Comparative life cycle assessment of two landfill technologies for the treatment of municipal solid waste

Abstract

Goal and Scope

The potential environmental impacts associated with two landfill technologies for the treatment of municipal solid waste (MSW), the engineered landfill and the bioreactor landfill, were assessed using the life cycle assessment (LCA) tool. The system boundaries were expanded to include an external energy production function since the landfill gas collected from the bioreactor landfill can be energetically valorized into either electricity or heat; the functional unit was then defined as the stabilization of 600 000 tonnes of MSW and the production of 2.56x10⁸ MJ of electricity and 7.81x10⁸ MJ of heat.

Methods

Only the life cycle stages that presented differences between the two compared options were considered in the study. The four life cycle stages considered in the study cover the landfill cell construction, the daily and closure operations, the leachate and landfill gas associated emissions and the external energy production. The temporal boundary corresponded to the stabilization of the waste and was represented by the time to produce 95% of the calculated landfill gas volume. The potential impacts were evaluated using the EDIP97 method, stopping after the characterization step.

Results and Discussion

The inventory phase of the LCA showed that the engineered landfill uses 26% more natural resources and generates 81% more solid wastes throughout its life cycle than the bioreactor landfill. The evaluated impacts, essentially associated with the external energy production and the landfill gas related emissions, are on average 91% higher for the engineered landfill, since for this option 1) no energy is recovered from the landfill gas and 2) more landfill gas is released untreated after the end of the post-closure monitoring period. The valorization of the landfill gas to electricity or heat showed similar environmental profiles (1% more raw materials and 7% more solid waste for the heat option but 13% more impacts for the electricity option).

Conclusion and Recommendations

The methodological choices made during this study, e.g. simplification of the systems by the exclusion of the identical life cycle stages, limit the use of the results to the comparison of the two considered options. The validity of this comparison could however be improved if the systems were placed in the larger context of municipal solid waste management and include activities such as recycling, composting and incineration.