This mapping reveals information on the selection criteria applied by practitioners, and also the perception of credibility of LCIA methods by LCA practice. Additionally, the time of conducting the study is important as newly developed methods (such as ReCiPe; Goedkoop et al. 2009) are absent from Fig. 35.11 showing historical data, although they might be more widely used today. This information also needs to be put to perspective regarding the impact coverage CML EDIP EI99/EI95 IMPACT EPS TRACI CED Others / None Unspecified Proportions of studies (%) 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Fig. 35.11 LCIA methods used. Some studies used more than one LCIA method; all have been included here. Category “Others” includes the use of specific models, which are not considered as whole LCIA methods, e.g. IPCC (2007)


analysed in the previous chapter. The selection of a complete LCIA method does not guarantee its proper implementation as many cases demonstrate that some of the impact categories in the methods were omitted. This implies in most cases a reduced credibility of the LCA results (unless the omission is well justified and in line with the goal and scope of the study), despite the use of a well-established LCIA method. Within the LCIA phase, normalisation and weighting steps are an option when appropriate. Performing these steps or not, is strongly associated with the choice of LCIA method and the normalisation and weighting frameworks these recommend. Most of the reviewed studies are concluded at the characterisation step, while 46% perform normalisation and 26% weighting. The majority of these cases perform weighting because of the choice of the Ecoindicator 99 LCIA method which is a damage-oriented method, offering its own weighting scheme (Goedkoop and Spriensma 2001)

35 LCA of Solid Waste Management Systems

Hauschild et al., LCA: Theory and Practice


With respect to weighting, a particular case arises when examining the impacts of long-term emissions from landfills. As mentioned before, this case poses particular challenges in an LCA framework when trying to characterise this type of emissions. Another aspect of this case is related to weighting, as some impacts from landfilling might occur in many millennia from waste deposition and might be weighted differently by some stakeholders. So far, there is no widespread weighting method for addressing time-differentiated impacts. Thus, this point was not addressed adequately by any of the reviewed studies. In general, there are some specific methodological considerations during the execution of an LCIA on solid waste management systems that should be given particular attention when performing a waste LCA. The first consideration refers to the handling of the biogenic carbon contained in waste material and its contribution to global warming potential


The first consideration refers to the handling of the biogenic carbon contained in waste material and its contribution to global warming potential. Biogenic carbon can be considered either neutral or as contributing to climate change, depending on the approach, but this choice needs to be consistent throughout the study. Criteria for assigning global warming emission factors to biogenic carbon have been developed in the literature (Christensen et al. 2009). Another particular consideration refers to the already mentioned issue of long-term emissions. The LCA community has not reached a consensus in the proposed impact assessment method (Bakas et al. 2015) and this causes significant confusion among practitioners. A new approach has recently been published that applies time differentiation on long-term emissions, estimating toxicity separately for distinct future time periods (Bakas et al. 2017)


A new approach has recently been published that applies time differentiation on long-term emissions, estimating toxicity separately for distinct future time periods (Bakas et al. 2017). 35.2.6 Interpretation of Results/Conclusions The interpretation phase of an LCA should present the results of the study in the context of the defined goal and scope, according to the ILCD Handbook (see also Chap. 12). Therefore, practitioners of waste LCAs should reflect on the goal and LCA of Solid Waste Management Systems


scope of the study and put their results in this perspective. The majority of the reviewed studies did not include an adequate interpretation section: instead the results were often presented out of context and only a fragmented commenting was included. Many of the LCAs performed on solid waste management systems are comparative assertions on treatment technologies for a specific waste stream or material. The review of the LCA cases revealed some trends regarding the environmental superiority of some treatment options compared to other. Based on studies selected because of their higher quality, some generic statements of the superiority of different treatment options are presented in Fig. 35.12. A central part of the interpretation is the sensitivity analysis, often accompanied by uncertainty analysis (see Chaps. 11 and 12). Sensitivity analysis is used for evaluating the dependence of the LCA results on input data, modelling choices and hypothesis made


11 and 12). Sensitivity analysis is used for evaluating the dependence of the LCA results on input data, modelling choices and hypothesis made. Although, there are many methods for performing sensitivity analysis, in LCAs applied to solid waste systems, a scenario analysis is often used. Scenario analyses are based on constructing an alternative scenario to the main one, which includes a different assumption or data input. In the reviewed studies, many Fig. 35.12 Comparative analysis of key findings for selected waste treatment technologies applied to paper, plastic, organic and mixed waste fractions (total of 34 studies). The nodes “R” stand for recycling, “L” for landfilling, “T” for thermal treatment, “C” for composting, “AD” for anaerobic digestion. For each pair comparison, three circled numbers are indicated, representing the number of studies concluding on the better environmental performance (i.e


For each pair comparison, three circled numbers are indicated, representing the number of studies concluding on the better environmental performance (i.e. lower overall environmental impact) of one waste treatment technology over another (numbers closer to each of the two nodes), or reaching either inconclusive results or results with similar environmental burden (numbers in the middle). The size of the circles is proportional to the number of studies


different aspects of a waste system were processed in sensitivity analyses, as Fig. 35.13 shows. Preferred elements to include in sensitivity analyses are collection and transport. 35.3 Central Issues to Consider When Performing or Using Data from LCA Studies on Waste Management Systems The analysis above provides the necessary background for identifying methodological issues of particular importance when conducting an LCA of waste management options. These issues are identified due to their importance in ensuring credibility of the LCA results and also the frequency by which researchers fail to address them properly. As a general recommendation, in Table 35.1 the main methodological issues are presented along with proposed solutions and recommendations. The specific methodological challenges for waste LCAs comprise aspects like the differentiation in system boundaries, the zero-burden convention and specific capital goods


The specific methodological challenges for waste LCAs comprise aspects like the differentiation in system boundaries, the zero-burden convention and specific capital goods. The particularities of waste LCAs also include the product system itself, which typically consists of more local installations and smaller geographical dispersion. Specific modelling issues also arise in waste LCAs: the inclusion of biogenic carbon in the modelling, which arises in many waste streams; also, the inclusion of long-term emissions when landfilling waste, which modifies the perception of temporal boundaries one needs to consider in the LCA. Collection and transport Energy system Substitution of materials Technology modelling Waste composition Landfill / leaching Energy recovery Emission modelling assumptions Source separation Choice of LCIA method Weighting Others Number of studies Fig. 35.13 Issues covered in sensitivity analysis (total of 101 studies)


35.13 Issues covered in sensitivity analysis (total of 101 studies). The category “Others” (25 studies) includes carbon accounting methods (6), inclusion of secondary materials (4), allocation rules (4), accounting of waste containers (3), time horizon in impact assessment (3), testing of other treatments (2), choice of databases (2) and normalisation (1) LCA of Solid Waste Management Systems


Table 35.1 Key methodological issues and proposed solutions for application of LCA on solid waste management systems Methodological and consistency issues Proposed solutions/recommendations Goal Absence of intended use, target audience and limitations of use Follow ISO recommendations Consistency among goal elements Check consistency among goal elements iteratively Scope Elements of functional unit definition missing Define the functional unit comprehensively. Functional unit not to be confused with reference flow Lack of transparency in choices around the LCI Ensure transparency and assess the choices in terms of uncertainty Fragmented description of system boundaries, especially in relation to capital goods and waste transportation Document assumptions pertaining the definition of system boundaries Impact coverage lacking comprehensiveness and representativeness Follow the selected LCIA method’s recommendation for a comprehensive set of impact categories


If an impact category is excluded, justification should be provided Insufficient justification of modelling choices (e.g. allocation) and assumptions (e.g. data types used) Key choices and assumptions, vital for the LCA results, should be transparently documented Consistency with the defined goal Define scope elements within the context of the goal. Revise goal if necessary to ensure consistency LCI (incl


Revise goal if necessary to ensure consistency LCI (incl. modelling) Lack of geographical and temporal data representativeness Further data and information need to be collected to ensure a sufficient data representativeness Lack of data representing areas other than Europe and North America More efforts for data collection from other parts of the world than Europe and North America Lack of documentation of data collection processes Explain thoroughly how and why data sources are used (literature, databases, etc.) Distinction between fore- and background data sources missing and sources misused Describe and assess the consequences of using background data for the foreground system if necessary Lack of data on long-term emissions Consensus on how to deal with long-term emissions needed Use of non waste-specific LCA software The use of waste-specific LCA software facilitates the more accurate waste system’s modelling (continued)


35.4 Sources/Links to Access Information on LCA Applied to Solid Waste Management Systems Table 35.2 presents a non-exhaustive list of sources for obtaining data, software tools and methodological guidance on LCA applied on solid waste management systems. 35.5 Concluding Remarks This chapter attempts to provide guidance and recommendations in specific issues that differentiate waste LCAs from normal product LCAs. Due to these particularities, waste LCA has developed into its own sub-field encompassing its own sub-definitions of LCA elements, dedicated databases and software. Legislators, through for example the official endorsement of the waste hierarchy in Europe, have acknowledged the importance of LCA in operating as a reliable tool for providing credible information to decision-makers. Waste generation is increasing globally, while new emerging waste streams appear for the first time (e.g. nanomaterials or composite plastics)


Waste generation is increasing globally, while new emerging waste streams appear for the first time (e.g. nanomaterials or composite plastics). The assessment of the environmental Table 35.1 (continued) Methodological and consistency issues Proposed solutions/recommendations LCIA Missing impact categories (e.g


occupational) The exclusion of the results in specific impact categories should be avoided or, if unavoidable, documented Modelling of impacts from long-term emissions missing Assess the consequences of omitting the effects of long-term emissions Normalisation and weighting Describe and justify where modelling stops (characterisation, normalisation, weighting) Interpretation Interpretation step often missing altogether Interpretation of results is vital to putting results in context and should always be addressed Superficial analysis of impact potentials Refer to contribution analyses at substance and process level, identify hotspots and recommend improvement potential Frequent absence of sensitivity analysis and sensitivity checks Conduct sensitivity checks on most relevant processes and use the results in interpretation Negative impacts obtained from the disposal stage can mislead interpretations of LCA studies Relate results to goal and system boundaries selection LCA of Solid


and use the results in interpretation Negative impacts obtained from the disposal stage can mislead interpretations of LCA studies Relate results to goal and system boundaries selection LCA of Solid Waste Management Systems


implications of the management of new waste streams or of emerging treatment technologies, will remain an important topic in the future. The new challenges bring also new methodological challenges to waste LCA practitioners with respect to environmentally sound treatment of new waste materials or new technologies. On the other hand, old debates still remain unresolved, such as the proper allocation procedure and the handling of long-term emissions. In any case, practitioners are encouraged to address all methodological challenges, present in waste LCAs, by following best practice examples and applying transparency. Appendix: Reviewed Studies See Table 35.3


Appendix: Reviewed Studies See Table 35.3. Table 35.2 Key sources for information and tools addressing LCA applied on solid waste management systems Sources Short description Used for EU-JRC (2011) Guidance document on application of LCA on SWMS Guidance in conducting waste LCAs Cleary (2009) Review of methodological issues from applying LCA on SWMS Better understanding of methodological challenges in LCA and waste management Christensen (2011) Description of technologies used in SWMS Obtain knowledge on SWMS http://www. wrate.co.uk/ Presentation of a waste LCA dedicated software Modelling SWMS in an LCA context https:// www.epa. gov/warm Presentation of the US EPA waste software, including a life cycle approach to greenhouse gas emission estimation Modelling SWMS, combined with LCA elements Gentil et al


gov/warm Presentation of the US EPA waste software, including a life cycle approach to greenhouse gas emission estimation Modelling SWMS, combined with LCA elements Gentil et al. (2010) Review of nine software tools applying LCA on SMWS Collecting information on dedicated waste LCA software Doka (2009) Information on the ecoinvent inventories for SWMS Waste LCA inventories


Table 35.3 Essential elements of reviewed studies of LCA applied on solid waste management systems References/sources (short; details to be provided in spreadsheet ‘LCA studies list’) Technology assessed Type of waste (e.g. only organic waste included in study) Impact coverage (e.g. GW only) (use glossary in first spreadsheet) Geographical coverage LCIA method used Abduli et al. (2011) L, C MSW GW, ODP, ET, O IR Eco-indicator Abeliotis et al. (2012) L MSW RD, GW, AC, EU, HT, PO GR CML 2 Al Maaded et al. (2012) L, R Mixed plastic waste GW, AP, ADP, HTP QA NS Al-Salem et al. (2009) L, I, B MSW GW, AP, EU KW NS Andersen et al. (2012) C, I, L Organic household waste GW, PO, EU, AC, AET, TET, HT, O DK EDIP 1997 Arena et al. (2003) I, L Residual waste GW, AC, EN, LW, WA IT NA Arena et al. (2003) L, I, R PE/PET containers GW, RD, LW, O IT NA Assamoi et al. (2012) L, I Residual waste GW, AC, EU, O CA NA Assefa et al. (2005a) I, B, T Biodegradable waste GW, EN SE NS Assefa et al


(2003) L, I, R PE/PET containers GW, RD, LW, O IT NA Assamoi et al. (2012) L, I Residual waste GW, AC, EU, O CA NA Assefa et al. (2005a) I, B, T Biodegradable waste GW, EN SE NS Assefa et al. (2005b) T, I, L Industrial waste GW, AC, EU, EN, EI, PO SE NS Aye and Widjaya (2006) Int Market waste GW, AC, EU, PO ID NS Banar et al. (2009) Int MSW RD, GW, AC, EU, HT, PO, EI TR CML 2000 Beccali et al. (2001) Int MSW GW, AC, EU, HT, TET, AET, EN, LW IT NA Beigl and Salhofer (2004) Int MSW GW, AC, EN AT NA Bergsdal et al. (2005) I Municipal, commercial and special waste GW, AC, EU, PO, TET, AET, EI, O NO CML 2 Bernstad et al. (2011) I, C, B OFMSW GW, AP, EP, ODP, POP SE EDIP 1997 Bernstad et al. (2011) R MSW GW, AP, EP, ODP, POP SE EDIP 1997 Bernstad et al. (2012) COl Food waste GW, AC, EU, EN SE EDIP2003 (continued) LCA of Solid Waste Management Systems


Table 35.3 (continued) References/sources (short; details to be provided in spreadsheet ‘LCA studies list’) Technology assessed Type of waste (e.g. only organic waste included in study) Impact coverage (e.g. GW only) (use glossary in first spreadsheet) Geographical coverage LCIA method used Bientinesi and Petarca (2009) Int WEEE HT, GW, OD, ET, AC, O NA Ecoindicator 99, Impact 2002+ Bigum et al. (2012) R high-grade WEEE GW, AC, NE, POF, HT, ET NR EDIP 1997 Birgisdottir et al. (2007) L, R MSWI bottom ash GW, PO, EU, EC, HT, AET, TET, RD, O DK EDIP 1997 Bjorklund and Finnveden (2007) Int All waste EN, GW, OD, PO, AC, EU, AET, TET, HT SE CML 2000 Björklund et al. (1999) Int Non-hazardous MSW, park and yard waste, sewage sludge and industrial biodegradable wastes GW, AC, EU, PO, O SE NA Blenghini et al. (2012) Int MSW GW, EN, RD IT IPCC Blenghini et al


(1999) Int Non-hazardous MSW, park and yard waste, sewage sludge and industrial biodegradable wastes GW, AC, EU, PO, O SE NA Blenghini et al. (2012) Int MSW GW, EN, RD IT IPCC Blenghini et al. (2012) Int Residual waste GW, EN, RD IT IPCC Blengini and Garbarino (2010) R C&DW HT, IR, OD, PO, AET, TET, AC, EU, GW, EN, LU, O IT IMPACT 2002+, Ecoindicator Blengini et al. (2008b) B, C, L OFMSW GW, AC, NE, POF, EU IT NS Blengini et al. (2008a) C, L OFMSW GW, OD, AC, PO, EU, EN IT SEMC 2000, EcoIndicator Boldrin et al. (2010) L, C Organic kitchen waste GW, AC, EU, PO, AET, TET, HT, O DK EDIP 1997 (continued)


Table 35.3 (continued) References/sources (short; details to be provided in spreadsheet ‘LCA studies list’) Technology assessed Type of waste (e.g. only organic waste included in study) Impact coverage (e.g. GW only) (use glossary in first spreadsheet) Geographical coverage LCIA method used Boldrin et al. (2011) I, C Garden waste GW, PO, EU, AC, AET, TET, HT DK EDIP 1997 Boughton et al. (2006) L, I, R Shredder residue GW, AC, EU, PO, HT, AET, TET US CML Bovea et al. (2010) Int NA AC, EU, OD, GW, PO ES CML Bovea and Powell (2006) Int MSW GW, ADP, ODP, POF, AP, EP ES CML 2001 Brambilla-Pisoni et al. (2009) Int MSW GW, OD, AC, EU, AET, TET, HT, PM, RD, LU IT Ecoindicator 99, CML2, EPS2000 Briffaerts et al. (2009) R Waste batteries GW, AC, EU, AET, TET, HT, PM, RD, LU BE Ecoindicator Buttol et al. (2007) Int MSW GW, AC, EU, RD, TET, ET, AET, HT IT IPCC, CML, USES 2.0 Cabaraban et al. (2008) C, L MSW GW, AC, EU, PO, AET, HT, EN US Ecoindicator 95, IPCC Cadena et al


(2007) Int MSW GW, AC, EU, RD, TET, ET, AET, HT IT IPCC, CML, USES 2.0 Cabaraban et al. (2008) C, L MSW GW, AC, EU, PO, AET, HT, EN US Ecoindicator 95, IPCC Cadena et al. (2009) C OFMSW GW, OD, AC, EU, PO, HT ES NA Carballa et al. (2011) B Kitchen waste and sewage sludge ADP, GW, EP, HTP, ETP NR NS Carlsson-Reich (2005) Int MSW GW, AC, EU, PO, EI, O SE NS Chaya and Gheewala (2006) I, L, B MSW GW, AC, EU, OD, PO, EN, O TH Ecoindicator Chen et al. (2011a) R, I Plastics waste GW, O CN IPCC (2006) (continued) LCA of Solid Waste Management Systems


Table 35.3 (continued) References/sources (short; details to be provided in spreadsheet ‘LCA studies list’) Technology assessed Type of waste (e.g. only organic waste included in study) Impact coverage (e.g. GW only) (use glossary in first spreadsheet) Geographical coverage LCIA method used Chen and Christensen (2010) I MSW GW, AC, PO, EU, HT, AET, LW, O CN EDIP 1997 Chen et al. (2011b) R Iron and steel production wastes GW, EU CN NS Cherubini et al. (2008) L, I, B MSW EN, GW, AC, EU, O IT NS Cherubini et al. (2009) L, B, I, R MSW EN, NR IT NA Chevalier et al. (2003) I NA GW, AC, HT, AET, RD, O FR IPCC 1995, CML 2000 Ciacci et al. (2010) L, R, I Automobile shredder residue (ASR) GW, OD, AC, EU, AET, TET, HT, PM, RD, LU IT EcoIndicator Ciroth et al. (2002a, b) I MSW GW, AC, EU, PO, OD, HT, O DE,CH,ES EcoIndicator Clauzade et al. (2010) and Lecouls et al. (2010) I, R, L Tyres GW, AC, PO, EU, RD, WA, EN, LW FR NA Coelho and de Brito (2012) L, R C&DW GW, AC, O PT NA Colón et al


(2010) and Lecouls et al. (2010) I, R, L Tyres GW, AC, PO, EU, RD, WA, EN, LW FR NA Coelho and de Brito (2012) L, R C&DW GW, AC, O PT NA Colón et al. (2012) Int OFMSW GW, AC, PO, EU, HT, ADP, OD. ES CML 2001 Colon et al. (2010) C Left-overs of raw fruit and vegetables and pruning wastes RD, AC, EU, GW, OD, PO, EN ES CML 2001 Consonni et al. (2005) I Residual MSW GW, HT, AC, PO, EI, O IT CML 2001 Cook et al. (2012) L, I Unused pharmaceuticals (hazardous waste) GW, OD, AC, EU, PO, HT, AET, TET, PM US TRACI Corti and Lombardi (2004) Int Tyres GW, OD, AC, EU, PO, EN, O IT Ecoindicator (continued)


Table 35.3 (continued) References/sources (short; details to be provided in spreadsheet ‘LCA studies list’) Technology assessed Type of waste (e.g. only organic waste included in study) Impact coverage (e.g. GW only) (use glossary in first spreadsheet) Geographical coverage LCIA method used Craighill and Powell (1996) R, L Household waste GW, AC, O UK IPCC, NA Dahlbo et al. (2007) R, L, T, I Discarded newspaper GW, OD, AC, EU, AET, TET, HT, PM, RD, LU, WA, EI, O FI DAIA, Ecoindicator 99, EPS2000 Damgaard et al. (2011) L Household waste GW, PO, OD, AC, EU, HT, TET, AET, O DK EDIP 1997 Damgaard et al. (2010) I MSW GW, PO, AC, EU, HT, TET, AET EU NA de Feo and Malvano (2009) Int MSW EN, GW, AC, EU, O IT NA DEFRA (2006) Int Portable batteries GW, AC, EU, OD, HT, AET, TET, RD NA CML 2001 Del Borghi et al. (2007) L Urban waste GW, OD, AC, EU, PO, RD, LU, WA, LW IT NA Delgado et al


(2007) L Urban waste GW, OD, AC, EU, PO, RD, LU, WA, LW IT NA Delgado et al. (2007) R, I Plastics GW, EN EU NA Di Maria and Fantozzi (2004) L, T MSW GW, ETP, AP, EP, LU, ODP, O IT Ecoindicator Diggelman and Ham (2003) C, I, L Food waste GW, O US NA Dodbiba et al. (2008) I, R Plastic wastes from discarded TV GW, RD, AC, PO, EU, HT JP Guinée 2002 Eggels et al. (2001) Int plastic packaging GW, OD, AC, EU, RD, EN, HT, AET, PO, LW, O EU CML Emery et al. (2007) L, R, C MSW GW, OD, AC, EU, EN UK CML, WMO, IPCC Eriksson et al. (2005) I, L, B, R MSW GW, AP, EU, PO, O SE NS (continued) LCA of Solid Waste Management Systems


Table 35.3 (continued) References/sources (short; details to be provided in spreadsheet ‘LCA studies list’) Technology assessed Type of waste (e.g. only organic waste included in study) Impact coverage (e.g. GW only) (use glossary in first spreadsheet) Geographical coverage LCIA method used Fallaha et al. (2009) Int NA GW, OD, AET, TET, LU, AC, EU, EN, O NA IPCC, IMPACT2002 + Finnveden et al. (2000) I, L, R, B, C Food waste, newspaper, corrugated board, mixed cardboard, PP, PE, PS, PET, PVC EN, NEN, RD, LW, GW, OD, PO, HT, AET, TET, AC, EU, O SE EDIP, USES-LCA Fruergaard and Astrup (2011) I, T, B SRF and organic waste GW, AC, EU, PO, HT, AET, TET DK EDIP 1997 Fruergaard et al. (2010) L, T APC GW, AC, NE, POF, HT, ET DK EDIP 1997 Gamberini et al. (2010) Col WEEE GW, OD, AC, PO, HT, ET, IR, PM, RD, LU IT Ecoindicator Gentil et al. (2010) P Food waste, unsolicited mail, beverage packaging (MSW) GW, AC, AET, HT, EU, PO EU EDIP 1997 Giugliano et al


(2010) P Food waste, unsolicited mail, beverage packaging (MSW) GW, AC, AET, HT, EU, PO EU EDIP 1997 Giugliano et al. (2011) Int MSW GM, AC, HT, PO IT CML 2001 Grant et al. (2005) R C&DW GW, EN, RD, PO, EU, HT, LU, WA AU NA Grant et al. (2001) L, R All commonly recycled materials (newspaper + packaging) GW, PO, EN, WA, O AU IPCC 2000 Grant et al. (2003) Int MSW GW, RD, HT, AET, TET, PO, EU AU NA Guereca et al. (2006) L, C Biowaste GW, OD, AC, EU, PO, HT, ET, LU, WD, RD ES NA Gunamantha et al. (2012) L, I, B, T MSW GW, AC, EU, PO ID NA (continued)


Table 35.3 (continued) References/sources (short; details to be provided in spreadsheet ‘LCA studies list’) Technology assessed Type of waste (e.g. only organic waste included in study) Impact coverage (e.g. GW only) (use glossary in first spreadsheet) Geographical coverage LCIA method used Güereca et al. (2007) C, B, I, L Biowaste GW, OD, AC, PO, EU, AET, TET, HT, RD, WA, LU ES TRACI Hanandeh and El-Zein (2010) Int MSW GW, AC, O AU NA Hassan et al. (1999) L, I, C Urban waste GW, EI, LW MY IPCC Hellweg et al. (2005) L, I, T MSW O CH CML2001, Ecoindicator 99, Ecological Scarcity Hischier et al. (2005) Int WEEE ADP, GW, EP, HTP, ETP, AP CH CML Hong and Li (2012) R Paper waste Midpoint: OD, AET, TET, AC, EU, GW, EN, O. Endpoint: Human health, ecosystems quality, climate change, and abiotic resources CN IMPACT 2002+ Hong et al. (2010) L, I, C MSW Midpoint: OD, AET, TET, AC, EU, GW, EN, O


Endpoint: Human health, ecosystems quality, climate change, and abiotic resources CN IMPACT 2002+ Hong et al. (2010) L, I, C MSW Midpoint: OD, AET, TET, AC, EU, GW, EN, O. Endpoint: Human health, ecosystems quality, climate change, and abiotic resources CN IMPACT 2002+ Hong et al. (2006) C, L, I MSW GW, AC, EU CN NA Hunt (1995) L, I, C Paper and plastic wastes GW, O NA NA Iriarte et al. (2009) Col Organic, glass, paper, packaging and rest RD, GW, OD, HT, AET, TET, PO, AC, EU, EN ES CML 2000 (continued) LCA of Solid Waste Management Systems


Table 35.3 (continued) References/sources (short; details to be provided in spreadsheet ‘LCA studies list’) Technology assessed Type of waste (e.g. only organic waste included in study) Impact coverage (e.g. GW only) (use glossary in first spreadsheet) Geographical coverage LCIA method used Jenseit et al. (2003) R Plastic parts of end-of-life vehicles EN, RD, GW, AC, PO, EI, O EU Jensen 1996, IPCC, UBA, own method Johansson and Björklund (2009) R, I NA GW, ADP SE CML 2001 Kaplan et al. (2008) Int MSW GW, EU, O US NS Khoo et al. (2009) B, C, I Food waste GW, AC, EU, PO, EN SG EDIP 2003 Khoo (2009) T MSW, wood, organic waste, scrap tyres GW, AC, EU, PO SG EDIP 2003 Khoo and Tan (2010) C, I, L Plastic bags GW, AC, PO SG EDIP 2003 Kiatkittipong et al. (2009) L, B, I Bagasse waste GW, AC, EU, PO TH EDIP, UMIP Kim et al. (2009) R Waste home appliances GW, RD, OD, PO, AC, EU, EC, HT, EI KR Ecoindicator Kirkeby et al


(2009) L, B, I Bagasse waste GW, AC, EU, PO TH EDIP, UMIP Kim et al. (2009) R Waste home appliances GW, RD, OD, PO, AC, EU, EC, HT, EI KR Ecoindicator Kirkeby et al. (2006) B, I Household waste GW, AC, PO, EU, HT, AET, TET, OD DK EDIP 1997 Klang et al. (2008) L, C, I, B MSW GW, AP, EP SE NA Koci and Trecakova (2011) Int Mixed municipal waste RD, AC, EU, AET, GW, HT, OD, PO, TET CZ CML 2001 (continued)


Table 35.3 (continued) References/sources (short; details to be provided in spreadsheet ‘LCA studies list’) Technology assessed Type of waste (e.g. only organic waste included in study) Impact coverage (e.g. GW only) (use glossary in first spreadsheet) Geographical coverage LCIA method used Koneczny and Pennington (2007) L, R, I, C, B Wet biodegradable wastes, paper and cardboard, plastic, glass, iron and steel, aluminium, other Midpoint: AC, AET, TET, EU, GW, HT, EN, OD, PO, O. Endpoint: Ecosystem impacts, human well-being, economic production PL IMPACT 2002+, EDIP2003 Koroneos and Nanaki (2012) L, R, B MSW GW, RD, EN, O GR Ecoindicator Kreißig et al. (2003) R, I, L Cable waste (PVC) GW, EN, AC, EI, O EU CML Larsen et al. (2010) R Household waste GW, AC, PO, EU, HT, RD, O DK EDIP 1997 Larsen et al


(2003) R, I, L Cable waste (PVC) GW, EN, AC, EI, O EU CML Larsen et al. (2010) R Household waste GW, AC, PO, EU, HT, RD, O DK EDIP 1997 Larsen et al. (2009) Int Residual household waste, paper, glass, bulky waste GW, AC, PO, EU DK EDIP 1997 Le Borgne and Feillard (2001) L, R Bumper skin (car equipment) EN, GW, RD, AC, EU, OD NA CML, EPS, critical volumes Lee et al. (2007) L, C, B Food waste GW, HT, AC, EU, ET KR CML 2002 Lelah et al. (2011) Col Waste glass packaging GW, EN, ADP, O FR NS Li et al. (2010) R, T Tyres GW, O CN Ecoindicator Liamsanguan and Gheewala (2007) I MSW GW, PO, AC, EU TH IPCC, EDIP Liamsanguan and Gheewala (2007) L, I MSW GW, EU TH NS (continued) LCA of Solid Waste Management Systems


Table 35.3 (continued) References/sources (short; details to be provided in spreadsheet ‘LCA studies list’) Technology assessed Type of waste (e.g. only organic waste included in study) Impact coverage (e.g. GW only) (use glossary in first spreadsheet) Geographical coverage LCIA method used Lundie and Peters (2005) C, L Household food waste EN, GW, WA, HT, AET, TET, AC, EU AU Heijungs et al., 1992 Manfredi and Christensen (2009a) L Household waste GW, EU, OD, AC, PO, HT, O NA NA Manfredi et al. (2009b) L Household, industrial, healthcare, public administration, education, trade and commercial GW, EU, OD, AC, PO, HT, O FI NA Manfredi et al. (2010) L Mixed waste GW, OD, AC, EU, PO, AET, TET, HT, O NA EDIP 1997 Manfredi et al. (2011) L, I, R Organics, recyclable paper, recyclable plastic, aluminium and glass GW, OD, AC, EU, PO, HT, AET, TET DK NA Marinkovic et al. (2010) R Concrete wastes GW, AC, EU, PO, EN, RD, O RS CML 2001 Martínez-Blanco et al


(2010) R Concrete wastes GW, AC, EU, PO, EN, RD, O RS CML 2001 Martínez-Blanco et al. (2010) C OFMSW RD, AC, EU, GW, OD, PO, EN ES CML 2001 Menard et al. (2004) L MSW GW, OD, AC, EU, PO, HT, AET, TET, RD, LW NA EDIP 1997 Mendes et al. (2003) L, C, B MSW GW, AC, EU BR EDIP 1997 Mendes et al. (2004) L, I MSW GW, AC, EU BR EDIP 1997 Mercante et al. (2012) Int C&DW GW, OD, PO, AC, EU ES CML Merrild et al. (2012) I, R Household glass, plastics, paper, cardboard, steel and aluminium GW, AC, EU, PO DK EDIP 1997 Miliute and Staniskis (2009) Int MSW GW, AC, EU, PO LT NA Molgaard (1995) R, T, I, L Plastic fraction in MSW GW, OD, AC, EU, PO, LW DK NA (continued)


Table 35.3 (continued) References/sources (short; details to be provided in spreadsheet ‘LCA studies list’) Technology assessed Type of waste (e.g. only organic waste included in study) Impact coverage (e.g. GW only) (use glossary in first spreadsheet) Geographical coverage LCIA method used Morris (2005) R, L MSW GW, AC, EU, HT, ET US TRACI Morris (2005) R, L MSW GW, AC, EU, HT, ET US TRACI Morselli et al. (2005) I MSW AC, EU, GW, RD, AET, TET, HT,, PO, OD, O IT NA Morselli et al. (2008) Int MSW GW, AP, EP, HTP, OD, PO IT Ecoindicator Morselli et al. (2007) I MSW GW, OD, AC, PO, HT, ET, IR, PM, RD, LU IT EcoIndicator Muller (2011) B, C biogas digestate GW, AC, EN DE CML Munoz et al. (2004) Int Household, industrial-commercial waste GW, AC, OD, HT, EU, PO, RD, WA, EN, LW ES NR Munoz and Navia (2011) R, L Industrial waste GW, AC, EU, PO, TET, AET, HT, LU, RD, PM CL Ecoindicator 99, CML 2000 Møller et al. (2011) I MSW AC, ET DK EDIP 1997 Nakatani et al


(2011) I MSW AC, ET DK EDIP 1997 Nakatani et al. (2010) R PET bottles GW, O JP/CN NA Navia et al. (2006) R Contaminated volcalic soil GW, ODP, ET, AP, EP, LU, O ES NS Nishijima et al. (2012) R Plastic wastes GW, O JP NS Niskanen et al. (2009) L All waste GW, AC, EU, PO, OD, HT, TET, AET, O FI EDIP 1997 Noon et al. (2011) L, I, R Computer monitors GW, EN, O US NA Ortiz et al. (2010) L, R, I Construction waste GW, AC, EU, AET, TET, HT, EN, WA, O ES CML 2001 (continued) LCA of Solid Waste Management Systems


Table 35.3 (continued) References/sources (short; details to be provided in spreadsheet ‘LCA studies list’) Technology assessed Type of waste (e.g. only organic waste included in study) Impact coverage (e.g. GW only) (use glossary in first spreadsheet) Geographical coverage LCIA method used Passarini et al. (2012) Int Automotive shredder residue HT, GW, ET, AC, EU, LU, RD IT Ecoindicator Perugini et al. (2005) R, I Plastic packaging GW, WA, O IT NS Pires et al. (2011) Int MSW GW, AC, RD, EU, HT, PO PT CML 2000 Pires and Martinho (2012) Int Waste lubricant oil (WLO) GW, AD, AP, EP, HT, ET, ET, POP PT NA Pisoni (2009) Int MSW GW, OD, ET, AC, EU, ET, O IT Ecoindicator Riber et al. (2008) I MSW GW, AC, EU, PO, OD, HT, AET DK EDIP Rieradevall et al. (1997) L Household waste GW, AC, EU, HT, RD ES NS Rigamonti et al. (2009a) R, I MSW GW, HT, AC, PO IT CED, CML Rigamonti et al. (2010) Int Packaging waste, municipal biowaste and MSW CED, GW, HT, AC, PO IT CED, CML Rigamonti et al


(2009a) R, I MSW GW, HT, AC, PO IT CED, CML Rigamonti et al. (2010) Int Packaging waste, municipal biowaste and MSW CED, GW, HT, AC, PO IT CED, CML Rigamonti et al. (2009b) Int MSW GW, HT, AC, PO IT CED, CML Rivela et al. (2006) R, I Wood waste GW, HT, RO, RI, ODP, ET, EU, AC, LU, O ES NS Rives et al. (2010) Int MSW GW, AC, EU, OD, PO, HT, TET, EN, O ES CML Rodríguez-Iglesias et al. (2003) Int Residual MSW GW, AC, EU, O ES IPCC, Ecoindicador Ross and Evans (2003) R Plastics GW, PO, RD AU NA (continued)


Table 35.3 (continued) References/sources (short; details to be provided in spreadsheet ‘LCA studies list’) Technology assessed Type of waste (e.g. only organic waste included in study) Impact coverage (e.g. GW only) (use glossary in first spreadsheet) Geographical coverage LCIA method used Saft (2007) T Paint waste RD, GW, OD, PO, AET, TET, HT, AC, EU, O NL CML Salhofer et al. (2007) L, I, R Refrigerators, PE films, EPS, paper GW, OD, AC, EU, PO, HT, EN AT CML Santos Vieira and Horvath (2008) R Concrete wastes GW, EN US NS Scharnhorst et al. (2006) I, L, R Antenna rack TET, AET, OD, PO, NEN, GW, O EU IMPACT 2002+ Scipioni et al. (2009) I MSW GW, OD, AC, PO, HT, ET, IR, PM, RD, LU IT Ecoindicator Shen et al. (2010) R PET GW, AC, EU, PO, HT, AET, TET, RD, EN EU CML, IPCC Sonesson et al. (1997) C, L Organic GW, AC, EU, PO,OD, EN SE CML Sonesson et al


(2010) R PET GW, AC, EU, PO, HT, AET, TET, RD, EN EU CML, IPCC Sonesson et al. (1997) C, L Organic GW, AC, EU, PO,OD, EN SE CML Sonesson et al. (2000) Int Organic GW, AC, EU, PO, RD, EN, EI SE NA Stichnote and Schuchardt (2010) C, B Empty fruit bunches (EFB) and palm oil mill effluent (POME) RD, AC, EU, AET, GW, HT, OD, PO, TET ID CML 2001 Tabata et al. (2010) Col MSW GW, AC, O JP IPCC, NEDO Tan et al. (2006) Int MSW GW, AC, ET, RD SG NA Tarantini et al. (2009) Int MSW GW, AP, EP, ET, HT, POP, EN IT NA Toller et al. (2009) R, L Wood ash, MSWI bottom ash NR SE NR Tonini et al. (2012) I, R, T, B Residual MSW GW, AC, EU, AET, HT DK EDIP 1997 Tukker (1999) I, T Hazardous waste HT, GW, OD, PO, AC, EU, LW, EN, O NL CML Tunesi (2011) I, T MSW GW, AC, AD UK NA (continued) LCA of Solid Waste Management Systems


Table 35.3 (continued) References/sources (short; details to be provided in spreadsheet ‘LCA studies list’) Technology assessed Type of waste (e.g. only organic waste included in study) Impact coverage (e.g. GW only) (use glossary in first spreadsheet) Geographical coverage LCIA method used Turconi et al. (2011) I Residual MSW GW, AC, EU, PO, ET, HT IT/DK EDIP 1997 Van-Haaren et al. (2010) C Yard wastes GW, AC, EU, O US Ecoindicator Welsh Assembly Gvt (2003) Int C&D, industrial, commercial, municipal waste GW, OD, AC, EU, HT, RD UK CML, IPCC, WMO Wenisch et al. (2004) I Household waste GW, AC, HT, RD, WA, LW FR NA Werner et al. (2007) R, I Creosote-treated beech-wood railway sleeper GW, AC, OD, PO, EU, HT, TET, AET, RD CH CML Winkler et al. (2007) L, I, R Household waste GW, HT, AC DE CML Wollny et al. (2002) I, R, T Mixed plastic waste packaging GW, AC, EN, EI DE NA WRAP (2008) L, I, R Mixed waste plastic GW, OD, AC, EU, PO, HT, RD, LW, EN UK CML 2002 Wäger et al


(2002) I, R, T Mixed plastic waste packaging GW, AC, EN, EI DE NA WRAP (2008) L, I, R Mixed waste plastic GW, OD, AC, EU, PO, HT, RD, LW, EN UK CML 2002 Wäger et al. (2011) R, I, L WEEE GW, AC, EU, PO, OD, ARD, ET, HT CH CML 2002, Ecoindicator Yi et al. (2011) L, R, I, B MSW Midpoint: GW, OD, RD, HT, AC, EU, PO, O Endpoint: human health, social assets, biodiversity and primary production KR NA Zaman (2010) I, L, T MSW GW, AP, EP, ABD, ODP, HT, ET, POP SE CML (continued)


Table 35.3 (continued) References/sources (short; details to be provided in spreadsheet ‘LCA studies list’) Technology assessed Type of waste (e.g. only organic waste included in study) Impact coverage (e.g. GW only) (use glossary in first spreadsheet) Geographical coverage LCIA method used Zhang et al. (1999) I, R PCB and plastics contained in dismantled non-nuclear components GW, AC, OD, EU, PO, HT, AET, TET, EI, O US EDIP 1997 Zhao et al. (2009a) Int MSW GW, AC, EU, PO, OD CN EDIP 1997 Zhao et al. (2012) Int MSW GW, AC, EU, PO, OD CN EDIP 1997 Zhao et al. (2009b) I Medical waste RD, GW, OD, HT, AET, TET, PO, AC, EU NA CML 1999 Özeler et al. (2006) Int MSW GW, AP, EP, HTP, CED TR NS The studies on sewage sludges are excluded from the table as the focus is on solid waste management systems LCA of Solid Waste Management Systems


Bakas, I., Hauschild, M.Z., Astrup, T.F., Rosenbaum, R.K.: Preparing the ground for an operational handling of long-term emissions in LCA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 20, 1444–1455 (2015) Bakas, I., Hauschild, M.Z., Rosenbaum, R.K., Astrup, T.F., McKone, T.E.: Assessing Terrestrial Ecotoxicity Impacts of Long-Term Metal Emissions from Landfills in LCA—An Operational Methodology. Submitted to IJLCA (2017) Christensen, T.H., Gentil, E., Boldrin, A., Larsen, A., Weidema, B.: Hauschild M (2009) C balance, carbon dioxide emissions and global warming potentials in LCA-modelling of waste management systems. Waste Manag. Res. 27, 707–715 (2009) Christensen, T.H.: Solid Waste Technology & Management. Blackwell Publishing Ltd., Chichester (2011) Clavreul, J., Baumeister, H., Christensen, T.H., Damgaard, A.: An environmental assessment system for environmental technologies. Environ. Model Softw


Blackwell Publishing Ltd., Chichester (2011) Clavreul, J., Baumeister, H., Christensen, T.H., Damgaard, A.: An environmental assessment system for environmental technologies. Environ. Model Softw. 60(2014), 18–30 (2014) Cleary, J.: Life cycle assessments of municipal solid waste management systems: a comparative analysis of selected peer-reviewed literature. Environ. Int. 35, 1256–1266 (2009) (Coelho, A., de Brito, J., 2) Doka, G.: Life Cycle Inventories of Waste Management Treatment Services. Ecoinvent report No. 13. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, St. Gallen (2009) Ekvall, T., Assefa, G., Bjorklund, A., Eriksson, O., Finnveden, G.: What life-cycle assessment does and does not do in assessments of waste management. Waste Manage. 27, 989–996 (2007) EC-JRC: European Commission—Joint Research Centre—Institute for Environment and Sustainability: International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook - General guide for Life Cycle Assessment—Detailed guidance


First edition March 2010. EUR 24708 EN. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg (2010a) EC-JRC: European Commission—Joint Research Centre—Institute for Environment and Sustainability: International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook— Framework and requirements for LCIA models and indicators. First edition March 2010. EUR 24586 EN. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg (2010b) EC-JRC: European Commission—Joint Research Centre—Institute for Environment and Sustainability: Supporting Environmentally Sound Decisions for Waste Management—A Technical Guide to Life Cycle Thinking (LCT) and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) for Waste Experts and LCA Practitioners. EUR 24916 EN. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg (2011) European Environment Agency: Waste Prevention in Europe—The Status in 2013


EUR 24916 EN. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg (2011) European Environment Agency: Waste Prevention in Europe—The Status in 2013. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg (2014) Gala, A.B., Raugei, M., Fullana-i-Palmer, P.: Introducing a new method for calculating the environmental credits of end-of-life material recovery in attributional LCA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 20, 645–654 (2015). doi:10.1007/s11367-015-0861-3 Gentil, E., Damgaard, A., Hauschild, M., Finnveden, G., Barlaz, M., Thorneloe, S., Kaplan, P.O., Eriksson, O., Matsui, Y., Ii, R., Thomas, B., Jones, R., Christensen, T.H.: Models for waste life cycle assessment: review of technical assumptions. Waste Manag. 30, 2636–2648 (2010) Goedkoop, M., Heijungs, R., Huijbregts, M., De Schryver, A., Struijs, J., van Zelm, R.: ReCiPe 2008; a life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level—report I: characterisation. Minist


Minist. van VROM, Den Haag (2009) Goedkoop, M., Spriensma, R.: The Eco-indicator 99; a damage oriented method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment—Methodology Report. PRé Consult. Amersfoort, Netherlands (2001) Hauschild, M., Olsen, S.I., Hansen, E., Schmidt, A.: Gone...but not away—addressing the problem of long-term impacts from landfills in LCA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 13, 547–554 (2008). doi:10.1007/s11367-008-0039-3


Hischier, R., Weidema, B., Althaus, H.-J., Bauer, C., Doka, G., Dones, R., Frischknecht, R., Hellweg, S., Humbert, S., Jungbluth, N., Köllner, T., Loerincik, Y., Margni, M., Nemecek, T.: Implementation of Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods; Ecoinvent Report No. 3, v2.2. Swiss Cent. Life Cycle Invent, Dübend (2010) Hoornweg, D., Bhada-Tata, P.: What a Waste—A Global Review of Solid Waste Management. World Bank, Washington DC (2012) ISO: Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Requirements and Guidelines (ISO 14044). ISO, The International Organization for Standardization, Geneva (2006) Karak, T., Bhagat, R.M., Bhattacharyya, P.: Municipal solid waste generation, composition, and management: the World Scenario. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42, 1509–1630 (2012) Laurent, A., Bakas, I., Clavreul, J., Bernstad, A., Niero, M., Gentil, E., Hauschild, M.Z., Christensen, T.H.: Review of LCA studies of solid waste management systems—part I: lessons learned and perspectives


Waste Manag. 34(2014), 573–588 (2014a) Laurent, A., Clavreul, J., Bernstad, A., Bakas, I., Niero, M., Gentil, E., Christensen, T.H., Hauschild, M.Z.: Review of LCA studies of solid waste management systems—part II: methodological guidance for a better practice. Waste Manag. 34(2014), 589–606 (2014b) Niero, M., Negrelli, A.J., Boas, S.H., Olsen, S.I., Birkved, M.: Closing the loop for aluminium cans: life cycle assessment of progression in Cradle-to-Cradle certification levels. J. Clean. Prod. 126, 352–362 (2016) Schrijvers, D.L., Loubet, P., Sonnemann, G.: Developing a systematic framework for consistent allocation in LCA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. (2016). doi:10.1007/s11367-016-1063-3 Author Biographies Ioannis Bakas LCA expert focusing on environmental impacts from solid waste management systems. Developed method for accounting long-term emissions from landfilling. Interested in LCA modelling of soil emissions, integrated waste systems’ evaluation and policy assessments


Developed method for accounting long-term emissions from landfilling. Interested in LCA modelling of soil emissions, integrated waste systems’ evaluation and policy assessments. Alexis Laurent working with LCA since 2010 with a strong LCIA focus, particularly on normalisation aspects. Main LCA interests include development of LCIA methods, LCA applications and footprinting of large-scale systems for policy-making (e.g. nations, sectors), and LCA applied to various technology domains, including energy systems. Julie Clavreul LCA expert since the early 2010s. Her background is with a focus on the modelling and life cycle assessment of waste management systems and the analysis of uncertainties. Interest in the EU environmental footprint methodology. Anna Bernstad Saraiva has been working with environmental engineering since 2008. Has done Post-doctoral studies on LCA of biorefinery processes and biomaterials


Anna Bernstad Saraiva has been working with environmental engineering since 2008. Has done Post-doctoral studies on LCA of biorefinery processes and biomaterials. Research focus is on solid waste management, co-treatment of household waste flows, sustainable materials and chemicals and sustainable urban development. Monia Niero background as chemical engineer, LCA expert since late 2000s. Involved in several LCA industrial projects. Main areas of expertise are LCI modelling and LCM in waste management, packaging and agri-food sectors. Interested in developing decision support tools for circular economy implementation at product and organization levels. Emmanuel Gentil has been working in life cycle thinking, related to waste management systems since 1999, where he was involved in the development of a life cycle assessment software. LCA of Solid Waste Management Systems


Research focus and consultancy services on life cycle assessment for waste management policy for the European Commission. Teaching LCA for American undergraduates studying abroad in Denmark. Michael Z. Hauschild involved in development of LCIA methodology since the early 1990s. Has led several SETAC and UNEP/SETAC working groups and participated in the development of the ISO standards and the ILCD methodological guidelines. Main LCA interests are chemical impacts, spatial differentiation and science-based boundaries in LCIA.


Chapter 36 LCA of Soil and Groundwater Remediation Gitte Lemming Søndergaard and Mikołaj Owsianiak Abstract Today, there is increasing interest in applying LCA to support decision-makers in contaminated site management. In this chapter, we introduce remediation technologies and associated environmental impacts, present an overview of literature findings on LCA applied to remediation technologies and present methodological issues to consider when conducting LCAs within the area. Within the field of contaminated site remediation, a terminology distinguishing three types of environmental impacts: primary, secondary and tertiary, is often applied. Primary impacts are the site-related impacts due to the contamination in the ground, secondary impacts are the impacts related to clean-up of the site, and tertiary impacts are the impacts associated with the future use of the site


The major methodological issues to consider when conducting LCA are: (i) defining a functional unit that considers time frame and efficiency of remediation, which are important for assessment or primary impacts; (ii) robust assessment of primary impacts using site-specific fate and exposure models; (iii) weighting of primary and secondary (or tertiary) impacts to evaluate trade-offs between life cycle impacts from remediation and reduced pressure locally; and (iv) comparison with a no action scenario to determine whether there is a net environmental benefit from remediation. Overall, LCA is an important tool for the assessment of the secondary environmental impacts of remediation, and occasionally it has also been used to assess primary and tertiary impacts


Overall, LCA is an important tool for the assessment of the secondary environmental impacts of remediation, and occasionally it has also been used to assess primary and tertiary impacts. In order to obtain robust decisions for the management of contaminated sites, the combination of LCA with other tools is necessary, including multi-criteria decision analysis tools, site-specific fate and exposure models and consideration of stakeholders’ views. G.L. Søndergaard (&) Department of Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, 2800 Kongens Lyngby, Denmark e-mail: gile@env.dtu.dk M. Owsianiak Division for Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, 2800 Kongens Lyngby, Denmark © Springer International Publishing AG 2018 M.Z. Hauschild et al. (eds.), Life Cycle Assessment, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-56475-3_36


36.1 Many sites around the world require clean-up due to the risk they pose to humans and ecosystems. It was estimated that in the US, a total of 300,000 sites will need clean-up during the next 35 years (US EPA 2004). In the EU member states, out of nearly 3 million sites with potentially polluting activities approximately 250,000 sites require clean-up (EEA 2007). Remediation technologies have been and are continuously being developed, but the main focus has thus far been put on technological aspects, such as design and optimisation of a technology for the contaminant of interest. Environmental impacts associated with remediation of contaminated sites activities are rarely evaluated, and only recently life cycle based approaches were considered as tools to support decision on the choice of a remediation technology among available alternatives


In this chapter, we introduce remediation technologies and associated environmental impacts, present an overview of literature findings on LCA applied to remediation technologies and present methodological issues to consider when conducting LCAs. We focus mainly on environmental life cycle impacts from remediation of contaminated soil and groundwater, but due to the similarity in the nature of the problems, we also include studies concerning remediation of contaminated sediments, sludge and wetlands. 36.1.1 Remediation Technologies Remediation technologies can be divided into in situ and ex situ technologies respectively, depending on where the remediation takes place (Collaran 1997; US EPA 2000). In situ remediation technologies target the contamination in the subsurface, i.e. without extracting or excavating contaminated soil or groundwater


In situ remediation technologies target the contamination in the subsurface, i.e. without extracting or excavating contaminated soil or groundwater. Examples of technologies that can be used in situ are bioremediation, chemical degradation (oxidation or reduction), phytoremediation, thermally enhanced remediation and permeable reactive barriers. Some in situ remediation methods (thermal remediation and soil vapour extraction) require a treatment system for extracted vapours and are therefore not strict in situ methods. Ex situ remediation technologies involve the excavation of contaminated soil or extraction of contaminated groundwater followed by a treatment either on-site, e.g. in biopiles or an on-site groundwater treatment unit, or the soil can be transported to an off-site treatment facility. Ex situ remediation technologies cover biological, chemical and thermal remediation methods


Ex situ remediation technologies cover biological, chemical and thermal remediation methods. Moreover, containment methods exist, which are remediation methods that seek to establish a barrier to immobilise contaminants and cut off the exposure routes instead of removing the contamination source. Surface capping and barrier installations, e.g. sheet piling, as well as placement in secured landfills are examples of containment methods. While ex situ remediation G.L. Søndergaard and M. Owsianiak


technologies or containment methods were traditionally applied at contaminated sites, in situ remediation technologies were developed as alternatives that required less intrusion at the site and less disturbance of site residents and neighbours. However, in situ remediation causes a lower level of nuisance during the remediation it may have a longer timeframe and a higher uncertainty related to reaching the remedial clean-up target (Caliman et al. 2011). Out of all ca. 2400 remediation projects applied in the US Superfund programme in years 1982–2008 (US EPA 2010), most (nearly 800) technologies was applied to ex situ groundwater treatment (pump-and-treat). There were nearly 600 projects on ex situ source control (dominated by solidification/stabilisation, with smaller contribution of incineration, thermal desorption and bioremediation). In situ source control technologies (ca


In situ source control technologies (ca. 540 projects) were dominated by soil vapour extraction, followed by a smaller number of projects that used bioremediation. Bioremediation, however, was the most frequently used methods for in situ groundwater treatment (in total 350 projects) followed by air sparging and chemical treatment. 36.1.2 Environmental Impacts from Remediation Technologies Within the field of contaminated site remediation, a terminology distinguishing three types of environmental impacts, primary, secondary and tertiary, is often applied (Lesage et al. 2007a; Sparrevik et al. 2011). The primary impacts are the environmental impacts caused by the on-site contamination and cover human toxicity and ecotoxicity impacts due to the potential exposure via soil, groundwater and air. The primary impacts will most often be local in nature and may be difficult to assess with existing generic LCIA methodologies because these impacts are strictly site-specific (Lesage et al


The primary impacts will most often be local in nature and may be difficult to assess with existing generic LCIA methodologies because these impacts are strictly site-specific (Lesage et al. 2007a; Lemming et al. 2010c). Secondary impacts are the environmental impacts associated with the intervention at the site, i.e. the remediation technology. The remediation of the site may for example include heavy machinery work on-site such as excavation and drilling, the use of materials for installations, e.g. polymers, steel and concrete as well as activated carbon for water or air treatment. In addition, electricity is often applied at the site for pumping, heating or injection. Moreover, transportation of soil, equipment and personnel can be a significant activity. All of these remediation activities cause environmental impacts both at the local, regional and global scale due to the emissions taking place in many geographical locations. Lesage et al


All of these remediation activities cause environmental impacts both at the local, regional and global scale due to the emissions taking place in many geographical locations. Lesage et al. (2007a, b) took a consequential LCA approach (see Sect. 8.5.3) and introduced the term ‘tertiary impacts’ to account for the environmental impacts related to the fate of a brownfield site after the treatment. The future use of a site will depend on the state in which it is left after the remediation. If the exposure risk is not sufficiently reduced, it may not be possible later to use the site for residential/commercial LCA of Soil and Groundwater Remediation


purposes. Consequently, suburban greenfield may need to be developed depending on the local situation and demand for new land. The environmental impacts related to the development of greenfield is covered in the tertiary impacts in the study by Lesage et al. (2007a, b). 36.2 Literature Review Table 36.2 in the Appendix gives an overview of existing LCA studies regarding remediation of contaminated sites, including the covered technologies and contaminants, types of impacts assessed (primary, secondary, tertiary), definition of the functional unit, time boundary for remediation and a main result or conclusion. Among the main findings from earlier reviews on this topic by Lemming et al


Among the main findings from earlier reviews on this topic by Lemming et al. (2010a) and Morais and Delerue-Matos (2010), covering all studies published until 2009, were that the majority of the LCA studies dealt with ex situ remediation methods and soil contaminants (mainly metals and hydrocarbons), while only few studies dealt with in situ remediation of groundwater and common contaminants (such as chlorinated ethenes). Furthermore, their reviews identified a need for more site-specific assessment of primary impacts as the existing LCIA models do not take the groundwater compartment into account and will only provide a crude assessment of primary impacts due to the generic nature of the models. Here, we present recent trends in application of LCA to remediation technologies, corroborating the two earlier reviews and an earlier viewpoint article on this topic published by Owsianiak et al


Here, we present recent trends in application of LCA to remediation technologies, corroborating the two earlier reviews and an earlier viewpoint article on this topic published by Owsianiak et al. (2013), by including more studies, followed by recommendation for better and consistent use of LCA-based methods in the future. 36.2.1 Contaminants and Technologies Assessed in LCA Studies The majority of studies on LCA applied to remediation technologies for contaminated sites deal with soil remediation, with excavation combined with treatment and/or disposal the most investigated technology, followed by bioremediation. A significant number of studies deal with groundwater remediation, where mainly pump-and-treat or permeable reactive barriers (PRB) technologies are in scope. Interestingly, two studies that focus on remediation of contaminated sediment and wetland have recently been published, whereas one study compared bioremediation methods for contaminated sludge at a lab-scale


Most studies cover technologies that are well established and have already found field-scale applications. An exception is the recent paper by Lubrecht (2012), who analysed the performance of horizontal directional drilling (HDD), a relatively new drilling technique that can be used as an alternative to traditional vertical wells used for groundwater treatment. G.L. Søndergaard and M. Owsianiak


On the other hand, some of the relatively widely applied technologies have only been assessed a few times in a life cycle perspective, if at all (Fig. 36.1a). In addition, most studies focus on recognised contaminants, such as metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), hydrocarbon mixtures or polychlorinated biphenyls. However, there is an increase in number of studies dealing with chlorinated hydrocarbons. Pesticides or nutrients were rarely a scope of the study, while no studies deal with emerging threats such as pharmaceuticals or nanomaterials. These trends may reflect limited availability of data needed to carry out an LCA for emerging technologies and emerging contaminants, both on the life cycle inventory and impact assessment sides


These trends may reflect limited availability of data needed to carry out an LCA for emerging technologies and emerging contaminants, both on the life cycle inventory and impact assessment sides. This is supported by the fact that heavy metals, petroleum hydrocarbons and PAHs are the main contaminants found in soil, whereas petroleum hydrocarbons and chlorinated solvents are the main groundwater contaminants (EEA 2007), and these are also the most frequently studied compounds in LCA literature (Fig. 36.1b). The lag between the occurrence of pollutants in the environment and their occurrence in case studies indicates that achieving environmental sustainability goals for remediation of emerging contaminants and technologies can be challenged. Even if inventories are made for the relevant remediation processes, characterisation factors (CFs) for some pollutants may not be available (see Chap. 10)


Even if inventories are made for the relevant remediation processes, characterisation factors (CFs) for some pollutants may not be available (see Chap. 10). 36.2.2 Impact Assessment Methods Employed in LCA Studies Out of 32 studies, 15 evaluated primary impacts (in addition to secondary impacts), while only two studies (Lesage et al. 2007a, b; Hou et al. 2014b) evaluated all three (a) (b) Fig. 36.1 Correlation between number of applications of remediation technologies and number of remediation technologies assessed in reviewed LCA studies (a); and percentage contribution of types of contaminants assessed in LCA studies in years 1999–2012 (b) LCA of Soil and Groundwater Remediation


types of impacts. While earlier studies often covered both primary and secondary impacts, the recent ones, with few exceptions, focus solely on secondary impacts. This can be considered as a drawback that may bias a comparison, as it has been demonstrated that primary impacts can contribute substantially to human health impact categories (Lemming et al. 2010c, 2012) and their inclusion in the assessment can change the comparative ranking among alternatives (Sparrevik et al. 2011). Comparing to the earlier reviews by Lemming et al. (2010a) and Morais and Delerue-Matos (2010), a few observations can be made with respect to methodology employed in the assessment. While papers published in the 90s and in the following decade were expected to report the use of earlier impact assessment methods, such as EDIP97, TRACI or IMPACT2002+, these methodologies are still being widely employed today. More recent methodologies such as ReCiPe or USEtox are occasionally used


More recent methodologies such as ReCiPe or USEtox are occasionally used. Overall, there is an increasing number of studies which use LCA-based assessment tools, or link full LCAs with other assessment tools to support decisions. For example, Evans and Wilkie et al. (2010) assessed the performance of nutrient remediation, focusing on balance between bioenergy produced and consumed, and fossil fuel energy expenditures avoided and consumed by the remediation process (the so called net energy balance ratio, NEBR). They showed net energy benefits when biomass was used for biogas production or compost production. In addition, both utilisation pathways showed monetary benefits, as calculated using a benefit–cost ratio (BCR) life cycle-based analysis. Cappuyns et al. (2011) used LCA-based risk reduction, environmental merit and costs (REC) and demonstrated that in situ thermal treatment of soil has lower global environmental impacts than soil excavation and off-site treatment


They also concluded that non-LCA-based assessment tools such as best available technology not entailing excessive costs (BATNEEC) analysis could be used as a primary screening among remediation alternatives, followed by a full LCA for selected technologies. Inoue and Katayama (2011) compared the performance of life cycle costing (LCC) (see Chap. 15) and economic input–output LCA (see Chap. 14) with a rescue number for soil (RNSOIL) representing the risk reduction obtained using each remediation technology, and demonstrated that different rankings appear between the remediation options depending on whether the ranking was based on the risk–cost, the risk–energy consumption or the risk–CO2 emission scale. Sparrevik et al. (2012) have developed a method that integrates risk assessment (RA), LCA, and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) into a common framework for decision support, and demonstrated its applicability to selection of the best sediment management alternative. Hou et al


Hou et al. (2014a) showed how life cycle impacts of remediation depend on site conditions and proposed a framework to select the most environmentally sustainable technology under various site conditions. A recent study (Beames et al. 2015) included land use in their impact assessment. In addition to land use related to production, they added the land use occupation as a consequence of remediation reflecting the duration of the different remediation techniques. Hybrid LCA (see Chap. 14) was used in one of the studies (Hou et al. 2014b). The hybrid LCA was built on the UK 123 sector national input– output table, which includes environmental and socio-economic data. The study G.L. Søndergaard and M. Owsianiak


claims that the use of hybrid LCA reduced the truncation errors and gave more complete system boundary than a process-based LCA. In some cases the assessment is limited to energy demand and/or CO2 emissions (Witters et al. 2012). For example, Lubrecht (2012), employed the SiteWise method (based on summing up GHG, NOx, SOx and PM10 emissions, arriving at four types of impact scores) to compare two groundwater remediation alternatives. The comparison, showed only modest reduction in included substances, which was sufficient for the author to claim the technology was sustainable, even though no definition of the functional unit was provided (the comparison was based on target depth of the plume only), system boundaries were not clearly defined, and only few impact categories were considered


We note that analyses of this kind have little in common with LCA, at least according to requirements presented in ISO standards or other authoritative guidelines (ISO 2006a, b; ILCD 2010), and should not be used to draw any conclusions about better or worse environmental performance of one remediation technology over other. 36.2.3 Main Drivers of Environmental Impacts Our results tend to confirm earlier observations (Lemming et al. 2010a) that the main processes contributing to secondary impacts are on-site electricity/energy use for thermal remediation, as well as steel use for on-site installations. For ex situ remediation involving excavation and transport of the contaminated soil, the transportation processes also contribute significantly to secondary impacts, especially in cases where a remotely located site is remediated (Sanscartier et al. 2010). Beames et al. (2015) focused on land use impacts in their study of in situ versus ex situ methods


2010). Beames et al. (2015) focused on land use impacts in their study of in situ versus ex situ methods. The study demonstrated that there is a trade-off between energy use and land use in remediation. Energy-intensive methods such as excavation will use a high amount of energy, but will occupy the contaminated land for a shorter period, resulting in lower impacts on land use. On the other hand, less energy-intensive methods will have longer timeframes and therefore higher impact on land use. Agents used in chemical oxidation typically generate high impacts due to the large requirements for production and transportation of the chemical, which is applied in very large quantities (Cadotte et al. 2007; Lemming et al. 2012). On the other hand, bioremediation technologies are the most favourable among remediation alternatives. However, Lemming et al


2007; Lemming et al. 2012). On the other hand, bioremediation technologies are the most favourable among remediation alternatives. However, Lemming et al. (2010c, 2012) demonstrated that enhanced bioremediation of chlorinated ethenes can have very long duration (several decades) in low-permeability media and that the higher toxicity of chlorinated intermediates can potentially lead to a larger primary toxic impact to the groundwater aquifer than if no remediation was initiated (Lemming et al. 2012). These findings highlight the need for employing site-specific fate and exposure models for assessment of primary impacts. LCA of Soil and Groundwater Remediation


Phytoremediation of soil or wetlands appears to be an attractive remediation alternative, particularly when combined with energy recovery combustion of the biomass (Evans and Wilkie 2010; Witters et al. 2012; Vigil et al. 2015). In these cases, the environmental benefits were mainly associated with reduced CO2 emissions. Similarly, the use of biomass-derived activated carbon for sediment capping was shown to perform better than other capping materials especially due to the CO2 sequestration effect when this material is added to the seafloor (Sparrevik et al. 2011). Some of the recent studies that compared bioremediation alternatives focus on use of different substrates or electron donors. For example, lab-scale analysis has shown that methanol was the best alternative among electron donors in anaerobic dechlorination of pentachloroaniline (PCA), and that the environmental burden was reduced when the concentration of electron donors were reduced (Hong and Li 2012)


Extrapolation of these results to field-scale applications has not been addressed by the authors, but Lemming et al. (2010c) have also noted that substrate demand for enhanced reductive dechlorination was an important contributor to global warming. 36.3 Specific Methodological Issues Our earlier analysis of studies on LCA applied to remediation technologies (including all the studies published until 2012 presented in Appendix, Table 36.2), showed an increasing frequency of examples with serious methodological problems compared to requirements in ISO standards or authoritative guidelines (ISO 2006a, b; JRC 2010; Owsianiak et al. 2013). Here, we present methodological issues that need to be considered when conducting LCA-based comparison of remediation alternatives. 36.3.1 Issues in Goal and Scope Definition In comparative assessments, remediation alternatives must be compared based on a function they provide, that is clean-up of a contaminated site


36.3.1 Issues in Goal and Scope Definition In comparative assessments, remediation alternatives must be compared based on a function they provide, that is clean-up of a contaminated site. Even for the same site, there are many means by which the function can be fulfilled, depending on the type of the technology. It is often the case that the two performance parameters, i.e. remediation efficiency and remediation time frame, differ considerably between technologies. For example, monitored natural attenuation often takes more time and sometimes does not allow reaching clean-up levels that can be obtained using faster, invasive methods. Notably, these two parameters are often used by remediation practitioners as arguments for choosing a technology to clean-up a site (if there are no economic constraints). LCA practitioners however, are met with challenges because the functional unit should consider both the efficiency and time horizon aspects


LCA practitioners however, are met with challenges because the functional unit should consider both the efficiency and time horizon aspects. The inclusion of performance parameters in the definition of the functional G.L. Søndergaard and M. Owsianiak


unit is important because they directly decide on the magnitude of primary impacts. We, thus, recommend defining a functional unit that only includes remediation efficiency, and subsequently determine time frames for each compared option. Alternatively, a functional unit can only include time frame for remediation and then option-specific efficiencies can be determined. Only in very rare cases when both performance parameters are the same, the function is the same and the alternatives can be compared without specifying efficiency and time horizon in the functional unit definition. Appendix Table 36.2 shows that there is little consideration of time and efficiency of remediation when defining the functional unit. In many studies, the functional unit (clearly defined in 26 out of all 32 studies), is based on the treatment of a certain volume or mass, without considering the performance aspects. This is an incorrect definition and a source of potential bias


This is an incorrect definition and a source of potential bias. Its magnitude will depend on the contribution of primary impacts to total impacts in the remediation life cycle. To qualify the timeframe prediction for long-term remediation scenarios (and for better assessment of primary impacts, as will be discussed later) site-specific, remediation performance models should be employed. If these models are not available and little is known about performance of a technology from a practical side, remediation alternatives can still be compared if they all provide an acceptable minimum level of remediation efficiency; for example: (i) reduction of contaminant mass to 99% of its initial value, or (ii) reduction of contaminant concentration to the level posing no risk. Note however, that even a small difference in remediation efficiency between two techniques that both satisfy the no risk level criterion can cause a difference in primary impacts that may influence the comparison


This aspect is particularly important when the difference in remediation time frames between two alternatives is large. If such is the case, uncertainty scenarios about remediation efficiency and/or time frame should be considered when conducting an LCA and interpreting results. 36.3.2 Issues in Life Cycle Inventory Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) compiles all relevant environmental exchanges to and from the assessed remediation system during its lifecycle, i.e. energy and material inputs and outputs (Chap. 9). The majority of the reviewed studies made use of commercially available LCI databases, such as ecoinvent (Frischknecht et al. 2007) and the US LCI databases (NREL et al. 2004) to model inventories, depending on the location of the project. The use of these generic databases was sometimes combined with additional data collection for remediation-specific processes not included in the databases, e.g


The use of these generic databases was sometimes combined with additional data collection for remediation-specific processes not included in the databases, e.g. production of activated carbon, chemical analyses and production of specific remedial soil amendments. These technology-specific processes must be included in the assessment if they are shown or expected to be important contributors to secondary impacts. According to the ILCD requirements (JRC 2010), attributional LCA is recommended for micro-level decision support (decision context-situation A) related to LCA of Soil and Groundwater Remediation


specific products and for accounting purposes, i.e. descriptive documentation of a system, assuming average technological conditions (Sect. 8.5). Situation A assumes that remediation activity will not result in structural changes in the analysed system. Consequential LCA is recommended by ILCD for decision support on the meso or macro scale related to the strategic level, e.g. raw material strategies, technology scenarios, and policy options (decision context-situation B) (see Sect. 7.5). Remediation projects fall somewhere between the micro scale and the meso scale, depending on the size of the project. Both attributional and consequential approaches can, therefore, be argued for. Our review shows that all studies, except Lesage et al. (2007a, b) who conducted a consequential LCA, take an attributional approach to inventory modelling. Lesage et al


Our review shows that all studies, except Lesage et al. (2007a, b) who conducted a consequential LCA, take an attributional approach to inventory modelling. Lesage et al. demonstrated how the consequential approach and inclusion of tertiary impacts influences LCA results; a brownfield rehabilitation scenario was favoured over the risk minimisation scenario due to the need for the development of suburban residential sites if the brownfield site was not remediated sufficiently for rehabilitation. The main driver of tertiary impacts from the development of suburban sites was the increased person car transport from the suburban areas during the 40-year timeframe of the analysis. 36.3.3 Issues in Life Cycle Impact Assessment In the Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) phase the emissions and resource consumption collected in the LCI are translated to environmental impacts using LCIA models (Chap. 10)


10). Below, methodological issues regarding assessment of primary, secondary and tertiary impacts are discussed. Table 36.1 shows the applied impact assessment methods. While a large part of the earlier studies (before 2010) included the assessment of both primary and secondary impacts of site remediation, the newer studies generally focus on the secondary impacts with a few exceptions (Lemming et al. 2010b, c, 2012; Sparrevik et al. 2011; Hou et al. 2014b). This is a drawback as primary impacts can contribute substantially to human health impact categories and their inclusion in the assessment can change the comparative ranking among remediation alternatives. The reason for not including primary impacts may be that their quantification is not straight forward


The reason for not including primary impacts may be that their quantification is not straight forward. Assessing the primary impacts most often requires site-specific fate and exposure models, while existing toxicity models, which are well suited to generic LCIA, employ generalised box models and exposure scenarios that in many cases are not representative of the specific conditions at the contaminated site. Furthermore, deep soil layers and the groundwater compartment are usually disregarded in the generic models, which make it questionable to use them for sites where groundwater contamination is the main concern. Earlier studies used the generic LCIA toxicity models for the evaluation of primary impacts, whereas newer studies (Lemming et al. 2010c, 2012; Sparrevik G.L. Søndergaard and M. Owsianiak


Table 36.1 LCIA methodologies used in LCA studies applied to remediation technologies Reference Life cycle impact assessment Comment Midpoint Endpoint Diamond et al. (1999) X Page et al. (1999) x Volkwein et al. (1999) X ScanRail Consult et al. (2000) x (EDIP97) Vignes (2001) LCIA based on pollution factors for each emission relative to the limit value for each emission Ribbenhed et al. (2002) x (USES-LCA + other) Blanc et al. (2004) Intentionally terminated at inventory level Godin et al. (2004) x (EDIP97) Toffoletto et al. (2005) x (EDIP97) Bayer and Finkel (2006) X Cadotte et al. (2007) x (TRACI) Lesage et al. (2007a, b) x (IMPACT2002+) Higgins and Olson (2009) x (TRACI) Lemming et al. (2010b) x (EDIP97) Lemming et al. (2010c) x (EDIP2003 + USEtox) Evans and Wilkie (2010) Study uses only on net energy balance ratio (NEBR) and benefit– cost ratio (BCR) Sanscartier et al. (2010) x (IMPACT2002+) Cappuyns et al


(2010c) x (EDIP2003 + USEtox) Evans and Wilkie (2010) Study uses only on net energy balance ratio (NEBR) and benefit– cost ratio (BCR) Sanscartier et al. (2010) x (IMPACT2002+) Cappuyns et al. (2011) LCA-based REC (risk reduction, environmental merit and costs) (continued) LCA of Soil and Groundwater Remediation


Table 36.1 (continued) Reference Life cycle impact assessment Comment Midpoint Endpoint Hu et al. (2010) x (IMPACT 2002 + + IPCC + Ecoindicator 99) x (IMPACT 2002 +) Inoue and Katayama (2011) Energy consumption and CO2 emissions determined applying economic input–output LCA Mak and Lo (2011) x (TRACI) Sparrevik et al. (2011) x (ReCiPe) Suer and Andersson-Sköld (2011) x (EPD) x (ReCiPe) Busset et al. (2012) x (CML2001) Hong and Li (2012) x (IMPACT 2002+) x (IMPACT 2002 +) Lubrecht (2012) SiteWise method— emission summed up and expressed as mass (GHG, NOx, SOx, PM10) Witters et al. (2012) “Analysis is limited to the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CO2” Lemming et al. (2012) X (EDIP2003 + USEtox) Hou et al. (2014a) x (TRACI) Hou et al. (2014b) x (ReCiPe) Beames et al. (2015) x (ReCiPe) Includes modification to the land use impact Vigil et al. (2015) x (ReCiPe) G.L. Søndergaard and M. Owsianiak


et al. 2011) included site-specific fate and exposure models. As none of the existing LCIA toxicity models takes formation of metabolites into account, these should also be addressed using site-specific models. Alternatively, metabolites can be included in life cycle inventory and characterised in the LCIA phase. Again, attention must be paid to representativeness of the (generic) CF to site conditions which are often far from the average situation conditions, for which CF are developed. Overall, we recommend using site-specific models to quantify primary impacts. Of the reviewed LCA studies of site remediation published before 2010, all except Lesage et al. (2007b) applied midpoint characterisation models (Chap. 10). Within the recent 5-year period, endpoint characterisation has gained a larger application and was used in seven studies published after 2010


10). Within the recent 5-year period, endpoint characterisation has gained a larger application and was used in seven studies published after 2010. Midpoint characterisation models are probably sufficient to assess environmental impacts, given that no endpoint characterisation approaches are mature enough to be recommended by ILCD (Hauschild et al. 2013). A number of studies applied simplified methodologies, focusing either solely on the global warming impact (Inoue and Katayama 2011; Witters et al. 2012) and/or the energy use (Inoue and Katayama 2011; Evans and Wilkie 2010) or using one of the simplified screening tools REC (Cappuyns et al. 2011) or Sitewise (Lubrecht 2012). The REC tool (Beinat et al 1997) focuses mainly on energy-related impacts combined with some local impacts (water use, soil quality), but exclude material manufacturing from the inventory. The SiteWise tool (NAVFAC et al


The SiteWise tool (NAVFAC et al. 2011) only employs an actual impact assessment for the global warming impact, whereas emissions of NOx, SOx and PM10 are not characterised, but only presented as the summed mass of each emission type. A major drawback of these simplified screening tools is the incompleteness of the assessment and the limited impact focus. Such assessments may bias the comparison of remediation alternatives or result in burden-shifting due to the exclusion of potentially relevant impact categories and incomplete characterisation of emissions. In this context, it is important to note here that LCA applied to remediation technologies are subjected to similar constraints as LCAs applied to other systems; in all cases normative choices with respect to the applied LCIA methodology can influence the results and their interpretation (Dreyer et al. 2003)


2003). Care must be taken to base decisions on results without quantifying the associated uncertainties, particularly if some, potentially important, impact categories are not assessed. To complement site-specific assessment of primary impacts, we thus recommend including all life cycle impact categories in assessment of secondary impacts. In addition, we also advocate including a no action scenario as a reference point to which any remediation option should be compared to illustrate if there is net-benefit from remediation. LCA of Soil and Groundwater Remediation


Assessment of tertiary impacts was done in the study be Lesage et al. (2007a, b) as a part of the consequential LCA taking the future use of the site into account and also done in the study by Hou et al. (2014b). The assessment of tertiary impacts also is not straight forward as it requires assumptions to be made for the unknown future. The assessment needs to answer questions such as “if this site is not cleaned up, which land (if any) will then be used instead?” The answer to this question may depend on many factors such as the local land market and demand as well as political decisions on urban development. One solution for dealing with this uncertainty is to include different future scenarios for use of the site and the possible new sites developed as a consequence of not remediating the contaminated site. In the study by Hou et al. (2014b), the assessment of the tertiary impact shifted the overall net-benefit of the remediation project to being positive. Hou et al


In the study by Hou et al. (2014b), the assessment of the tertiary impact shifted the overall net-benefit of the remediation project to being positive. Hou et al. (2014b) therefore concludes that it is important to include all three types of impacts in order to assess the overall benefit of a remedial measure. 36.4 Conclusions Today, there is increasing interest in applying LCA to support decision-makers in contaminated site management (Holland et al. 2009, 2011; Holland 2011). Indeed, the extent of soil and groundwater pollution globally suggests that even if a fraction of all sites is cleaned up in the future, a selection of less polluting technologies can potentially lead to reduction of environmental impacts from remediation. The most important question in this context are: (i) Is there a net-benefit from remediation? (ii) Do primary, secondary and tertiary impacts have equal weight? The limited number of studies without serious methodological problems (see Owsianiak et al


2013 for statistics) and only occasional comparisons with no action scenario suggest that the answer to the first question cannot yet be given with certainty. The answer to the second question will depend on stakeholder views and perspectives, and may vary depending on the site and its future application (e.g. providing access to clean water may be more important than providing clean land for housing). In conclusion, LCA is an important tool for the assessment of the secondary environmental impacts of remediation. However, in order to obtain robust decisions for the management of contaminated sites, the combination of LCA with other tools may be necessary (e.g. multi-criteria decision analysis tools, use of site-specific fate and exposure models and consideration of stakeholder views). Appendix See Table 36.2. G.L. Søndergaard and M. Owsianiak


Table 36.2 Overview of LCA case studies of contaminated site remediation and the impacts included Reference Technologies included Contaminants Impacts included Functional unit Time boundary for LCI Result or conclusion Pri Sec Ter 1. Diamond et al. Ex situ Excavation and disposal (S) Soil washing (S) Not specified X X Production of an equivalent amount of treated soil and groundwater (mass/volume) 25 years “The framework facilitates a methodic investigation of activities associated with site remediation, and guides the analysis of potential environmental, human health, and resource depletion impacts. The framework allows for the consideration of a wide range of potential impacts by expanding consideration beyond a contaminated site itself, and the temporal boundary of on-site activities” In situ No action Soil vapour extraction (S) In situ bioremediation (G) Containment Encapsulation (S) 2. Page et al


Page et al. (1999) Ex situ Excavation and disposal (S) Lead X X Production of an equivalent amount of treated soil and groundwater (mass/volume) 25 years “The effects of the excavation and disposal remediation option extend beyond the contaminated site itself, and only become evident when analyzed from a life-cycle perspective” 3. Volkwein et al. (1999) Ex situ Excavation and on-site secured disposal (S) Excavation and decontamination (S) PAHs, mineral oil, chromium X The ensemble of activities to achieve a certain risk level Not specified “The tool supplements the environmental information gained by a risk assessment with information about secondary impacts” Containment Surface sealing with asphalt (S) (continued) LCA of Soil and Groundwater Remediation


Table 36.2 (continued) Reference Technologies included Contaminants Impacts included Functional unit Time boundary for LCI Result or conclusion Pri Sec Ter 4. ScanRail Consult et al. (2000) Ex situ Excavation and external biological treatment (S) Chlorinated ethenes, hydrocarbons X X Not specified Not specified “The environmental costs of excavation, biosparging, and bioventing were generally of the same order of magnitude, whereas the environmental costs of the reactive wall were higher and the environmental costs of the biological wall lower compared to the other techniques” In situ Biosparging (G) Bioventilation (S) Permeable reactive barrier (G) Biological barrier (G) 5


Vignes (2001) Ex situ Pump-and-treat (on-site vacuum steam stripping) (G) Pump-and-treat (on-site activated carbon treatment) (G) Excavation and thermal treatment (S) 1,2,3-Trichloropropane (TCP) and total xylenes (G) Mix of organic contaminants (S) X x Not specified Not specified “Doing nothing and excavation with thermal treatment are by far the worst options both locally and globally” In situ No action Aerobic bioremediation (S) Anaerobic bioremediation (S) Containment Cap and contain (S) 6. Ribbenhed et al. (2002) Ex situ Thermal treatment (S) Bioslurry (S) Soil washing (S) PAHs, mercury, cadmium x x 1000 kg of dry sediment into treatment Not specified “The largest environmental impact is caused by the energy and/or electricity consumption and by the transportation of the material in the case where treatment of the material takes place off site” (continued) G.L. Søndergaard and M. Owsianiak


Table 36.2 (continued) Reference Technologies included Contaminants Impacts included Functional unit Time boundary for LCI Result or conclusion Pri Sec Ter 7. Blanc et al. (2004) Ex situ Excavation and off-site landfilling (S) Excavation and on-site containment (S) Excavation and liming stabilization (S) Excavation and bio-leaching (S) Sulphur X A treatment of the site that allows environmental risks to be reduced to an acceptable level over the short term Short term “On-site containment appears to be the most environmentally-friendly technique, whereas bio-leaching and off-site landfilling result in the most important environmental burdens” 8. Godin et al. (2004) In situ No action Spent potlining landfill X X The management of 460,000 m3 of wastemix and 200,000 m3 of contaminated soil for a period of 50 years 50 years “The LCA identified no action as having the least environmental impacts


However [...] contaminant concentrations 50 years from the present could be approximately 30–40 times the regulatory criteria if this option is retained” Ex situ Excavation and on-site secured disposal (S) Excavation and treatment (S) Excavation and incineration (S) 9. Toffoletto et al. (2005) Ex situ Excavation with on-site biopiles (S) Diesel oil X X Remediation during 2-year period of 8000 m3 of diesel-contaminated soil to the Quebec B criterion 2 years “One major observation was the fact that the soil itself is responsible for an important fraction of the system’s total impact, suggesting that it is beneficial to reach the highest level of remediation” (continued) LCA of Soil and Groundwater Remediation


Table 36.2 (continued) Reference Technologies included Contaminants Impacts included Functional unit Time boundary for LCI Result or conclusion Pri Sec Ter 10. Bayer and Finkel (2006) Ex situ Pump-and-treat (G) PAHs, Tar X Control of a certain contaminated aquifer zone by complying with a certain concentration level 30 years “A crucial finding that can be applied to any other site is the central role of steel, which particularly derogates the valuation of the funnel-and-gate system due to the associated emissions that are harmful to human health” In situ Permeable barrier (G) (Funnel-and-gate) 11. Cadotte et al


Cadotte et al. (2007) Ex situ Pump-and-treat (G) Excavation with on-site biopiles (S) Diesel oil X x Remediation of a 375 m3 diesel-contaminated site to the Quebec B criterion in soil (700 mg kg−1) and to the detectable limit of C10–C50 for potable groundwater and surface water (0.1 mg L−1) 2–300 years depending on technology “The all biological in situ scenario showed the least secondary and primary impacts [...]. On the other hand, the in situ biological + chemical scenario produced the most secondary impacts and quickly removed primary impacts” In situ Natural attenuation (S) Bioventing (S) Chemical oxidation (G) Biosparging (G) Oil removal (NAPL) Bioslurping (NAPL) 12. Lesage et al. (2007a, b) Ex situ Excavation and off-site disposal (S) (brownfield rehabilitation) Metals, PAHs, hydrocarbons X x x Legal and appropriate intervention on 1 ha of the tracked brownfield 4 yearsa 44 yearsb “The ALCAa results show no clear preference for either intervention option [...]


The CLCAb unequivocally supports rehabilitation if it is followed by residential use, as long as the development of suburban sites is avoided” Containment Covering with 30 cm of clean soil (S) (risk minimization) (continued) G.L. Søndergaard and M. Owsianiak


Table 36.2 (continued) Reference Technologies included Contaminants Impacts included Functional unit Time boundary for LCI Result or conclusion Pri Sec Ter 13. Higgins and Olson (2009) Ex situ Pump-and-treat (PTS)(G) Chlorinated ethenes and ethanes x The system-specific requirements (energy, materials) needed to provide effective capture of the contaminant plume and treatment for 30 years 30 years “Potential impacts of the model PRB are driven by the ZVI reactive medium and the energy usage during construction, while for PTS they are driven by the operational energy demand” In situ Permeable reactive barrier with zero-valent iron (PRB) (G) 14. Lemming et al. (2010b) Ex situ Excavation, off-site aeration and disposal (S) Perchloroethene (PCE) X x Treatment of the 7500 m3 of contaminated soil within a 30 year timeframe 30 years/100 years “The most favorable remediation technique was soil vapor extraction when a time boundary of 30 years was used


[...] If a more realistic time frame (100 years) is used, the soil vapor extraction method becomes less favorable and the thermal method is the preferred option” In situ Soil vapour extraction (S) In situ thermal desorption (S) 15. Lemming et al. (2010c) Ex situ Excavation, off-site treatment and disposal (S) Trichloroethene (TCE) X x Treatment of 700 m3 of contaminated soil resulting in a 98% removal of the contaminant mass within this volume 1200 years “The primary human toxic impacts were high for ERD due to the formation and leaching of chlorinated degradation products [...]. However, the secondary human toxic impacts of ISTD and excavation are likely to be even higher, particularly due to upstream impacts from steel production” In situ Natural attenuation (S) Enhanced reductive dechlorination (ERD) (S) In situ thermal desorption (ISTD) (S) (continued) LCA of Soil and Groundwater Remediation


Table 36.2 (continued) Reference Technologies included Contaminants Impacts included Functional unit Time boundary for LCI Result or conclusion Pri Sec Ter 16. Evans and Wilkie (2010) In situ Nutrient remediation by the aquatic plant hydrilla combined with production of biogas and compost (Hydrilla verticillata) (W) Phosphorus and nitrogen x 1 ha of aquatic plant harvesting Not specified “Net energy and economic gains were found using moderate data assumptions, which suggests that plant harvest may be an attractive management strategy for many lakes affected by hydrilla” “The respective energy and economic value outputs are largely decoupled, as energy output is dominated by biogas and fertiliser output, while economic output is dominated by the value of removing nutrients from aquatic systems and avoiding the use of herbicides” 17. Sanscartier et al


Sanscartier et al. (2010) Ex situ Excavation, bioremediation on-site (biopiles) and disposal in an unlined landfill (S) Excavation, mechanical mixing off-site, and disposal in an unlined landfill (S) Diesel oil x Treatment of 112 m3 of soil contaminated with diesel to an acceptable risk level over the short term Not specified “On-site ex situ bioremediation in a temporary facility, followed by disposal in an unlined landfill, was found to have environmental impacts similar to in situ treatment, but far less than those for off-site treatment” In situ Paving with asphalt and bioventing (S) (continued) G.L. Søndergaard and M. Owsianiak


Table 36.2 (continued) Reference Technologies included Contaminants Impacts included Functional unit Time boundary for LCI Result or conclusion Pri Sec Ter 18. Cappuyns et al. (2011) Ex situ Excavation and off-site cleaning (S) Exxsol, an aliphatic hydrocarbon (C-13) x Not clearly defined, but the study aims at “remediation values” equal 1500 mg/kg and 500 lg/L of Exxsol in soil and groundwater, respectively Not specified “According to the REC analysis, in situ thermal treatment showed a lower global environmental impact than soil excavation and off-site treatment, mainly because there were fewer emissions from the transport of contaminated soil” “Within the environmental aspects group of the BATNEEC method, soil excavation performed better than thermal soil remediation because it obtained a better score to meet the legal objectives for soil and groundwater quality” In situ Remediation based on thermal conduction (S) 19. Hu et al


Hu et al. (2010) Ex situ High Temperature Incineration, IHTI (S) Base catalysed decomposition, BCD (S) Polychlorynated biphenyl (PCB) x Treatment of 10,000 tons of PCB contaminated soil from 800 to 1000 ppm to less than 5 ppm Not specified “BCD potentially has a lower environmental impact than IHTI technology in the PCB contaminated soil remediation process” “The major environmental impacts through the whole lifecycle arose from energy consumption in both IHTI and BCD processes. For IHTI, primary and secondary combustion (continued) LCA of Soil and Groundwater Remediation


Table 36.2 (continued) Reference Technologies included Contaminants Impacts included Functional unit Time boundary for LCI Result or conclusion Pri Sec Ter subsystem contributes more than 50% of midpoint impacts concerning with carcinogens, respiratory inorganics, respiratory organics, terrestrial ecotoxity, terrestrial acidification/eutrophication and global warming” 20. Inoue and Katayama (2011) In situ (hypothetical case) Landfarming (S) Dieldrin x To reduce a contaminant concentration below the soil criterion for 1000 m3 soil of agricultural field 15 days– 60 months “Energy consumption and CO2 emission were determined from a life cycle inventory analysis using monetary-based intensity based on an input–output table. The values of RNSOIL based on risk–cost, risk– energy consumption and risk–CO2 emission were calculated, and then rankings of the candidates were compiled according to RNSOIL values


The values of RNSOIL based on risk–cost, risk– energy consumption and risk–CO2 emission were calculated, and then rankings of the candidates were compiled according to RNSOIL values. A comparison between three rankings showed the different ranking orders” Ex situ (hypothetical case) Disposal (S) High temperature thermal desorption, HTTD (S) Excavation and biopile (S) 21. Mak and Lo (2011) In situ Permeable reactive barrier (PRB). Construction methods, materials of reactive media, and groundwater Chromium (VI) or chromium (VI) and arsenic (V) x Successful treatment of 20 000 m3 of the contaminated groundwater to the treatment goal, while the temporal boundary is 30 years 30 years “Trench-based construction method can reduce the environmental impacts of the remediation remarkably compared to the (continued) G.L. Søndergaard and M. Owsianiak