A Procedure for Life-Cycle-Based Solid Waste Management with Consideration of Uncertainty

The development of integrated solid-waste management (SWM) strategies that are efficient with respect to both cost and environmental performance is a complex task. It must incorporate the numerous interrelations among different unit operations in the solid waste system (e.g., collection, recycling, and combustion), and the large number of design parameters that affect estimates of cost and environmental emissions. Uncertainty in design and operational parameters can lead to uncertainty in the estimates of cost and emissions. This article describes an extension of the capability of the Integrated Solid Waste Management Decision Support Tool (ISWM DST) to enable consideration of the effects of uncertainty in input parameters. The uncertainty analysis capability is illustrated using a hypothetical case study of a typical municipality. Results show that increased expenditure does not necessarily result in a reduction in the expected levels of environmental emissions and that some SWM alternatives may be more robust, although deterministic estimates of their expected performances are similar. The uncertainty analysis also facilitates use of the ISWM DST by policy makers responsible for evaluation of the expected effect of SWM practices on, for example, greenhouse-gas emissions.     

Identifying Stakeholders’ Views on the Eco‐efficiency Assessment of a Municipal Solid Waste Management System

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is one of the most popular methods of technical‐environmental assessment for informing environmental policies, as, for instance, in municipal solid waste (MSW) management. Because MSW management involves many stakeholders with possibly conflicting interests, the implementation of an LCA‐based policy can, however, be blocked or delayed. A stakeholder assessment of future scenarios helps identify conflicting interests and anticipate barriers of sustainable MSW management systems. This article presents such an approach for Swiss waste glass‐packaging disposal, currently undergoing a policy review. In an online survey, stakeholders (N = 85) were asked to assess disposal scenarios showing different LCA‐based eco‐efficiencies with respect to their desirability and probability of occurrence. Scenarios with higher eco‐efficiency than the current system are more desirable and considered more probable than those with lower eco‐efficiency. A combination of inland recycling and downcycling to foam glass (insulation material) in Switzerland is desired by all stakeholders and is more eco‐efficient than the current system. In contrast, institutions of MSW management, such as national and regional environmental protection agencies, judge a scenario in which nearly all cullet would be recycled in the only Swiss glass‐packaging factory as more desirable than supply and demand stakeholders of waste glass‐packaging. Such a scenario involves a monopsony rejected by many municipalities and scrap traders. Such an assessment procedure can provide vital information guiding the formulation of environmental policies.     

A Life Cycle Assessment on the Dehairing of Rawhides: Chemical Treatment versus Enzymatic Recovery through Solid State Fermentation

The leather industry needs to switch from the traditional chemically based dehairing process to an environmentally friendly one so that the overall burdens to the environment are reduced. The primary goal of the work was thus to compare the chemical leather dehairing process to an enzymatically based one using the enzymes that are extracted after the application of solid state fermentation (SSF) on hair wastes generated after dehairing. The environmental burdens of the dehairing stage were determined using a life cycle assessment (LCA) approach by comparing the two aforementioned management scenarios. The first scenario was the commonly used technology in which hair is removed via a chemical process and then composted in open piles. This scenario included two subscenarios where hair waste is either incinerated or landfilled. In the second scenario, the proteolytic enzymes extracted during the SSF of the residual hair are used to dehair the new rawhides instead of chemicals. Industrial and laboratory data were combined with international databases using the SimaPro 8.0 LCA software to make comparisons. The environmental impacts associated with the enzymatic dehairing were significantly lower than the ones associated to the conventional chemical dehairing process. This difference is attributed to the impacts associated with the original production of the chemicals and to the electricity consumed in the conventional method. A sensitivity analysis revealed that the results are affected by the amounts of chemicals used during dehairing.     

Application of a Life Cycle Model for European Union Policy‐Driven Waste Management Decision Making in Emerging Economies

Solid waste life cycle modeling has predominantly focused on developed countries, but there are significant opportunities to assist developing and transition economies to minimize the environmental impact of solid waste management (SWM). Serbia is representative of a transition country and most (92%) of its waste is landfilled. As a Candidate European Union (EU) country, Serbia is expected to implement SWM strategies that meet EU directives. The Solid Waste Life‐Cycle Optimization Framework (SWOLF) was used to evaluate scenarios that meet EU goals by 2030. Scenarios included combinations of landfills, anaerobic digestion, composting, material recovery facilities (MRFs), waste‐to‐energy (WTE) combustion, and the use of refuse‐derived fuel in cement kilns. Each scenario was evaluated with and without separate collection of recyclables. Modeled impacts included cost, climate change, cumulative fossil energy demand, acidification, eutrophication, photochemical oxidation, total eco‐toxicity, and total human toxicity. Trade‐offs among the scenarios were evaluated because no scenario performed best in every category. In general, SWM strategies that incorporated processes that recover energy and recyclable materials performed well across categories, whereas scenarios that did not include energy recovery performed poorly. Emissions offsets attributable to energy recovery and reduced energy requirements associated with remanufacturing of recovered recyclables had the strongest influence on the results. The scenarios rankings were robust under parametric sensitivity analysis, except when the marginal electricity fuel source changed from coal to natural gas. Model results showed that the use of existing infrastructure, energy recovery, and efficient recovery of recyclables from mixed waste can reduce environmental emissions at relatively low cost.