and site‐specific conditions (e.g., the influence of precipitation and cover permeability on landfill gas generation and collection) should be carefully addressed by a systematic analysis of the key process parameters. Therefore, a thorough understanding of the targeted waste treatment technologies is necessary to ensure that appropriate data choices are made within the boundaries of the defined scope of the study.

[1]  Knut Conradsen,et al.  A global approach for sparse representation of uncertainty in Life Cycle Assessments of waste management systems , 2016, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[2]  Robert Ries,et al.  Characterizing, Propagating, and Analyzing Uncertainty in Life‐Cycle Assessment: A Survey of Quantitative Approaches , 2007 .

[3]  Eugenie van der Harst,et al.  Variation in LCA results for disposable polystyrene beverage cups due to multiple data sets and modelling choices , 2014, Environ. Model. Softw..

[4]  Bruce Vigon,et al.  Global guidance principles for life cycle assessment databases: development of training material and other implementation activities on the publication , 2013, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[5]  Anthony G. Williams,et al.  Approaches for Addressing Life Cycle Assessment Data Gaps for Bio‐based Products , 2011 .

[6]  T. H. Christensen,et al.  Chemical composition of material fractions in Danish household waste. , 2009, Waste management.

[7]  Davide Tonini,et al.  Contribution of individual waste fractions to the environmental impacts from landfilling of municipal solid waste. , 2010, Waste management.

[8]  Knut Conradsen,et al.  Erratum to: A global approach for sparse representation of uncertainty in Life Cycle Assessments of waste management systems , 2016, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[9]  O. Edenhofer,et al.  Mitigation from a cross-sectoral perspective , 2007 .

[10]  Thomas Højlund Christensen,et al.  Solid Waste Technology and Management , 2011 .

[11]  Panel Intergubernamental sobre Cambio Climático.  Climate change 2007: Synthesis report , 2007 .

[12]  Reinout Heijungs,et al.  Identification of key issues for further investigation in improving the reliability of life-cycle assessments , 1996 .

[13]  Anders Damgaard,et al.  An environmental assessment system for environmental technologies , 2014, Environ. Model. Softw..

[14]  R. Pachauri.  Climate change 2007. Synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the fourth assessment report , 2008 .

[15]  Randolph Kirchain,et al.  Exploring the viability of probabilistic under-specification to streamline life cycle assessment. , 2013, Environmental science & technology.

[16]  Hans-Jürgen Dr. Klüppel,et al.  The Revision of ISO Standards 14040-3 - ISO 14040: Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Principles and framework - ISO 14044: Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Requirements and guidelines , 2005 .

[17]  Mark A. J. Huijbregts,et al.  USEtox—the UNEP-SETAC toxicity model: recommended characterisation factors for human toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity in life cycle impact assessment , 2008 .

[18]  Reinout Heijungs,et al.  A review of approaches to treat uncertainty in LCA , 2004 .

[19]  Jacob Møller,et al.  Miljø- og samfundsøkonomisk vurdering af muligheder for øget genanvendelse af papir, pap, plast, metal og organisk affald fra dagrenovation , 2013 .

[20]  Monia Niero,et al.  Review of LCA studies of solid waste management systems--part II: methodological guidance for a better practice. , 2014, Waste management.

[21]  Randolph Kirchain,et al.  A Methodology for Robust Comparative Life Cycle Assessments Incorporating Uncertainty. , 2016, Environmental science & technology.

[22]  Thomas Højlund Christensen,et al.  Life cycle assessment of waste paper management: The importance of technology data and system boundaries in assessing recycling and incineration , 2008 .

[23]  Roberto Turconi,et al.  Life cycle assessment of thermal waste-to-energy technologies: review and recommendations. , 2015, Waste management.

[24]  Bo Pedersen Weidema,et al.  Data quality management for life cycle inventories—an example of using data quality indicators☆ , 1996 .

[25]  Vered Blass,et al.  Why going beyond standard LCI databases is important: lessons from a meta-analysis of potable water supply system LCAs , 2016, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[26]  Anna Björklund,et al.  Survey of approaches to improve reliability in lca , 2002 .

[27]  D. Tonini,et al.  Stochastic and epistemic uncertainty propagation in LCA , 2013, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[28]  R. Kleijn,et al.  Numerical approaches towards life cycle interpretation five examples , 2001 .

[29]  James W. Levis,et al.  Is biodegradability a desirable attribute for discarded solid waste? Perspectives from a national landfill greenhouse gas inventory model. , 2011, Environmental science & technology.

[30]  T. H. Christensen,et al.  Life-cycle-assessment of the historical development of air pollution control and energy recovery in waste incineration. , 2010, Waste management.

[31]  Reinout Heijungs,et al.  A protocol for horizontal averaging of unit process data—including estimates for uncertainty , 2014, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[32]  Göran Finnveden,et al.  Models for waste life cycle assessment: review of technical assumptions. , 2010, Waste management.

[33]  Annie Levasseur,et al.  Key issues and options in accounting for carbon sequestration and temporary storage in life cycle assessment and carbon footprinting , 2012, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[34]  Callie W. Babbitt,et al.  Mapping product knowledge to life cycle inventory bounds: a case study of steel manufacturing , 2016 .

[35]  Bea De Smet,et al.  LCI data and data quality , 1996 .

[36]  S. Manfredi,et al.  Landfilling of waste: accounting of greenhouse gases and global warming contributions , 2009, Waste management & research : the journal of the International Solid Wastes and Public Cleansing Association, ISWA.

[37]  Anders Damgaard,et al.  Quantification of regional leachate variance from municipal solid waste landfills in China. , 2015, Waste management.

[38]  Pascal Lesage,et al.  Empirically based uncertainty factors for the pedigree matrix in ecoinvent , 2016, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.