Gone…but not away—addressing the problem of long-term impacts from landfills in LCA
- First Online:
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.
KeywordsEcotoxicity Human toxicity Landfill Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) Long-term impacts Stored toxicity
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Hauschild MZ, Wenzel H (1998) Environmental assessment of products, vol. 2: Scientific background. Kluwer, Hingham, MA, USA (ISBN 0412 80810 2)Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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