Environmental Evaluation of MSW Treatment in the Czech Republic (LCA Methodology)

Authors: Bohumil Černík - Free Lance Consultant cernik.bohumil@centrum.cz Marie Tichá - Free Lance Consultant ticha.marie@newspace.cz

Intensification of collection, transport, and separation of municipal waste

Developed by:

The Natural Sciences Faculty at Charles University www.natur.cuni.cz The Research and Development Program MoE CR VaV-720-2-02 www.env.cz

Implementation of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste

• Gradual reduction of MSW landfilling• Investment of 350 million Euros to

construct municipal waste incinerators• Increase of resident fees for municipal

waste disposal up to 20%

Basic conditions

10,2 million inhabitants

6250 municipalities

2,5 million tons - annual production of MSW

MSW treatment - current situation

landfilling 72 %

incineration18 %

recycling 10 %

Objectives of the study

• Evaluate the overall environmental impact of each municipal waste treatment method by LCA methodology

• Define possible development scenarios for municipal waste treatment in the Czech Republic by 2010/2013

• Calculate the impact of each scenario

Separate LCA studies

• Landfilling

• Incinerating

• Recycling of glass, paper and plastics

System boundaries

Containers Transport Landfilling

Containers Transport Incineration

Containers Transport Recycling

Data where collected for:

• 190 000 containers • 5 landfills • 140 waste transport vehicles • 1 paper mill (100% G3) • 13 sorting lines • 2 mixed plastics processors (50% in Czech Rep.) • 3 incinerators (100% in Czech Rep.) • glass (BREF)

LCI results are in 8 categories:

• Gross energy • Primary fuels & feedstocks • Raw materials • Water use• Air emissions

• CO2 equivalents

• Water emissions • Solid waste

Comparison of incinerated and landfilled MSW (1 t)

Significant findings:

• Electricity use of MSW placed in landfill is 0,4GJ/t and – 4,9 GJ/t if it were incinerated

• Total water use of 1 ton of municipal waste is roughly 18 times higher when incinerated

• CO2 equivalent (100 years) is equal

• The solid waste category closely parallels the incineration process for entries related to cinders and ashes

Recycling of Secondary Materials Significant findings:

• Significantly less demanding in consumption of energy, fuels and water

• Significantly negative yields (more than 1% in Czech Rep.) most notably in the areas of

– Pollution of waste water (insoluble substances, organic substances)

– Emissions of solid particle waste– Emissions of SOx

Four scenarios were defined

• LEGAL (municipal waste management accurately pursuant to the directives 94/62/EC and 1999/31/EC)

• RECYCLING (25% recycling, 25% energy recovery, 50% landfilling)

• ENERGETIC (15% recycling, 50% energy recovery, 35% landfilling)

• LANDFILL (10% recycling, 15% energy recovery, 75% landfilling;

Description of the scenarios

• Legal: Fulfills requirements of 94/62/EC, fulfills requirements of 99/31/EC

• Recycling: Exceeds requirements of 94/62/EC, Exceeds requirements of 99/31/EC

• Energetic: Fulfills requirements of 94/62/EC, Exceeds requirements of 99/31/EC

• Landfill: Does not meet requirements of 94/62/EC, Does not meet requirements of 99/31/EC

Scenarios in kt of MSW

MSW treatment method

Unit

Scenarios

2001 2010

Control Legal Recyclin

g Energeti

c Landfill

Recycling kt 230 410 690 410 280

Incineration

kt410

690 690 1375 410

Landfill kt 1690 1650 1370 965 2060

Total kt 2330 2750

Calculation of scenarios

• LCI of landfill

• LCI of incineration – LCI of compensated fuels

• LCIs of glass/paper/plastics till it is melted together with raw material – difference between LCIs of glass/paper/plastics from raw and secondary materials

Results of scenarios

Scenarios

E F WAir Emissions Water Emissions

SW Total

D CO SOx

NOx AU CO2 DS SS COD BOD

Legal 2 2 2 2 2,5 2 3 2 2 2 2,5 2 2 3 31

Rec.4 4 4 4 4

3-4

4 4 3 3 4 4 4 2 51,5

Inc. 1 1 3 1 2,5 1 1 3 4 4 2,5 3 3 1 31

Land. 3 3 1 3 1 3,5 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 26,5

 Discussion results of scenarios

• The scenario of municipal waste treatment in the Czech Rep. in 2010 with the lowest impact is the scenario favoring landfill above all other forms of use.

• The scenario of municipal waste treatment in the Czech Rep. in 2010 with the highest impact is the scenario favoring recycling above all other forms of use.

Addition to emissions in the CR made by treatment of 2,5 million tons of MSW

Total energy consumption

Water consumption

CO2ekv. Organic substances in waste waters

- 0,1 % 0,3 % 0,3 % 5,9-12,0 %

Control year - 2001

 Discussion

• Additions to total inputs/outputs in the CR made by MSWT can be measured in tenths of a percent

• Additions to total greenhouse gases is 0,3%. Production of mine gasses containing CH4 in just one, although the largest, district in the Czech Republic (OKR) is 1,2%, which is four times greater

• The most significant impact of MSWT is in emissions of organic substances to water.

Adherence to Guideline 99/31/EC in the CR will mean an increase in emissions of greenhouse gasses

CO2 ekv. (kt)

Control Legal Recycling Energetic Landfill

420 660 870 980 460

 Discussion

• Emissions of CH4 from MSW landfills will be negligible with respect to the requirements of Guideline 99/31/EC; 60% of biogenic carbon is permanently bound in the landfill.

• Incineration also emits xenobiotic carbon (plastics), which mean a clear increase in greenhouse gasses

• Huge investment into municipal waste incineration in the Czech Republic through the year 2010 (300 million Euros) with minimal returns.

Calculation of competitive scenarios

• LCI of landfill

• LCI of incineration – LCI of compensated fuels

• LCIs of glass/paper/plastics from raw material – LCIs of glass/paper/plastics from secondary materials

Results of competitive scenarios

Scenarios

E F WAir Emissions Water Emissions

SW Total

D CO SOx

NOx AU CO2 DS SS COD BOD

Legal 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2,5 2,5 3 40

Rec.2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 3 1 4 4 4 2 32

Inc. 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2,5 2,5 1 20

Land. 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 1 1 4 48

 Conclusions

• Identify and quantify all relevant impacts to the environment

• Regulate the most important impacts

• Apply national limits of MSW treatment