Extended Producer Responsibility for Waste Electronics: An Example of Printer Recycling in the United Kingdom

In February 2003, European Union (EU) policy makers implemented a Directive that will make producers responsible for waste electrical and electronic equipment at end-of-life (known as the "WEEE" Directive). Under this new legislation, producers are required to organize and finance the take-back, treatment, and recycling of WEEE and achieve mass-based recycling and recovery targets. This legislation is part of a growing trend of extended producer responsibility for waste, which has the potential to shift the world's economies toward more circular patterns of resource use and recycling. This study uses life-cycle assessment and costing to investigate the possible environmental effects of the WEEE Directive, based on an example of printer recycling in the United Kingdom.
For a total of four waste management scenarios and nine environmental impact categories investigated in this study, results varied, with no scenario emerging as best or worst overall compared to landfilling. The level of environmental impact depended on the type of material and waste management processes involved. Additionally, under the broad mass-based targets of the WEEE Directive, the pattern of relationships between recycling rates, environmental impacts, and treatment and recycling costs may lead to unplanned and unwanted results. Contrary to original EU assumptions, the use of mass-based targets may not ensure that producers adapt the design of their products as intended under producer responsibility.
It is concluded that the EU should revise the scope of consideration of the WEEE Directive to ensure its life-cycle impacts are addressed. In particular, specific environmental objectives and operating standards for treatment and recycling processes should be investigated as an alternative to mass-based recycling and recovery targets.     

From Life Cycle Assessment to Life Cycle Management

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a widely accepted methodology to support decision‐making processes in which one compares alternatives, and that helps prevent shifting of environmental burdens along the value chain or among impact categories. According to regulation in the European Union (EU), the movement of waste needs to be reduced and, if unavoidable, the environmental gain from a specific waste treatment option requiring transport must be larger than the losses arising from transport. The EU explicitly recommends the use of LCA or life cycle thinking for the formulation of new waste management plans. In the last two revisions of the Industrial Waste Management Programme of Catalonia (PROGRIC), the use of a life cycle thinking approach to waste policy was mandated. In this article we explain the process developed to arrive at practical life cycle management (LCM) from what started as an LCA project. LCM principles we have labeled the “3/3” principle or the “good enough is best” principle were found to be essential to obtain simplified models that are easy to understand for legislators and industries, useful in waste management regulation, and, ultimately, feasible. In this article, we present the four models of options for the management of waste solvent to be addressed under Catalan industrial waste management regulation. All involved actors concluded that the models are sufficiently robust, are easy to apply, and accomplish the aim of limiting the transport of waste outside Catalonia, according to the principles of proximity and sufficiency.     

Institutionalization of Life-Cycle Thinking in the Everyday Discourse of Market Actors

The widespread popularity of life-cycle assessment (LCA) is difficult to understand from the point of view of instrumental decision making by economic agents. Ehrenfeld has argued, in a 1997 issue of this journal, that it is the world-shaping potential of LCA that is more important than its use as a decision-making tool. The present study attempts to explore the institutionalization of this "LCA world view" among ordinary market actors. This is important because environmental policy relies increasingly on market-based initiatives. Cognitive and normative assumptions in authoritative LCA documents are examined as empirical data and compared with data from focus group interviews concerning products and the environment with "ordinary" manufacturers, retailers, and consumers in Finland. These assumptions are (1) the "cradle-to-grave" approach, (2) the view that all products have an environmental impact and can be improved, (3) the relativity of environmental merit, and (4) the way responsibility for environmental burdens is attributed. Relevant affinities, but also differences, are identified. It is argued that life-cycle thinking is not primarily instrumental, but rather is gaining a degree of intrinsic value. The study attempts to establish a broader institutional context in which the popularity of LCA can be understood. From the point of view of this broader context, some future challenges for the development of LCA and life-cycle thinking are suggested.     

Discussion on methods to include prevention activities in waste management LCA

Purpose

Waste prevention has been assigned increasing attention worldwide during recent years, and it is expected to become one of the core elements of waste management planning in the near future. In this framework, this paper presents and discusses two possible LCA approaches for the evaluation of the environmental and energetic performance of municipal solid waste (MSW) management systems which include the effects of waste prevention activities.

Methods

The two approaches are conceived for the comparison of waste management scenarios including waste prevention activities with baseline scenarios without waste prevention. For both of them, the functional unit is defined and the system boundaries are described with reference to different typologies of waste prevention activities identified in an extensive review. The procedure for the calculation of the LCA impacts of scenarios is also reported and an example illustrating the processes to be included in system boundaries for a specific waste prevention activity is provided.

Results and discussion

The presented approaches lead to the same result in terms of difference between the LCA impacts of a waste prevention scenario and of a baseline one. However, because of the partially different upstream system boundaries, different values of the impacts of single scenarios are obtained and the application of the two approaches is more suitable in different situations and in analyses with different purposes. The methodological aspects that can complicate the applicability of the two approaches are discussed lastly.

Conclusions

The environmental and energetic performance of MSW management scenarios including waste prevention activities can be evaluated with the two LCA approaches presented in this paper. They can be used for many purposes such as, among the most general, evaluating the upstream and downstream environmental consequences of implementing particular waste prevention activities in a given waste management system, complementing waste reduction indicators with LCA-based indicators and supporting with quantitative evidence the strategic and policy relevance of waste prevention.     

A life cycle assessment of residential waste management and prevention

Purpose

The oft-cited waste hierarchy is considered an important rule of thumb to identify preferential waste management options and places waste prevention at the top. Nevertheless, it has been claimed that waste prevention can sometimes be less favorable than recycling because (1) recycling decreases only the primary production of materials, whereas waste prevention may reduce a combination of both primary and low-impact secondary production, and (2) waste prevention decreases the quantity of material recycled downstream and the avoided impacts associated with recycling. In response to this claim, this study evaluates the life cycle effects of waste prevention activities (WPAs) on a residential waste management system.

Methods

This life cycle assessment (LCA) contrasts the net impacts of a large residential solid waste management system (including sanitary landfilling, anaerobic digestion, composting, and recycling) with a system that incorporates five WPAs, implemented at plausible levels (preventing a total of 3.6 % of waste generation tonnage) without diminishing product service consumption. WPAs addressed in this LCA reduce the collected tonnage of addressed advertising mail, disposable plastic shopping bags, newspapers, wine and spirit packaging, and yard waste (grass).

Results and discussion

In all cases, the WPAs reduce the net midpoint and endpoint level impacts of the residential waste management system. If WPAs are incorporated, the lower impacts from waste collection, transportation, sorting, and disposal as well as from the avoided upstream production of goods, more than compensate for the diminished net benefits associated with recycling and the displaced electricity from landfill gas utilization.

Conclusions

The results substantiate the uppermost placement of waste prevention within the waste hierarchy. Moreover, further environmental benefits from waste prevention can be realized by targeting WPAs at goods that will be landfilled and at those with low recycled content.     

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.     

Life cycle assessment of composite packaging waste management—a Chinese case study on aseptic packaging

Purpose

Approximately 46,000 t/day of packaging waste was generated in China in 2010, of which, 2,500 t was composite packaging waste. Due to the lack of recycling technology and an imperfect recovery system, most of this waste is processed in sanitary landfills. An effective packaging waste management system is needed since this waste not only uses up valuable resources, but also increases environmental pollution. The purpose of this study is to estimate the environmental impact of the treatment scenarios in composite packaging waste which are commonly used in China, to determine the optimum composite packaging waste management strategy, and to design new separating and recycling technology for composite packaging, based on the life cycle assessment (LCA) results.

Methods

To identify the best treatment for composite packaging waste, the LCA software SimaPro 7.1.6 was used to assist in the analysis of the environmental impacts, coupled with the impact assessment method Eco-Indicator 99. LCA for composite packaging waste management was carried out by estimating the environmental impacts of the four scenarios most often used in China: landfill, incineration, paper recycling, and separation of polyethylene and aluminum. One ton of post-consumption Tetra Pak waste was selected as the functional unit. The data on the mass, energy fluxes, and environmental emissions were obtained from literature and site investigations.

Results and discussion

Landfill—scenario 1—was the worst waste management option. Paper recycling—scenario 3—was more environmentally friendly than incineration, scenario 2. Scenario 4, separating out polyethylene and aluminum, was established based on the LCA result, and inventory data were obtained from the demonstration project built by this research. In scenario 4, the demonstration project for the separation of polyethylene and aluminum was built based on the optimum conditions from single-factor and orthogonal experiments. Adding this flow process into the life cycle of composite packaging waste treatment decreased the environmental impacts significantly.

Conclusions

The research results can provide useful scientific information for policymakers in China to make decisions regarding composite packaging waste. Incineration could reduce more environmental impacts in the respiratory inorganics category, and separation of polyethylene and aluminum, in the fossil fuel category. If energy saving is the primary governmental goal, the separation of polyethylene and aluminum would be the better choice, while incineration would be the better choice for emission reduction.     

The legitimacy of life cycle assessment in the waste management sector

Purpose

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is commonly presented as a tool for rational decision-making. It has been increasingly used to support decision-making in situations where multiple actors possess diverse, and sometimes conflicting, perspectives, values and motives. Yet, little effort has been placed on understanding LCA in a social framework of action. This paper aims to analyse the legitimacy of LCA in public sector decision-making situations, the criticisms presented against LCA, and suggest potential ways to alleviate these criticisms.

Methods

This study consists of a case study of the application of LCA in the waste management sector in England and France. To gain an understanding of the justification and criticism of LCA, semi-structured interviews were undertaken with national and local level waste management actors. The justifications and criticism of the application of LCA was analysed through an analytical framework, the economies of worth. This suggests that in situations of disagreement, actors’ justifications are required to show their attachment to plural forms of common good. This work analyses the orders of worth in which justifications and criticisms of the application of LCA were based.

Results and discussion

LCA is applied primarily as a test of environmental efficiency, illustrating a collaboration between the industrial and green orders of worth. Actors apply LCA with the aspiration of replicating the scientific method and producing robust evidence to support the most efficient waste treatment option. In this case, efficiency is coupled with the green order of worth, where gains in efficiency mean lower environmental impacts. Internal criticisms of LCA, based in the industrial order of worth, highlights the limitations of LCA to act as a test of environmental efficiency. Furthermore, criticism based in the civic order of worth highlights the friction which arises in decision-making situations when LCA has been seen to subjugate the civic nature of waste management decisions.

Conclusions

One potential way forward for LCA may be to introduce aspects relevant in the civic order of worth which aims at achieving a compromise between the industrial and civic orders of worth. Envisioning LCA as a process-oriented tool, as opposed to an outcome-oriented tool, can allow for aspects on public involvement in the LCA process, thereby increasing its civic legitimacy.

     

Influence of assumptions about selection and recycling efficiencies on the LCA of integrated waste management systems

Background, aim, and scope  Life cycle assessment (LCA) applied to alternative waste management strategies is becoming a commonly utilised tool for decision makers. This LCA study analyses together material and energy recovery within integrated municipal solid waste (MSW) management systems, i.e. the recovery of materials separated with the source-separated collection of MSW and the energy recovery from the residual waste. The final aim is to assess the energetic and environmental performance of the entire MSW management system and, in particular, to evaluate the influence of different assumptions about recycling on the LCA results. Materials and methods  The analysis uses the method of LCA and, thus, takes into account that any recycling activity influences the environment not only by consuming resources and releasing emissions and waste streams but also by replacing conventional products from primary production. Different assumptions about the selection efficiencies of the collected materials and about the quantity of virgin material substituted by the reprocessed material were made. Moreover, the analysis considers that the energy recovered from the residual waste displaces the same quantity of energy produced in conventional power plants and boilers fuelled with fossil fuels. Results  The analysis shows, in the expanded model of the material and energy recovering chain, that the environmental gains are higher than the environmental impacts. However, when we reduce the selection efficiencies by 15%, the impact indicators worsen by a percentage included between 10% and 26%. This phenomenon is even more evident when we consider a substitution ratio of 1:<1 for paper and plastic: The worsening is around 15–20% for all the impact indicators except for the global warming for which the worsening is up to 45%. Discussion  Hypotheses about the selection efficiencies of the source-separated collected materials and about the substitution ratio have a great influence on the LCA results. Consequently, policy makers have to be aware of the fact that the impacts of an integrated MSW management system are highly dependent on the assumptions made in the modelling of the material recovery, as well as in the modelling of the energy recovery. Conclusions  LCA allows to evaluate the impacts of integrated systems and how these impacts change when the assumptions made during the modelling of the different single parts of the system are modified. Due to the significant impacts that hypotheses about material recovery have in the results, they should be expressed in a very transparent way in the report of LCA studies, together with the assumptions made about energy recovery. Recommendations and perspectives  The results suggest that the hypotheses about the value of the substitution ratio are very important, and the case of wood should therefore be better analysed and a substitution ratio of 1:<1 should be used, as for paper and plastic. It seems that the assumptions made about which material is replaced by the recycled one are very important too, and in this sense, more research is needed about what the recycled plastic may effectively substitute, in particular the polyolefin mix.     

A Decision Support Framework for Sustainable Waste Management

This article describes a decision support framework for the evaluation of scenarios for the integrated management of municipal solid waste within a local government area (LGA).
The work is initially focused on local government (i.e., municipal councils) in the state of Queensland, Australia; however, it is broadly applicable to LGAs anywhere. The goal is to achieve sustainable waste management practices by balancing global and regional environmental impacts, social impacts at the local community level, and economic impacts. The framework integrates life-cycle assessment (LCA) with other environmental, social, and economic tools. For this study, social and economic impacts are assumed to be similar across developed countries of the world. LCA was streamlined at both the life-cycle inventory and life-cycle impact assessment stages.
For this process, spatial resolution is introduced into the LCA process to account for impacts occurring at the local and regional levels. This has been done by considering social impacts on the local community and by use of a regional procedure for LCA data for emissions to the environment that may have impacts at the regional level.
The integration follows the structured approach of the pressure-state-response (PSR) model suggested by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). This PSR model has been extended to encompass nonenvironmental issues and to guide the process of applying multiple tools.
The framework primarily focuses on decision analysis and interpretation processes. Multiattribute utility theory (MAUT) is used to assist with the integration of qualitative and quantitative information. MAUT provides a well-structured approach to information assessment and facilitates objective, transparent decisions. A commercially available decision analysis software package based on MAUT has been used as the platform for the framework developed in this study.     

Allocation for cascade recycling system

Allocation in LCA is defined as partitioning the responsibility for environmental burdens from the economic activities to a reference flow or a reference life cycle system in some proper shares. The result of LCA study involving a multi-input/output system or an open loop recycling system is affected significantly by the choice of the allocation method. For the case of allocation in a cascade recycling system, the quality of material as well as the material flow should be considered. Therefore, environmental burdens from the primary material production, the recycling process and the waste management process have to be allocated in proportion to the quality degradation of a material and to the quantity of a material used in each life cycle system. This paper proposes an allocation method for the cascade recycling system that considers both quality and quantity of a material used.     

LCA application to integrated waste management planning in Gipuzkoa (Spain)

Goal, Scope and Background  Gipuzkoa is a department of the Vasque Country (Spain) with a population of about 700,000 people. By the year 2000 approximately 85% of municipal solid waste in this area was managed by landfilling, and only 15% was recycled. Due to environmental law restrictions and landfill capacity being on its limit, a planning process was initiated by the authorities. LCA was used, from an environmental point of view, to assess 7 possible scenarios arising from the draft Plan for the 2016 time horizon. Main Features  In each scenario, 9 waste flows are analysed: rest waste, paper and cardboard, glass containers, light packaging, organic-green waste, as well as industrial/commercial wood, metals and plastics, and wastewater sludge. Waste treatments range from recycling to energy recovery and landfilling. Results  Recycling of the waste flows separated at the source (paper and cardboard, glass, light packaging, organic-green waste, wood packaging, metals and plastics) results in net environmental benefits caused by the substitution of primary materials, except in water consumption. These benefits are common to the 7 different scenarios analysed. However, some inefficiencies are detected, mainly the energy consumption in collection and transport of low density materials, and water consumption in plastic recycling. The remaining flows, mixed waste and wastewater sludge, are the ones causing the major environmental impacts, by means of incineration, landfilling of partially stabilised organic material, as well as thermal drying of sludge. With the characterisation results, none of the seven scenarios can be clearly identified as the most preferable, although, due to the high recycling rates expected by the Plan, net environmental benefits are achieved in 9 out of 10 impact categories in all scenarios when integrated waste management is assessed (the sum of the 9 flows of waste). Finally, there are no relevant differences between scenarios concerning the number of treatment plants considered. Nevertheless, only the effects on transportation impacts were assessed in the LCA, since the plant construction stage was excluded from the system boundaries. Conclusions  The results of the study show the environmental importance of material recycling in waste management, although the recycling schemes assessed can be improved in some aspects. It is also important to highlight the environmental impact of incineration and landfilling of waste, as well as thermal drying of sludge using fossil fuels. One of the main findings of applying LCA to integrated waste management in Gipuzkoa is the fact that the benefits of high recycling rates can compensate for the impacts of mixed waste and wastewater sludge. Recommendations and Outlook  Although none of the scenarios can be clearly identified as the one having the best environmental performance, the authorities in Gipuzkoa now have objective information about the future scenarios, and a multidisciplinary panel could be formed in order to weight the impacts if necessary. In our opinion, LCA was successfully applied in Gipuzkoa as an environmental tool for decision making.     

Overcoming barriers to the broader implementation of life cycle thinking in business and public administration

Preamble. It is the Purpose of this Corner to serve as an information and communication channel as well as a discussion forum between science and policy in general, as well as between research and management, in business and public administration with regard to goods and services (products). It is the aim of this Corner to improve awareness of, and to help more effectively implement, life cycle thinking in all stages of decision making in business and public administration. This Corner ‘EU Life Cycle Policy and Support’ appears regularly. Contributions are invited and uninvited articles, as well as discussion comments from the LCA community. They outline practical experiences, information on new regulations, directives and other policy instruments, as well as important theoretical considerations. This first edition of the Corner provides, for discussion, a broad commentary on our underlying thoughts and ideas. This builds on ideas presented in e.g. the business context in the Life Cycle Management special edition (Int J LCA Special Issue 1, 2007), as well as recent policy developments in the European Union. This editorial is illustrated with example references related to each issue that were recently published in the journal (see [1–11]). Dr. David W. Pennington is responsible for the Environmental Assessment of Waste and the Sustainable Management of Natural Resources (ENSURE) in the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC), based at the Institute for Environment and Sustainability in Ispra, Italy. ENSURE complements conventional methods for waste and resource management with the development of recommended approaches, indicators, reference data, and case studies that facilitate life cycle thinking in European business and public administrations. The ENSURE team, consisting of about 15 staffs, provides independent support through computer simulations, modelling, expert workshops, and state-of-the-art laboratories. The responsibilities include the implementation of the European Platform on LCA, which is developing the Reference European Life Cycle Data System (ELCD) and associated Technical Guidance Documents. The team has successfully conducted a series of international workshops and carried out pilot studies with Member States in relation to Life Cycle Thinking and Waste Management. Activities now include the development of European Life-Cycle Guidelines for Waste Management, and the broader development of Life Cycle-based Sustainability Indicators.     

Application of LCA as a decision-making tool for waste management systems

Aim, Scope and Background  When materials are recycled they are made available for use for several future life cycles and can therefore replace virgin material more than just once. In order to analyse the optimal waste management system for a given material, the authors have analysed the material flows in a life cycle perspective. It is important to distinguish this approach for material flow analysis for a given material from life cycle analysis of products. A product life cycle analysis analyses the product system from cradle to grave, but uses some form of allocation in order to separate the life cycle of one product from another in cases where component materials are recycled. This paper does not address allocation of burdens between different product systems, but rather focuses on methodology for decision making for waste management systems where the optimal waste management system for a given material is analysed. The focus here is the flow of the given material from cradle (raw material extraction) to grave (the material, or its inherent energy, is no longer available for use). The limitation on the number of times materials can be recycled is set by either the recycling rate, or the technical properties of the recycled material. Main Features  This article describes a mathematical geometric progression approach that can be used to expand the system boundaries and allow for recycling a given number of times. Case studies for polyethylene and paperboard are used to illustrate the importance of including these aspects when part of the Goal and Scope for the LCA study is to identify which waste management treatment options are best for a given material. The results and discussion examine the different conclusions that can be reached about which waste management option is most environmentally beneficial when the higher burdens and benefits of recycling several times are taken into account. Results  In order to assess the complete picture of the burdens and benefits arising from recycling the system boundaries must be expanded to allow for recycling many times. A mathematical geometric progression approach manages to take into account the higher burdens and benefits arising from recycling several times. If one compares different waste management systems, e.g. energy recovery with recycling, without expanding the system to include the complete effects of material recycling one can reach a different conclusion about which waste management option is preferred. Conclusions  When the purpose of the study is to compare different waste management options, it is important that the system boundaries are expanded in order to include several recycling loops where this is a physical reality. The equations given in this article can be used to include these recycling loops. The error introduced by not expanding the system boundaries can be significant. This error can be large enough to change the conclusions of a comparative study, such that material recycling followed by incineration is a much better option than waste incineration directly. Recommendations and Outlook  When comparing waste management solutions, where material recycling is a feasible option, it is important to include the relevant number of recycling loops to ensure that the benefits of material recycling are not underestimated. The methodology presented in this article should be used in future comparative studies for strategic decision-making for waste management. The approach should not be used for LCAs for product systems without due care, as this could lead to double counting of the benefits of recycling (depending on the goal and scope of the analysis). For materials where the material cycle is more of a closed loop and one cannot truly say that recycled materials replace virgin materials, a more sophisticated approach will be required, taking into account the fact that recycled materials will only replace a certain proportion of virgin materials.     

Developing a systematic framework for consistent allocation in LCA

Purpose

Multifunctionality in life-cycle assessment (LCA) is solved with allocation, for which many different procedures are available. Lack of sufficient guidance and difficulties to identify the correct allocation approach cause a large number of combinations of methods to exist in scientific literature. This paper reviews allocation procedures for recycling situations, with the aim to identify a systematic approach to apply allocation.

Methods

Assumptions and definitions for the most important terms related to multifunctionality and recycling in LCA are given. The most relevant allocation procedures are identified from literature. These procedures are expressed in mathematical formulas and schemes and arranged in a systematic framework based on the underlying objectives and assumptions of the procedures.

Results and discussion

If the LCA goal asks for an attributional approach, multifunctionality can be solved by applying system expansion—i.e. including the co-functions in the functional unit—or partitioning. The cut-off approach is a form of partitioning, attributing all the impacts to the functional unit. If the LCA goal asks for a consequential approach, substitution is applied, for which three methods are identified: the end-of-life recycling method and the waste mining method, which are combined in the 50/50 method. We propose to merge these methods in a new formula: the market price-based substitution method. The inclusion of economic values and maintaining a strict separation between attributional and consequential LCA are considered to increase realism and consistency of the LCA method.

Conclusions and perspectives

We identified the most pertinent allocation procedures—for recycling as well as co-production and energy recovery—and expressed them in mathematical formulas and schemes. Based on the underlying objectives of the allocation procedures, we positioned them in a systematic and consistent framework, relating the procedures to the LCA goal definition and an attributional or consequential approach. We identified a new substitution method that replaces the three existing methods in consequential LCA. Further research should test the validity of the systematic framework and the market price-based substitution method by means of case studies.

     

Input-Output Analysis of Waste Management

A new scheme of hybrid life-cycle assessment (LCA) termed the waste input-output (WIO) model is presented that ex-plicitly takes into account the interdependence between the flow of goods and waste. The WIO model has two distin-guishing features. First, it expands the Leontief environmental input-output (EIO) model with respect to waste flows. It turns out that the EIO model is a special case of the WIO model in which there is a strict one-to-one correspondence between waste types and treatment methods. By relaxing this condition, the WIO model provides a general framework for LCA of waste management. Second, the WIO model takes into account the "dynamics of waste treatment", which refers to the fact that the input-output relationships of waste treatment are significantly affected by the level and composition of waste feedstock, by incorporating an engineering process model of waste treatment. Because waste treatment is expected to accept whatever waste is generated by industry and households, a proper consideration of this feature is vital for LCA of waste management. We estimated a WIO table for Japan and applied it to evaluating effects of alternative waste management poli-cies with regard to regional concentration of incineration and the sorting of waste with regard to flammability. We found that concentrating treatment in a small number of large incin-erators combined with an increased degree of sorting could decrease both landfill consumption and the emission of carbon dioxide.     

The application of life cycle assessment to public policy development

Purpose

Despite the potential value it offers, integration of life cycle assessment (LCA) into the development of environmental public policy has been limited. This paper researches potential barriers that may be limiting the use of LCA in public policy development, and considers process opportunities to increase this application.

Methods

Research presented in this paper is primarily derived from reviews of existing literature and case studies, as well as interviews with key public policy officials with LCA experience. Direct experience of the author in LCA projects with public policy elements has also contributed to approaches and conclusions.

Results and discussion

LCAs have historically been applied within a rational framework, with experts conducting the analysis and presenting results to decision-makers for application to public policy development. This segmented approach has resulted in limited incorporation of LCA results or even a broader approach of life cycle thinking within the public policy development process. Barriers that limit the application of LCA within the public policy development process range from lack of technical knowledge and LCA understanding on the part of policy makers, to a lack of trust in LCA process and results. Many of the identified barriers suggest that the failure of LCAs to contribute positively to public policy development is due to the process within which the LCA is being incorporated, rather than technical problems in the LCA itself. Overcoming the barriers to effective use of LCAs in public policy development will require a more normative approach to the LCA process that incorporates a broad group of stakeholders at all stages of the assessment. Specifically, a set of recommendations have been developed to produce a more inclusive and effective process.

Conclusions

In an effort to effectively incorporate LCA within the overall public policy decision-making process, the decision-making process should incorporate a multi-disciplinary approach that includes a range of stakeholders and public policy decision-makers in a collaborative process. One of the most important aspects of incorporating LCA into public policy decisions is to encourage life cycle thinking among policy makers. Considering the life cycle implications will result in more informed and thoughtful decisions, even if a full LCA is not undertaken.

     

Life Cycle Perspectives to Achieve Business Benefits: From Concept to Technique

The purpose of this paper is to describe how one pollution prevention tool, life-cycle assessment, can be used to identify and manage environmental issues associated with product systems. Specifically, this paper will describe what life-cycle assessment is, determine the key players in its development and application, and present ideas on how life-cycle assessment can be used today. LCA provides a systematic means to broaden the perspective of a company's decisionmaking process to incorporate the consideration of energy and material use, transportation, post-customer use, and disposal, and the environmental releases associated with the product system. LCA provides a framework to achieve a better understanding of the trade-offs associated with specific change in a product, package, or process. This understanding lays the foundation for subsequent risk assessments and risk management efforts by decision-makers.     

Guidance for Improving Life-Cycle Design and Management of Milk Packaging

Life-cycle inventory and cost-analysis tools applied to milk packaging offer guidelines for achieving better environmental design and management of these systems. Life-cycle solid waste, energy, and costs were analyzed for seven systems including single-use and refillable glass bottles, single-use and refillable high-density polyethylene (HDPE) bottles, paperboard gable-top cartons, linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE) flexible pouches, and polycarbonate refillable bottles on a basis of 1,000 gal of milk delivered. In addition, performance requirements were also investigated that highlighted potential barriers and trade-offs for environmentally preferable alternatives. Sensitivity analyses, indicated that material production energy, postconsumer solid waste, and empty container costs were key parameters for predicting life-cycle burdens and costs. Recent trends in recycling rates, tipping fees, and recycled materials market value had minimal effect on the results. Inventory model results for life-cycle solid waste and energy indicated the same rank order as results from previously published life-cycle inventory studies of container systems.
Refillable HDPE and polycarbonate, and the flexible pouch were identified as the most environmentally preferable with respect to life-cycle energy and solid waste. The greater market penetration of these containers may be limited by performance issues such as empty container storage, handling requirements, and deposit fees for refillables, and resealability and puncture resistance for the pouch.