Gone…but not away—addressing the problem of long-term impacts from landfills in LCA

  • Michael Hauschild
  • Stig Irving Olsen
  • Erik Hansen
  • Anders Schmidt


Background, aim and scope

Land filling of materials with content of toxic metals or highly persistent organic compounds has posed a problem for life cycle assessment (LCA) practitioners for many years. The slow release from the landfill entails a dilution in time, which is dramatic compared to other emissions occurring in the life cycle, and with its focus on the emitted mass, LCA is poorly equipped to handle this difference. As a consequence, the long-term emissions from landfills occurring over thousands of years are often disregarded, which is unacceptable to many stakeholders considering the quantities of toxic substances that can be present. On the other hand, inclusion of all future emissions (over thousands of years) in the inventories potentially dominates all other impacts from the product system. The paper aims to present a pragmatic approach to address this dilemma.

Materials and methods

Two new impact categories are introduced representing the stored ecotoxicity and stored human toxicity of the contaminants remaining in the landfill after a ‘foreseeable’ time period of 100 years. The impact scores are calculated using the normal characterisation factors for the ecotoxicity and human toxicity impact categories, and they represent the toxicity potentials of what remains in the landfill after 100 years (hence the term ‘stored’ (eco)toxicity). Normalisation references are developed for the stored toxicity categories based on Danish figures to support comparison with indicator scores for the conventional environmental impact categories. In contrast to the scores for the conventional impact categories, it is uncertain to what extent the stored toxicity scores represent emissions, which will occur at all. Guidance is given on how to reflect this uncertainty in the weighting and interpretation of the scores.

Results and discussion

In landfills and road constructions used to deposit residuals from incinerators, less than 1% of the content of metals is leached within the first 100 years. The stored toxicity scores are therefore much higher than the conventional impact scores that represent the actual emissions. Several examples are given illustrating the use and potential significance of the stored toxicity categories.

Conclusions and perspectives

The methodology to calculate stored human and ecotoxicity is a simple and pragmatic approach to address LCA’s problem of treating the slow long-term emissions at very low concentrations appropriately. The problem resides in the inventory analysis and the impact assessment, and the methodology circumvents the problem by converting it into a weighting and interpretation issue accommodating the value-based discussion of how to weight potential effects in the far future.


Ecotoxicity Human toxicity Landfill Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) Long-term impacts Stored toxicity 

Supplementary material

11367_2008_39_MOESM1_ESM.doc (52 kb)
Table 2Normalisation references for stored human toxicity based on an inventory for Denmark 1994, applying the EDIP97 factors for human toxicity via air and water for the stored substances, expressing the impacts as compartment volumes contaminated to the dose predicted not to give adverse effects after life-long exposure. The normalisation reference is expressed as a person equivalent (annual impact from an average person). Inventory figures are documented in Hansen et al. 2004 (DOC 52.0 KB)


  1. Birgisdóttir H (2005) Life cycle assessment model for road construction and use of residues from waste incineration. Ph.D.-thesis. Institute of Environment & Resources. Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark. http://www2.er.dtu.dk/publications/fulltext/2005/MR2005-106.pdf
  2. Birgisdóttir H, Bhander G, Hauschild MZ, Christensen TH (2007) Life cycle assessment of disposal of residues from municipal solid waste incineration: Recycling of bottom ash in road construction or land filling in Denmark evaluated in the ROAD-RES model. Waste Manage 27:S75–S84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Camobreco V, Ham R, Barlaz M, Repa E, Felker M, Rousseau C, Rathle J (1999) Life-cycle inventory of a modern municipal solid waste landfill. Waste Manage Res 17:394–408Google Scholar
  4. Christensen TH, Bhander G, Lindvall H, Larsen AW, Fruergaard T, Damgaard A, Manfredi S, Boldrin A, Riber C, Hauschild M (2007) Experience with the use of LCA-modeling (EASEWASTE) in waste management. Waste Manage Res 25(3):257–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Diamond ML, Page CA, Campbell M, McKenna S, Lall R (1999) Life-cycle assessment framework for assessment of site remediation options: methods and generic survey. Environ Toxicol Chem 18(4):788–800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Doka G, Hischier R (2005) Waste treatment and assessment of long-term emissions. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10(1):77–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Durucan S, Korre A, Munoz-Melendez G (2006) Mining life cycle modelling: a cradle-to-gate approach to environmental management in the minerals industry. J Cleaner Prod 14:1057–1070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Emery A, Davies A, Griffiths A, Williams K (2007) Environmental and economic modelling: a case study of municipal solid waste management scenarios in Wales. Resour Conserv Recycl 49:244–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Finnveden G (1999) Methodological aspects of life cycle assessment of integrated solid waste management systems. Resour Conserv Recycl 26:173–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Finnveden G, Huppes G (eds) (1995) Life cycle assessment and treatment of solid waste. Proceedings of the International Workshop, Stockholm, Sweden. AFR-Report 98. AFR, Swedish EPA, Stockholm, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  11. Finnveden G, Nielsen PH (1999) Long-term emissions from landfills should not be disregarded. Letters to the editor. Int J Life Cycle Assess 4(3):125–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (2000) The Eco-indicator 99—a damage-oriented method for life cycle impact assessment. Methodology report, 2nd edn, 17–4–2000. Pré Consultants, B.V. Amersfoort, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  13. Hansen E et al (2004) Life cycle assessment of land filled waste. Environmental Project No. 971. Danish Ministry of Environment, Environmental Protection Agency, Copenhagen (in Danish)Google Scholar
  14. Hauschild MZ, Wenzel H (1998) Environmental assessment of products, vol. 2: Scientific background. Kluwer, Hingham, MA, USA (ISBN 0412 80810 2)Google Scholar
  15. Hellweg S (2000) Time- and site-dependent life-cycle assessment of thermal waste treatment processes. Doctoral thesis, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Zurich, ISBN 3-89825-239-6Google Scholar
  16. Hellweg S, Frischknecht R (2004) Evaluation of long-term impacts in LCA. 22nd discussion forum on LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9(5):339–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hellweg S, Hofstetter TB, Hungerbühler K (2001) Modeling waste incineration for life-cycle inventory analysis in Switzerland. Environ Model Assess 6:219–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hellweg S, Hofstetter TB, Hungerbühler K (2003) Discounting and the environment should current impacts be weighted differently than impacts harming future generations? Int J Life Cycle Assess 8(1):8–18Google Scholar
  19. Hjelmar O (1996) Disposal strategies for municipal solid waste incineration residues. J Hazard Mater 47:345–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hofstetter P (1998) Perspectives in life cycle impact assessment. A structured approach to combine models of the technosphere, ecosphere and valuesphere. Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands (ISBN 0-7923-8377-X)Google Scholar
  21. Humbert S, Margni M, Jolliet O (2005) IMPACT 2002+User Guide. Draft for version 2.1. http://www.sph.umich.edu/riskcenter/jolliet/impact2002+form.htm
  22. Ménard JF, Lesage P, Deschênes L, Samson R (2004) Comparative life cycle assessment of two landfill technologies for the treatment of municipal solid waste. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9(6):371–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Morselli L, Bartoli M, Bertacchini M, Brighetti A, Luzi J, Passarini F, Masoni P (2005) Tools for evaluation of impact associated with MSW incineration: LCA and integrated environmental monitoring system. Waste Manage 25:191–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nielsen PH, Hauschild MZ (1998) Product specific emissions from municipal solid waste landfills. Int J Life Cycle Assess 3(3):158–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rieradevall J, Doménech X, Fullana P (1997) Application of life cycle assessment to land filling. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2(3):141–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stranddorf H, Hoffmann L, Schmidt A (2005) Impact categories, normalisation and weighting in LCA. Environmental News no. 78 from the Danish Environmental Protection Agency, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  27. Sundqvist JO, Albertsson AC, Berendson J, Finnveden G, Höglund LO, Karlsson S, Stripple H (1997) Life cycle assessment and solid waste, Stage 2. AFR-Report 173. AFR, Swedish EPA, Stockholm, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  28. Wenzel H, Hauschild MZ, Alting L (1997) Environmental assessment of products. Vol. 1: Methodology, tools and case studies in product development. Kluwer, Hingham, MA, USA (ISBN 0 412 80800 5)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Hauschild
    • 1
  • Stig Irving Olsen
    • 1
  • Erik Hansen
    • 2
  • Anders Schmidt
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Management Engineering (DTU-MAN)Technical University of DenmarkLyngbyDenmark
  2. 2.COWI A/SVejleDenmark
  3. 3.Force TechnologyLyngbyDenmark

Personalised recommendations