Environmental Analysis of Municipal Solid Waste

M70GEDSID: 4148795

Title:Environmental Analysis of Municipal Solid Waste Management Strategies with a Zero Waste Objective of Germany & its Implementation in Pakistan.

RESEARCH DECLARATION

I, Muhammad Murtaza Chaudhary declare that this report is entirely my own work and that any use of the work of others has been appropriately acknowledged as in-text citations and compiled in the reference list. I also confirm that the project has been conducted in compliance with the Universitys research ethics policy.

I agree that the project report can be made available as a Reference Document for other students in the Department of Geography, Environment and Disaster Management Information Room/Map Library.

Signed: ..........................................Date: 11/01/2013

AbstractThe purpose of the project is to provide the basis for an advance municipal solid waste (MSW) management system to Pakistan by following MSW system strategies of Germany. The key problems addressed are open dumping, open landfilling and uncollected MSW in Pakistan which possess serious threat to climate, human health and ecology in Pakistan. Life cycle analysis (LCA) of the German MSW management system proves that Germany is on the right path to adopt more sustainability MSW system for its people by achieving higher separate collection rates of recyclables, zero amount of untreated waste to landfill and adopting advance technology. By following the German strategies a new MSW management system is proposed and analyzed for Pakistan which is found to be 52% better in terms of climate Change impact, 945% better in terms of Human toxicology impact and 94% better in terms of Eco-toxicology-fresh water impact as compare to the current MSW system in Pakistan.

AcknowledgementsI would like to salute those people who made my project possible. I would to express my deepest gratitude to my project supervisor who has supplied me support, advice, consultancy and encouragement throughout the project. I would like to acknowledge the support of my program manager Dr. Mark Bateman for always being there for me on an email away. I am very thankful to my Father Mr. Abdul Wahid Chaudhary and my maternal uncle Mr. Mumtaz Hussain for giving confidence and material support to achieve what I done. Finally I would like to acknowledge the support of my friends in UK for helping me by all means.

ContentsList of Tables6List of Figures8Acronyms & Abbreviations:9Chapter 1111.1 Introduction:111.2 Aims:121.3 Objectives:121.4 MSW Management in Pakistan:131.5 MSW Management in Germany:171.6 Life cycle Assessment review of MSW management:191.6.1 Introduction:191.6.2 Literature review:20Chapter 2 Methodology:252.1 Introduction:252.2 LCA tool selection:262.3 IWM-2Model:282.4 Life cycle Impacts Categories:292.4.1 Climate Change Global warming Potential (GWP)292.4.2 Human Toxicity (Human Toxicology Potential)302.4.3 Eco-toxicity - Freshwater Aquatic (Eco-toxicology Potential)302.5 Life cycle impact assessment:312.6 Life cycle assessment of Waste management Strategies in Germany322.6.1 Goal and Scope:322.6.2 Life Cycle Inventory:322.6.3 Limitations and assumptions:322.6.4 Functional Unit:332.6.5 System Boundary:332.6.6 Scenarios description:342.6.7 Waste streams:352.6.8 Waste Composition:372.6.9 Residual waste to Landfill:382.6.10 Residual waste to WIP392.6.11 Residual waste to Mechanical Biological Plants:412.6.12 BIO Waste and Green waste:452.6.13 Paper, board and cartons (PBC):472.6.14 Glass:482.6.15 Light weight Packaging:492.6.16 Interpretation:512.7 Life cycle assessment of Waste management Strategies in Pakistan582.7.1 Goal and Scope:582.7.2 Life Cycle Inventory:582.7.3 Functional Unit:582.7.4 System Boundary:582.7.5 Scenarios description:592.7.6 Technical specifications of scenarios and inputs:592.7.7 Results:652.7.7 Interpretation:66Conclusion:72Recommendations:73Appendixes:74References:75

List of TablesTable 1.1: MSW generation rate/day and waste produced/annum in 10 cities of Pakistan.Table 1.2: Waste Collection rates of 10 cities of Pakistan.Table 1.3: Overall facts of the MSW management system in Germany 2010.Table 2.1: LCA tools for waste management.Table 2.2: Waste quantities according to waste balance 2006 Germany.Table 2.3: Waste streams for investigation and increase or decrease in waste quantities in 2020 as compare to 2006.Table 2.4: Waste streams kg per head per annum and increase or decrease in waste quantities in 2020 as compare to 2006.Table 2.5: Composition of Residual waste from Households (Kern, 2001).Table 2.6: Composition of HCW (Kern, 2001).Table 2.7: Composition of residual waste for 2006 and 2020, taken as the basis of the analysis.Table 2.8: Absolute quantities of residual mix for scenario 2006 and 2020.Table 2.9: Results of LCA of residual waste Landfilling in 2006 (actual). Table 2.10: Results of LCA of residual waste incineration for 2006 (actual).Table 2.11: Results of LCA of residual waste incineration for 2020 (advance).Table 2.12: Waste stream data for MB plants for 2006 (Actual).Table 2.13: Waste stream data for MB plants for 2020 (Advance).Table 2.14: Treatment technology applied to recovered high calorific waste recovered in 2006 (actual). Table 2.15: Treatment technology applied to recovered high calorific waste recovered in 2020 (advance).Table 2.16: Energy recovery efficiencies and the mean value of different treatment method.Table 2.17: Technical Specification of M(B) plants.Table 2.18: Results of LCA of waste in M(B) plants for 2006 (actual).Table 2.19: Results of LCA of waste in M(B) plants for 2020 (advance).Table 2.20: Results of LCA of organic waste processing for 2006 (actual).Table 2.21: Results of LCA of organic waste processing for 2020 (advance).Table 2.22: Results of LCA of PBC waste processing for 2006 (actual).Table 2.23: Results of LCA of PBC waste processing for 2020 (advance).Table 2.24: Results of LCA of glass waste processing for 2006 (actual) and 2020 (advance).Table 2.25: Recyclable fractions of recovered LWP.Table 2.26: Plastic waste composition.Table 2.27: Results of LCA of LWP waste processing for 2006 (actual).Table 2.28: Results of LCA of LWP waste processing for 2020 (advance).Table 2.29: Climate change impact (Kg CO2eq.) of total MSW and separated waste streams management in scenario 2006 (Actual).Table 2.30: Climate Change impact (Kg CO2 eq.) of total MSW and separated waste streams management in scenario 2025 (Advance).Table 2.31: Human toxicology impact (Kg p-DCB eq./ton) of total MSW and separated waste streams management in scenario 2006 (Actual).Table 2.32: Human toxicology impact (Kg p-DCB eq.) of total MSW and separated waste streams management in scenario 2020 (Advance).Table 2.33: Eco-toxicology impact (Kg p-DCB eq.) of total MSW and separated waste streams management in scenario 2006 (Actual).Table 2.33: Eco-toxicology impact (Kg p-DCB eq.) of total MSW and separated waste streams management in scenario 2020 (Advance).Table 2.35: Waste composition for 2006 (Actual)-Pak and 2025 (Advance).Table 2.36: Separate recovery efficiencies, resulting separated quantities of recyclables and quantities in mix form. Table 2.37: Composition and quantities of residual mix waste after separate collection.Table 2.38: Collection and Transport figures for 2006 (actual)-Pak scenario. Table 2.39: Collection and Transport figures for 2025 (Advance) scenario. Table 2.40: Biological treatment waste streams for 2006 (actual)-Pak.Table 2.41: Assumed composition of recycled waste stream for 2006 (actual)-Pak.Table 2.42: Waste stream for reprocessing in 2025 (Advance).Table 2.43: Results of LCA of 2006 (actual)-Pak scenario for Pakistan.Table 2.44: Results of LCA of 2025 (advance) scenario for Pakistan.Table 2.44: Climate change impact (Kg CO2 eq./ton) of scenario 2006 (actual)-Pak.Table 2.46: Climate change impact (Kg CO2 eq./ton) of scenario 2025 (advance).Table 2.47: Human toxicology impact (kg p-DCB eq./ton) of scenario 2006 (actual)-Pak.Table 2.48: Human toxicology impact (kg p-DCB eq./ton) of scenario 2025(advance).Table 2.49: Eco-toxicology impact (kg p-DCB eq./ton) of scenario 2006 (actual)-Pak.Table 2.50: Eco-toxicology impact (kg p-DCB eq./ton) of scenario 2025 (advance).

List of FiguresFigure 1.1: A comparison of waste generation and collection in 10 cities of PakistanFigure 2.2: The modelled scenario considered in the study. (-) system boundary, () input/outputFigure 2.3: Comparison of impact categories of landfilling of residual waste for both scenarios.Figure 2.4: Comparison of impact categories values (MB Plants) for both scenarios.Figure 2.5: Comparison of impact categories values for the treatment of organic waste.Figure 2.6: Comparison of impact categories values for the treatment of PBC waste.Figure 2.7: Comparison of impact categories values for the treatment of LWP waste.Figure 2.8: Direct combine comparison of Climate change impact of both scenarios.Figure 2.9: Direct combine comparison of Human Toxicology impact of both scenarios.Figure 2.10: Direct combine comparison of Eco-Toxicology impact of both scenarios.Figure 2.11: The modelled scenario considered in the study. (-) system boundary, () input/output.Figure 2.12: Biological treatment flow diagram.Figure 2.13: Comparison of Climate change impact (Kg CO2 eq./ton) by different process in both scenarios.Figure 2.14: Comparison of human toxicology impact (Kg p-DCB eq./ton) by different process in both scenarios.Figure 2.15: Comparison of Eco-toxicology Impact (Kg p-DCB eq./ton) by different process in both scenarios.

Acronyms & Abbreviations:

3R = Reduse-reuse and recycle.BMU = Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety Germanyb = billion BGK = Federal Compost Quality Association Germany (BundesgtegemeinschaftKompost)EA = Environment AgencyHTP = Eco-toxicology potentialCO2 = Carbon di oxideCO2 eq = CO2 equivalentCHP plant = Combined heat-and-power plantCH3 = MethaneCFCs = chlorofluorocarbonsC6H6 = Benzene(C2H3Cl)n= Polyvinyl chlorideDDT = dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethaneFe metals = ferrous metalsGovt. = GovernmentGEMIS = Total Emissions Model Integrated System (Gesamt-Emissions-Modell Integrierter Systeme) www.gemis.deGW = green wasteGWP = global warming potentialHW = household waste

HCW = household-type commercial wasteHTP = Human toxicology potentialHg = MercuryILV = SwedishEnvironmental Research InstituteIPCC = Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeISO = International Organization for StandardizationJTI = SwedishInstitute of Agricultural and Environmental EngineeringKTH =Royal Institute of Technologykg/head = kg per head of the populationkWh= kilowatt-hour, electricalLCA = Environmental life cycle analysisLWP = lightweight packagingMSW = Municipal Solid Wastem = millionM(B) plants = Mechanical Biological PlantsMRF = Material recycling facilityNF = metals non-ferrous metalsNO2 = Nitrous oxideNOx = Nitrogen oxide Pb = LeadPBC = paper/board/cartonsPAK-EPA = Pakistan Environment Protection AuthoritySMW = Solid Waste ManagementSOx= Sulphur oxideSLU = Swedish University of Agriculture SciencesTASi = technical rules for recovery, treatment and other disposal of municipal wasteTIAQC = Technical Instructions for Air Quality ControlUFO-Plan = environmental research planWIP = waste incineration plantZn = ZincChapter 11.1 Introduction:Waste is commonly defined as an object that is no longer in use and to be discarded: it is a left over object after the removal of valuable and useful components (Cambridge English Dictionary, 2010). Todays global society which is environmentally conscious has admitted that the waste generation has a negative impact on the process of attaining a sustainable society. More than ever before, todays waste is not taken as end product but as a resource to recover material and energy.

As a result of continuous economic growth, urbanization and industrialization, rapid increase in volume and types of MSW is monitored, which is becoming an immense problem for national and local authorities to ensure effective and sustainable management of MSW. It is estimated that in 2006, 2.02 b tones of MSW generated worldwide, showing a 7% per annum increase since 2003. It is further mentioned that between 2007 and 2011, worlds generation of MSW will rise by 37.3%, equivalent to around 8% increase per annum increase (UN, 2009).

2.54% of the worlds population lives in Pakistan which means that one in every 39 people in the world is a resident of Pakistan (TE, 2012). Pakistan has witnessed a rapid growth in population with an accelerated shift towards urbanisation as a consequence of industrialisation and economic growth (Zaman & Baloch, 2011). Among the various environmental problems that have engulfed Pakistan, municipal SWM is a critical issue that has acquired an alarming dimension and requires immediate attention. SWM by Pakistani government owned and operated services in cities currently averages only 57% collection of MSW total generated out of which 80% is dumped over the land 5% is land filled, 5% is composted and 10% is treated by other methods (ADB, 2006). Unfortunately, none of the metropolises of Pakistan possesses proper municipal SWM system right from collection of MSW up to disposal. Much of the uncollected waste poses weighty risk to public health by causing the formation of stagnant ponds, clogging of drainage system and cause serious risk of malaria and cholera by providing breeding ground for mosquitoes and flies. In addition, because of the lack of sufficient and appropriate disposal sites, much of the collected waste go to open pits, ponds, dumping grounds, water system (specially rivers and streams) and agrarian land (EPA-PAK, 2011).

On the other hand, municipal SWM in Germany has evolved powerfully and substantially since the early 1970s. Every village and town had its own waste tip which accounts around 50,000 waste sites in Germany and then Waste Management Act 1972 came into effect. After the implementation of legislation the total number dropped to about 500 landfill sites (regulated) and the special treatment sites for industrial waste and incineration sites increased (Zhang, Keat & Gersberg, 2009).

In the mid-1980s the political formula of belief of the so called waste hierarchy avoid, reuse and dispose gained popularity. In addition to the previous recoveries of paper, textiles and metal, other recoverable materials such as plastic and glass were to be recycled by means of separate management system of collection, segregation and reuse/recycle. This fundamental reason serving to account (rationale) for the foundation for the Closed Substance Cycle and Waste Management Act which passed by the parliament and came into effect in the mid-1990s (UNEP, 2009).

Today, 70% of municipal waste is reprocessed. For some types of waste, for example packaging waste, more than 80% is recycled. Up to 86% of construction waste is recovered. Impressive figures have come up for total volumes of waste recovered: 28 m tonnes of municipal waste, 30 m tonnes of production waste and 163 m tonnes of construction and demolition waste. Every year per person three tonnes of waste is recovered in Germany that equates to the weight of 3 small cars (BMU, 2008).

By 2020, the German Government aims to accomplish complete high-quality recovery of MSW and advance treatment efficiencies. This will remove the demand to land fill the untreated waste that possesses adverse environmental impacts on the climate. Natural resource and meteorological conditions protection will be involved with SWM to a larger extent at European and World levels over the subsequent years, for example by reducing CH3 and CO2 emissions or substituting current energy resources such as fossil fuels with renewable energy resources. Germany contributes know how and innovative and sustainable technology to grasp the zero waste target that is near to 100% diversion of its municipal solid waste to reprocess it as resource (BMU, 2010).

But the question has arisen whether the Germans target of zero waste is more environmental friendly then the current situation or not. For example an environmental life cycle analysis of paper and plastic bag was conducted at California State Polytechnic University USA to quantify environmental impacts of both bags and consequently to find out the benefits of using one type of bag over other. Students considered raw materials, raw material processing, production of bags, energy required, transportation, use, recycle and disposal as life cycle inventory of the bags in the analysis. Analysis concludes that plastic bag has more environmental benefits over paper bag. But commonly paper bag is considered as more environmental friendly because it is made from natural raw material and its degradation in natural environment is lot more quicker than plastic (Ciambrone, 1997). Similarly as in the case of plastic and paper bags, there is a need to analyse Germans methodologies to achieve zero waste as compared to the current conditions. At the same time if these methodologies are adopted in Pakistan the question arise whether they will be more environmental friendly then the current conditions or not and how many years it will take for Pakistan to achieve zero waste target depending on current conditions and what would be the economic concerns.1.2 Aims:The aims of this study are;1. To quantify the environmental benefits of the German methodologies which are adopted to achieve the zero waste targets in 2020.2. To quantify the environmental benefits that will be achieved if German strategies are adopted in Pakistan.1.3 Objectives:The objectives of this study are;1. To determine the environmental impacts of existing MSW management strategies in Germany.2. To determine the environmental impacts of existing MSW management strategies in Pakistan.3. To determine the environmental impacts of the future strategies of MSW management that would be incorporated to achieve the zero waste objectives in Germany.4. To determine the environmental impacts of the Germans MSW strategies to achieve zero waste objective if they are adopted in Pakistan.1.4 MSW Management in Pakistan:Collection, transport and disposal are considered as major pillars of an effective SWM system. These pillars have not been constructed in an adequate and proper manner in Pakistan. Consequently, environmental and sanitary conditions are getting worse year by year and as a result people are suffering from unhealthy living conditions. Lack of background work and planning is creating serious environmental hazards for a country with population of 180 million and growth rate of 2.03% per annum (Census, 2012) (Mahar et. al., 2003). Urbanization has transpired during the last several decades in Pakistan. The main reasons behind rapid urbanization are: sluggish progress in the farming sector, deficiency of alternate occupational opportunities, desertification, deforestation and water logging/salinity causing environmental degradation. As a result the infrastructure and services in the urban spans has been overburdened by the colossal rural influx (Robert, 1998).The SWM system involves the consideration of all aspects which are directly or indirectly associated with the wide scope of problem. Such aspects could include physical planning, manipulation and control of progress and development, outline and density of urban spans, waste density, rate of urbanization, rain and temperature, physical waste composition, the capability of the corresponding metropolises to collect, transport, store and dispose the waste in terms of capacity, adequacy and limitations (SAIAN, 1995).In a SWM system, the number and the growth rate of the populace and households are the key aspects that effect its functioning at assorted stages. Economically important cities of Pakistan which are listed in table 1 are growing at the rate fluctuating amid 3.67% to 7.42% which is far more than the national population growth rate of Pakistan i.e. 2.03%. All these metropolises are estimated to double in subsequent 10 years. Solid waste produced by these cities is also touching elevated figures alongside the population growth. Households additionally act in generation and collection of the MSW. Average house hold size range from 6.7 to 7.3 persons in big cities of Pakistan (EMPC, 1996).In 1996, Pakistan Ministry of Environment has led a study with title Data Collection for Preparation of National Study on Privatization of Solid Waste Management in Eight Selected Cities of Pakistan which reveals that the waste generation rate on average from all kind of municipal regulated spans varies from 0.283 kg/h/day to 0.613 kg/h/day and from 1.896 kg/house/day to 4.29 kg/house/day in big cities which were under study (Table 1) (JICA, 2005).On the basis of present annual national population growth rate of2.03%the projected populace of the state for the year 2014 is 197.77 million emerging in an approximated protrusion of MSW of 71,018 tons each day and 25.921 m tons each annum (SBP, 2009).Table 1.1shows the ton/day and metric tons/annum MSW waste generation in 10 big cities of Pakistan(JICA, 2005) (KOICA, 2007).Serial No.MetropolisesTons/dayMetric tons/Annum

AKarachi64502354.25

BQuetta378137.97

CFaisalabad924.3337.37

DSibbi176.2

EPeshawar809.3295.39

FBannu3613.14

GHyderabad975.7356.13

HGujranwala824300.76

ILahore50001825

JRawalpindi935341.27

Total16349.35967.48

Table 1.1: MSW generation rates/day and waste produced/annum in 10 cities of Pakistan.In Pakistan, government municipalities of colossal metropolises generally amassed solid waste with waste collection efficiencies scope from 0% in low-income rural spans to 90% in elevated income spans(JICA, 2005).All municipalities of the country collect the solid waste with the efficiency scopes from 51% to 69% of the total waste generated inside their municipality boundaries.31% to 49% is the uncollected waste that stays on open spaces, road corners, roads and empty plots, fouling the nature on constant basis (EPMC, 1996).Table 1.2 shows the tons/day and metric tons/annum waste collection in 10 big cities of Pakistan(JICA, 2005) (KOICA, 2007).Figure 1.1 shows the comparison between waste generation and collection in 10 selected cities.Serial No.MetropolisesCollection Rate%Tons/dayMetric tons/Annum

AKarachi533419128.5

BQuetta5018956.7

CFaisalabad54499149.7

DSibi69123.51

EPeshawar61494148.1

FBannu68247.34

GHyderabad51498149.28

HGujranwala52428128.5

ILahore7638001387

JRawalpindi85800292

Total(Average = 57.25)101632450.63

Table 1.2: Waste Collection rates of 10 cities of Pakistan.

Figure 1.1: A comparison of waste generation and collection in 10 cities of Pakistan

The shift from landfill and open dumping based waste management to resource and recovery based waste management needs an elevated knowledge of the constitution of municipal solid waste (EC, 2007). Three groups of waste are generally predominant in MSW of Pakistan, These are; biodegradable waste such as garden (leaves straw and wood), food and animal waste. Non-biodegradable includes textile waste, stones, fines and related waste (construction and demolition), plastic and rubber and recyclable physical carrybones, paper waste (paper and card board) and rags. Detailed composition of the MSW is presented in methodology. Technologies of treatment and disposal such as incineration, composting, recycling and sanitary land filling are new concepts in Pakistan (WWF, 2007). Most common practice throughout the country is open dumping and burning (to decrease the volume) and hence acting as a source of air pollution (Rehan et. al., 1998).The "official" disposal locations are distant from being satisfactory from an environmental point of view, at the same time there being a number of unlawful dumping locations. All these locations lack the facilities of leachate collection and treatment. In addition to this, none of the site has system for gas flaring, collection and control. Despite of all these problems the MSW is transported and dumped on these sites. The attendance of waste scavengers decreases the overall efficiency of the system and this activity is also very important from public health point of view (KOICA, 2007).Sanitary land filling technology is in its infancy situation in the country and first site has yet to be designed. Currently, no landfill regulations or standards that may deem as a basis for compliance and monitoring of landfilling are in function. Under the National Environmental Action Plan Support Program, the guidelines for sanitary land filling are recently prepared (Urban Unit, 2008).Open dumping: During the Illegal process of open dumping the trash which can include different types of waste (depending on source can be hazardous or non-hazardous) dump at a site which is technically not designed to handle such objects. In developing world the open dumping waste sites commonly include private properties, parks, vacant lots and roadsides (Zurbrugg, 1999). In Pakistan, 77% and 80% of the MSW generated in 2001 and 2005 respectively was open dumped, which is environmentally unsafe (UNEP, 2001) (Khajuria et al., 2009).Composting: During composting the rejected organics are treated by biological processing which is done either in the presence of oxygen (aerobic) or in the absence of oxygen (anaerobic) (Renbi and Sutanto, 2002). In Pakistan, composting is used around for 4% and 5% of MSW generated in 2001 and 2005 respectively. As composting needs segregation of waste and sorting it is not widely practiced in Pakistan (UNESCAP, 2001)(Khajuria et al., 2009).Landfill: Open landfill are the common type of landfilling adopted in Pakistan. The so-called landfill is actually dumpsites with no proper technical design (cover, shape etc.), leachate collection system and gas flaring/collection system. Commonly these sites are covered with refuse waste. In Pakistan, such land filling treated 4% and 5% of MSW in 2001 and in 2005(UNESCAP, 2012) (Khajuria et al., 2009).Incineration:During Incineration the MSW such as paper, organics and other substance is combusted. Thermal treatment term is commonly used for Incineration MSW treatment systems (Dhussa and Varshney, 2000).In Pakistan, the use of incineration is in few as scope ranges between 1% and 2% in 2001 and 2005 respectively. Emission of gaseous pollutants and cost (operation and installation) makes incineration a controversial MSW disposal method (UNESCAP, 2012)(Khajuria et al., 2009).Recycling: Recycling of waste such as paper, plastic, organics (composting) and textile results in resource conservation and energy saving. In the example of developed societies the recyclables are commonly separated by producer and collected by responsible authorities and then transported to processing plants (Shapkota et al., 2006). In Pakistan, recycling of waste material is very low and account for 9% in 2001 and 10% in 2005 of the total waste. These low values are due to the insufficient source segregation (UNESCAP, 2012) (Khajuria et al., 2009).In most cities of the developing countries, only local authorities are responsible for MSW management which cannot be a proper and sustainable solution. In Pakistan, operators range from itinerant manual workers to factory owners are involve in collection, separation, purchase, re-sale and restoration of recyclable material. But these features of recycling lack proper management (Francos & Bituro, 1999).Legal Frame of MSW Management:Most recent and updated legal frames that deal with solid waste management in Pakistan are; Pakistan Environmental Protection Act (PEPA) section 11 enforced in 1997, Hazardous Substances Rules 1999, Islamabad Capital Territory Bye Laws, 1968 Section 132 of the Cantonment Act 1924.

In all these acts as framework for conservation of renewable resources, conservation and protection of biodiversity, species and habitat and federal and provincial Environmental Protection Agencies (EPAs) establishment suggestions are included. However Pakistans legislation lack the below given point in the legislation to provide a basis for effective MSW management system in Pakistan. The points are;

Lack of primary legislation for national decisions making related to MSW management system, Lack of control and monitoring legislation for MSW, Lack of legislation to protect the society from health and safety issue arise due to MSW, Lack of legislation that provides basis to enhance the 3R. 1.5 MSW Management in Germany:Today, It is becoming scientifically clear that the standard exercise of open dumping on land and dumping of untreated rubbish in non-engineered and improper lined landfills is leading to water (surface and ground) and soil pollution, to emissions of landfill gases (contributing towards globe warming) and overall risks to the human health. People live nearby complain about the reduction in the quality of life from airborne shreds of paper and plastic, bad odour and dust. Substantial advances were made in land filling methods which include protective liners, leachate accumulating and purifying processes, and processes of seizing and using of landfill gas. But even with all these expertise, standard land filling is not environmentally harmless in the long run. Contaminated locations by land filling additionally embodied a risk afterward they had been closed, leaving upcoming generations with a huge cleaning cost.

German Federal Environment Ministry stated its waste management objective in 1990 for 2020 as follows (Vail, 2008):

By 2020 at the latest, waste treatment technologies should be so advanced and ubiquitously available that all waste from human settlements in Germany can be fully and environmentally safely recovered.

This means the cessation of landfilling of recoverable MSW, increased separate collection of recyclables and technology advancement. 1st vital step towards this aim is to cut the amount and harmfulness of waste needing treatment by pacing up waste avoidance strategy in words of both number and quality. Reprocessing is targeted to be increased, with reuse and materials recovery as most favoured alternatives. The strategy instrument of producer obligation which is endeavoured and tested and cornerstone of present waste management is decided to be retained and more refined as this makes manufacturers and vendors accountable for dealing with waste and helps to close material cycles and fosters reprocessing technologies. Overall the below given colossal scopes of subject is believed in order to achieve the aim:

Promoting waste avoidance and recovery by using market based instruments. Product-oriented approach in addition to the materials-oriented approach is used, High efficiency of waste sorting and collection.

Currently, significant amount of energy from residual waste is thermally treated in Germany via energy from waste (EfW) facilities In 2010, Germany recycled 44.5% of MSW, Incineration including EfW was used to treat 37.7% MSW, 17.4% MSW was converted to compost by digestion while only less than 1% was landfilled (Eurostat, 2011). The overall facts of the municipal solid waste management in 2010 which are reported to European Union by BMU are shown in table 3 (Eurostat, 2011). As Germany authorities are committed and legally bound to expand and develop the MSW management system with aim to recover MSW completely by year 2020 in a way which is more environmentally friendly as compare to current system. This achievement will result in a system in which no disposal will be allowed and only recovery &recycling will be practiced (BMU, 2009).

Fact CategoryKg/h/year

Total waste Generated.583

Total waste collected and treated.583

Total Incineration (include energy recovery).220

Material recycling.260

Composting and digestion.101

Table 1.3: Overall facts of the municipal solid waste management system in Germany 2010.

In early 1990s, separated kurb side MSW collection system was introduced in Germany. Since then the legal frame work called Act for promoting closed substance cycle waste management and ensuring environmentally compatible waste disposal force the citizens of Germany to separate their MSW. The aim of this legal frame work is to adopt the best suited method of treatment for each separated waste stream in result maximise the recycling (BMU, 1994). Local authorities are majorly responsible for collection. Four bins divide the MSW in (1) paper and paperboard, (2) residual waste, (3) garden and kitchen waste and (4) lightweight packaging (aluminium waste, plastic waste, cartons (small) and ferrous waste. bring system is only adopted for Glass waste. In 2006, separately collected MSW materials recycling rates are as follow; lightweight packaging 78.5%, glass 100%, biodegradable waste 100% and paperboard 99% (BMU, 2009). Landfilling of recyclables which are recoverable has been completely banned in 2005 by the enforcement of the Technical instructions on municipal solid waste (BMU, 1993). In addition to this, non-pre-treated MSW going to landfill is restricted which makes landfilling of MSW practically impossible. The background of introducing this law is to reduce air, water and soil emission from landfill sites. Only 2 kg/h/y of MSW was landfilled in 2006 in comparison with 104 kg/h/y in 2004 and 225 kg/h/y 1996 (Eurostat, 2011). Currently the only the inert bottom ashes from thermal plants are being landfilled which results in zero air emissions.

Germany is strongly aimed that treatment technologies must be further refined until they produce waste or materials that allow recovery quality and quantities to be maximized and make a meaningful contribution to resource conservation. National rules and regulations in Germany are increasingly determined by European law. Germanys waste management strategy is required to be in line with the European Waste Strategy set forth in the Sixth Environmental Action Programme. The Federal Environment Ministrys strategic objectives need to dovetail with the European strategy on recycling, recovery and resource conservation but currently Germany is higher achiever than the other members of the E.U while dealing with MSW and achieved all the set targets by EU before deadlines.1.6 Life cycle Assessment review of MSW management:1.6.1 Introduction:Lifecycle analysis (LCA) is believed to be increasingly vital instrument for environmental strategy design, and even for industry and economy. LCA is also considered as an important tool by analysts when they are interested in estimating upcoming materials/energy fluxes on local and global scales, as a function of assorted commercial development and regulatory scenarios. Basic tenet of LCA is that every single physical product has to in the end come to be a waste. It is vital to account the environmental benefits and impacts from cradle to grave when to choose the greener of two produce or methodologies. This adds not merely indirect inputs to the creation procedure, and associated wastes and emissions, but additionally the upcoming (downstream) fate of a product.Therefore being a holistic approach, LCA quantifies all environmental burdens and hence all environmental encounters or impacts across the life cycle of produce or procedures (Kniel et al., 2006). LCA cannot be called as precise scientific instrument, but a science-based assessment methodology for the encounters of a produce or procedure with the nature (Jensen et al., 1997). It is repeatedly utilised as decision-making procedure and for strategy-planning in solid waste management systems. Since 1995, LCA is in use for sustainable MSW management (Simapro, 2012). Due to the waste characteristics, geographic locations, energy sources, availability of few disposal options and size of marketplaces for produce, LCA is the perfect tool for application in MSW management (White et. al, 1999). Local pressures and waste management costs can be reduced by LCA by considering the pondering the broader results and trade-offs contacted elsewhere across society (JRC, 2011). In 1998, International organization of standards (ISO) has been standardized the LCA procedure and revised the standard in 2006 (ISO, 2006)1.6.2 Literature review:In Integrated Product Policy (EU, 2003) of the European Union, LCA is considered as methodology which provides best framework for analysing environmental burden and assessing environmental impacts. In 2005 the EC established the European Platform of Life Cycle Assessment. This project was intended to develop the use of LCA. The project was planned to run until mid-2008 (JRCIES, 2007). This project is intended to address the use of LCA and to promote life cycle thinking in businesses and policy making including the waste management sector. However, there are some challenges given below which need to be addressed while applying LCA to waste management.1. All waste management techniques are considered as environmentally friendly and justified by certain kind of arguments. However, every SWM facilities need land and a lot in the case of composting and land filling, operates on non-renewable natural resources such as crude oil gas and electricity and release air contaminants and leachate. In such situation, environmental burdens are caused by waste management operations on the environment and trade-offs between environmental gains and burdens have to be assessed.2. On the other hand SWM operation produce different kind of useful products such as plastics, paper, glass, cardboard etc. are produced by material reclamation operations. RDF (Refuse-Derived Fuel is produced by shredding and dehydrating the plastic and biodegradable components of MSW under Waste converter technology) which is used as fuel in many industries such as cement kilns are generated by mechanical biological treatment operation of waste and compost is also produced by such facility which is used as fertilizer substitute. Heat and electricity is generated by thermal treatment operation such waste to energy operation. So credits are given to SWM operations for all those useful products which are included in the life cycle boundary in Life cycle assessment.3. Solid waste treatment operation also carries great deal of uncertainty. The absence of dependable and quality waste management operation data is a recognized problem of environmental analysis (Su at. el, 2006). Land filling is one of the most widely used options of MSW management and there are lot of uncertainties associated with it due to the time frame of the impacts caused by it on environment. According to UNEP, (2010) the data relating to operation with direct measurements such as collection, recycling and treatment are more reliable than data from landfills which partially have to be modelled and where estimations are necessary.In order to document the value of LCA as management tool in SWM decision making and to describe why writer has chosen to take LCA approach with his project, a brief literature review of peer-reviewed journals or published by responsible authorities around the world is presented. These studies present comparative LCAs that evaluate the burden on the environment by various types of MSW management systems. The MSW management stages considered in the publications are the following Collection and transport, Material recovery Thermal and biological treatments Final disposal

(Banar et. al, 2007) environmentally analyse the municipal solid waste management options for Eskisehir, TurkeyGoal and scope: The study compares composting, material recovery facility (MRF), Incineration and recycling. The scope of the study includes the analysis of 5 scenarios: i) MRF and land filling, ii) MRF, recycling and land filling iii) MRF, recycling, composting and land filling iv) MRF, recycling, incineration and land filling and v) incineration.Main conclusions: Scenario 2 with MRF, recycling and land filling facilities in operation was concluded with highest environmental impacts and scenario 3 with MRF, recycling, composting and land filling as treatment options was concluded as the scenario with lowest impact on the environment in terms of the overall impact cause by the integrated regime. The results were supported by the sensitivity analysis by three impact assessment methods given as follow; EPS00, EcoIndicator99 and EcoIndicator95. (Beigl and Salhofer, 2004) compare waste management scenarios for rural communities of Salzburg in Austria.Goal and scope: Comparing the environmental and economic aspects of different waste management scenarios in Austrian rural areas was the goal of the study. Three scenarios were included as scope of the study: scenario i) bring system recycling; scenario ii) kerbside collection recycling and scenario iii) non-recycling.Main conclusions: The collection in the kerbside system was found to be ecologically better the bring system due to the lower fuel consumption for transport. The recycling in both scenarios played an important role due to the low impacts on environment in terms of acidification and net energy use.(Abduli et al., 2010) In this study two MSW management scenarios in Tehran, Iran were compared.Goal and scope: The comparison of the environmental impacts of two MSW management scenarios was the goal of the study. The scope was to compare two MSW management practices for the city of Tehran with following details; scenario 1: Landfilling and scenario 2: Composting and landfilling.Main conclusions: It was concluded in the study that the scenario (ii) has higher environmental impact potential then scenario (i) (landfilling). The reason of the results was composition of the MSW in which the organic content was 67.8% (quite high). (Wittmaier et al., 2009) This study applies LCA on waste treatment and utilization systems to a region in Northern Germany.Goal and scope: the goal of the study is to assess the environmental burden of thermal treatment with climate change as indicator in comparison with various waste treatment systems. 2 scenarios were included in the scope of the study. Conventional thermal treatment system which include stokerfired incinerator with multistage flue gas cleaning was scenario (i) and optimized energy recovery with the specific preliminary mechanical waste separator of the waste materials followed by a subsequent scenario (i) treatment of separated lower calorific value waste. Landfilling of incinerator waste was included in both scenarios.Main conclusions: Study concludes that the greenhouses gases can reduce to half of the amount by incinerating the waste compared to the landfilling and decomposing the same amount of the waste. Moreover, the energetic utilization of higher calorific value waste can further reduce the amount of the greenhouse gases as compare greenhouse gases produced from incineration.(Morris,2010) Waste-to-energy (WTE) and electricity generation from landfill (LF) gases were environmentally compared in North America with regard to the greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions.Goal and scope: The goals of the study include; (i) to measure the climate change impact of WTE and LF by comparing them; and (ii) to compare coal, natural gas and MSW to find out which one of them cause more climate change by producing greenhouse gasses when they are used for electricity generation.Main conclusions: The study reveals that the landfill gases capture rate defines as crossover rate is the gases capture rate at which burying and burning have equal GHG emissions. LF with gases capture technology working at higher rate than crossover rate has lower GHG emissions than WTE. Facilities with lower Capture rate then crossover rate are not environmentally better than WTE in terms of climate change cause by the emitted greenhouse gases. Crossover rates of the facilities in Seattle and Massachusetts higher than facilities situated in Vancouver, this is due to MSW generated Seattle and Massachusetts is having lower fossil carbon content, which results in lower WTE fossil CO2 emissions. Regarding the comparison for power generation, natural gas is the best option. WTE emissions are lower if LCA system boundaries are expanded to include offsets for recovering scrap metals from WTE bottom ash.(Milit&Stanikis, 2010) This study applies LCA on different MSW management systems in the region of Alytus, Lithuania.Goal and scope: Goal; Study was to compare different options MSW management for the MSW in the region of Alytus, Lithuania. Scope; 5 different scenarios were studied: only landfilling was included in scenario (i); composting recycling and landfilling was included in scenario (ii); MBT, composting recycling and incineration were integrated to form scenario (iii); incineration and recycling forms scenario (iv) and incineration, recycling and MBT were the basis of scenario (v).Main conclusions: Land filling put highest value of burden on the environment compared to other options. Furthermore, in case of all impact categories for biodegradable fraction of waste, incineration with energy recovery is better option than aerobic composting.(Khoo, 2009)In this study comparison of different waste conversion technologies through LCA was done in Singapore.Goal and scope: Goal of the study is comparison of different waste conversion facilities in Singapore. Eight waste treatment options were included in the scope for converting wide waste range including scrap wood, tyres MSW, RDF and organic waste into combustible synthetic gases. Gasification and pyrolysis were the basis of all the technologies adopted in eight scenarios.Main conclusions: In terms of the environmental cause by each technology, stream gasification of wood and Pyrolysis-gasification of MSW are proved as the best as best option.(Liamsanguan and Gheewala, 2008) In this study author assessed two systems of MSW management for the island of Phuket in Thailand.Goal and scope: the goal of the study includes life cycle assessment of two waste management options which are landfilling (without energy recovery) and incineration (with energy recovery currently in use for MSW management in the island. The scope includes the comparison in of the methods with greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption as environmental impact indicators.Main conclusions: Landfilling was proved to be more environmental damaging the incineration. However, landfilling was proved to be environmentally superior when landfill gas was recovered for electricity generation.(Buttol et. al.,2007) In this study life cycle assessment of the MSW management system of the Bologna, Italy was done.Goal and scope: Comparison of different MSW management methodologies in the Bologna district was the goal of the study. Three scenarios were included in the scope of the study; scenario (i): it is based on the current MSW management practices; scenario (ii): This scenario shows an increase 30% to 50% of the total MSW sent to incineration with energy recovery; scenario (ii) present a that the 31%.of the MSW is separately collected 37% of the total waste MSW is incineratedMain conclusions: Benefit of increasing incineration with energy recovery and recycling were clearly documented in the results and interpretation.(Hischier et. al., 2005) study applies of LCA on the management of a specific fraction of MSW called electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE).Goal and scope: The life cycle assessment of the Swiss take-back and recycling by two schemes. (i) SWICO (telecommunication equipment, computers and consumer electronics). (ii) S.EN.S (household appliances).Main conclusions: Take-back and recycling system was proved to be far beneficial compared to the complete incineration of all WEEE.Conclusions:In the reviewed 10 references the environmental burdens of the waste management strategies are calculated based on different impact categories by using LCA methodology which acts as basic decision making tool to prove one waste management strategy is environmentally better than other. LCA has been applied to various MSW management stages covering the whole MSW life cycle: 1 publications refer to collection (Beigl & Salhofer, 2004); 6 publications refer to integrated MSW management (Abduli et al., 2010; Milit & Stanikis, 2010; Banar et al., 2009; Khoo, 2009; Liamsanguan & Gweewala, 2008; Buttol et al., 2007; 2 publications refer to waste-to-energy schemes (Moris, 2010; Wittmaier et al., 2009); Finally, there are 1 publications that deal with specific MSW streams: that is for WEEE (Hischier et al., 2005).Given conclusions can be drawn from the references; Kerbside collection is environmentally better than collection in the bring system (Beigl & Salhofer, 2004).From integrated MSW management cases, the following conclusions were identified: landfills are the worst management options (Milit & Stanikis, 2010); significant environmental savings are achieved from energy recovery (Khoo, 2009; Wittmaier et al., 2009; Liamsanguan & Gweewala, 2008; Buttol et al., 2007); the same is true for material recovery, especially metals (Morris, 2010; Banar et al., 2009; Buttol et al., 2007; Hischier et al., 2005).Finally, the waste-to-energy case studies, in addition to the aforementioned conclusions, reveal the following: energetic utilisation of waste with increased calorific value should be pursued (Wittmaier et al., 2009); electricity from waste-to-energy incineration is not better than electricity from natural gas (Morris, 2010).

Chapter 2 Methodology:2.1 Introduction:LCA will be adapted to analyse the inputs (methodology) and outputs (environmental burden) associated with the techniques to manage MSW.

LCA for this study will encompass the following steps:

Developing system scenarios for the purposes of environmental analysis, including data collection from secondary sources for status quo scenarios and data estimation and assumption for advanced scenarios for MSW generation and handling in Germany and Pakistan. Analysing pollutant emissions inventories incorporated in a LCA tool over the life cycle for waste materials generated in Germany and Pakistan and discarded into the regions Municipal Solid Waste. Evaluating the environmental impacts of these pollutant emissions in terms of three major impacts: Climate Change, Human Health problems and Eco-system Toxicity. Assessing the contribution of various options (management strategies) for managing environmental impacts from waste life cycle, originate in terms of their comparative contributions to the main environmental encounters which are Climate Change, Human Health problems and Eco-system Toxicity.

Methodology of this project is majorly divided into two portions which are given below; LCA of Germanys current and future (2020) MSW management system (Section: 2.6). LCA of Pakistans current and future MSW management system (Section: 2.7).

Main reasons behind LCA of the German MSW management system is to quantify the impacts of the future strategies that will incorporate the technological advancement, increased separate collection and zero amount of untreated MSW to landfills and to compare these impacts with the impacts of the current MSW management system in Germany. This analysis will lead us to the in depth overall analysis of the future system and provides a basis to adopt the environmentally perfect future integrated MSW management system for Pakistan. In addition to this, it will also provide the results on the basis of which it can be proved that the inline advancements in Germanys MSW management system are environmentally right or wrong.

Primary focus of LCA of Pakistans MSW management system is to scientifically prove that the current strategies of MSW management in Pakistan are not environmentally sound. A comparative scenario which would be based on the proved results from German case incorporating zero amount of the untreated waste to landfill, advance technology and high rates of separate collections of recyclables will be analysed to find out that whether current or future assumed scenario is environmentally better for Pakistan.

Types of waste that which are considered in the project are; Household wasteHousehold waste includes the objects which are discarded as waste in municipal waste stream from the households (Walkers, 2004). Commercial type house hold wasteCommercial type house hold waste includes the objects which are thrown away by the commercial units (offices, shops and small manufacturing units) in the municipal stream of waste. It is also termed as light weight commercial waste. (Basker et al., 2012).2.2 LCA tool selection:The specifications of the selection criteria for the appropriate LCA Waste management computer model for this project are given as follow; Referred in scientific journals Peer reviewed Preferably design for waste management LCA Professionally designed University/Institute based In used nationally and internationally. Language of instruction/operation is English Operateable on student level computersAfter review of the literature possible model tool kits for LCA of waste management were identified and given in Table 4.SoftwareDeveloperBaseUser Friendly LicenceReferences

ARESGerman University.EXCELNo(Christensen, 2011)

Integrated Waste Management-2 (IWM-2)Proctor & Gamble (P & G), UK.Structured Query LanguageFree CD and User Manual(McDougall et al., 2001) (Christensen, 2011)(Winkler &Bilitewski, 2007)

ORWARESLU, KTH, IVL & JTI (Swedish Universities).EXCEL & MATLABNo (Lens and Hameler, 2004)(Christensen, 2011)

EPICEPIC (Corporation association supporting recycling in Canada).EXCELNo(Haight, 1999, 2004)(Winkler &Bilitewski 2007)(Diaz &Warith, 2005)

MSW-DSTUS Environmental Protection Agency.EXCELWeb access(Thorneloeet al., 2007) (Christensen, 2011)(Keller & Burke, 2009)

UMBERTOResearch Institutes Germany.BORLAND DATABASENo(Keller & Burke, 2009)

EASEWASTETechnical University of Denmark.-No(Andersen et al., 2007)

SoftwareDeveloperBaseUser Friendly LicenceReferences

WISARDEA UK &Ecobilan France.-No(Keller & Burke, 2009)

WASTEDCanada.EXCELNo(Diaz &Warith, 2006)(Keller & Burke, 2009)(Saleem, 2009)

iSBEMDepartment for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) UK.Compliance Checking Module (BRUKL)Free software (training required)(BRE, 2009)

Sima Pro 7PR Consultants Netherlands-Non-OCED countries students free licence(Simapro, 2012)

Gabi 4PE International-Free software for students(Gabi, 2012)

Table 2.1: LCA tools for waste management

Selection of the appropriate models which could be applied to the project is shown in figure 2. The figure 2.1 shows the communication stage, limitation and application assessment stage and finally the selection stage.

Figure 2.1: Information collection events, applicable models and selected model.2.3 IWM-2Model:

IWM-2 model is programmed by McDoughall et al. (2008), which is a modification of the White et al. (1995) model (IWM-1). Visual Basic graphical interface is used as programming language in the model. The basic function of the tool is to give the waste management policy maker a snapshot and indication of economic & environmental burdens of waste management strategies. Life cycle of standard waste stream is followed in the tool. Every life cycle stage is incorporated with different questions and answers which results in the definition of the system. The inputs from the manager are divided in seven categories which are given as follow;

Waste inputs Waste collection Sorting (Material Recovery Facility (MRF), Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF)), Biological treatment Thermal treatment, Landfilling Recycling.

Although solid waste material is physically mixed, but in IWM-2 model different waste types are kept separate. Main reason behind this is to characterise the calorific value and composition of material and to analyse the environmental effectiveness of any treatment method, at any point in the life cycle.

IWM-2 model allows the user to add different kinds of waste to different or one method of treatment. The model subtracts the amount of waste quantities going through different treatment method from the overall waste input. At the end of life cycle of waste, all of wasted materials left the waste stream and enter into either the emissions or product category. IWM-2 model is differentiated from any other LCA modelling tool by its capacity of implementing IWM into any scenario designed or desired. The economic assessment can also be done with the help of costing features which measures the affordability of the scheme under study.

IWM-2 limitations lie in the facts that the output emission results only gives specific results for 41 elements and compounds. Emission results are only for air and water and the theses specific emissions are not in the ready form to be used for decision making. Further integration and processing of the emission results is required to make them useful for the decision and policy makers. Generally, the method of the IWM results integration and processing is based on application of one or even two stages of LCA which includes impact Assessment and interpretation. So basically IWM-2 is not a complete LCA tool but a LCIA tool.

2.4 Life cycle Impacts Categories:Three impact categories of base line method of Life cycle impact assessment are selected and given as under:

1. Global Warming Potential Climate Change.2. Human Toxicology.3. Eco-toxicity - Freshwater Aquatic

Coverage of many of the global and local, human and non-human repercussions of waste management methods by these impact categories allow the writer to choose these impact categories. Most importantly, emission data sources and conversion factors for these categories in nearly every impact assessment method are readily available. This is due to the reason that these categories include important indicators like carcinogens, toxic and substances and other pollutants that cause human health and ecological problems (Guinee, 2002).

2.4.1 Climate Change Global warming Potential (GWP)This impact category is the only impact category that is measured by IWM-2 using the base line impact indicator method and IPPC standards (McDoughall et al., 2008). Impact category called global warming potential index is measures by combining NO2, CO2 and CH4. Global warming potential for climate change is measured in comparison with Carbondioxide. Influence perspective of 100 yearlong period is assumed by IWM-2 and same in this project. Equation for calculating the index is given as follows (Guinee, 2002);

I = specific substance emitted into air.GWP 100i= Global warming potential of specific substance in comparison with CO2 in Kg.mi= mass of the substances emitted into air in Kg.

2.4.2 Human Toxicity (Human Toxicology Potential) Impact of the toxic substances found in the natural environment on the human health is covered in this index. However, emission impact of these substances at the work place in not considered. Coefficient used to measure the toxicity of each element and compound is called Human Toxicity Potential HTP. The value of Human toxicity potential defines the pathway of the element or compound to the human body and then inside the human body and type of environment into which an element or compound is emitted. HTP value also describes the element or compound toxicity depending on the pathway it takes within the human body. The toxic impacts of the analysed substances on human body is measured in comparison with 1,4-dichlorobenzen (also abbreviated as p-DCB) project (Guinee, 2002). Influence perspective of 100yearlong is assumed in this project. Equation for calculating the index is given as follows (Guinee, 2002);

HTP = Human Toxicity Potential of specific substance in comparison with 1, 4 dichlorobenzene in kg.i = Specific substance.ecom = emission compartment of environment, e.g. air , water etc.mecomi= emission of substance i to medium ecom (kg).

2.4.3 Eco-toxicity - Freshwater Aquatic (Eco-toxicology Potential) Burden on the natural environment (eco-toxicity) is described by many impact categories and Eco-toxicity Freshwater Aquatic is one of them. Fresh water in the natural environment is covered in the impact category but sediments are excluded from the scope. 1,4-dichlorobenzene (also abbreviated as p-DCB)eq. in 100 years perspective is used to measure the impact. The toxicity of the emission is measured by FAETP index with dichlorobenzene as reference in the natural environment (fresh water as medium). Even if the substance emission is in air or soil, this impact category measures the environmental burden on water environment only Equation for calculating the index is given as follows (Guinee, 2002);.

FAETP/ETP = Fresh Water Eco-toxicity Potential (Kg 1, 4 dichlorobenzene)i = substance emission (kg).ecom = emission compartment of environment, e.g air , water etc.mecomi= emission of substance i to medium ecom (kg).

2.5 Life cycle impact assessment:In this phase the inventory analysis, results of IWM-2 model is further processed in terms of the environmental impacts and indicator method discussed in section 2.4. In order to do this, the environmental intervention in mass unit given by the IWM-2 model inventory analysis are qualified and quantified on qualitative basis to the already selected Impact categories (Climate change, human toxicology and eco-toxicology) with help of conversion factors values of GWP, HTP and ETP (section: 2.4.2) and the formula provided in section 2.4. Intervention of one substance in more than one impact categories is also studied in this project. All the environmental intervention given as results in the inventory analysis by IWM-2 are converted to indicator (CO2 and 1, 4 dichlorobenzene) values by multiplying with substance specific conversation factors (GWP, HTP and ETP) and summed up in the respective impact categories. All of the procedure is done by developing Excel based software for necessary and quick computing. The software is specially designed by the writer for impact analysis of the inventory results by IWM-2 model. This software only gives results for the selected impact categories for this project. However a further research can expand this software to analyse other impact categories just by inputting the IWM-2 inventory analysis results in it. The software programming strictly follow the given baseline method equations for quantifying the impact in relation to a specific indicator selected. HTPecomi, FAETPecomi and GWP100i values are taken from Guinee (2002). Excel sheet with the results is attached as Appendix 1 and 2 with results.

2.6 Life cycle assessment of Waste management Strategies in Germany

2.6.1 Goal and Scope:The purpose of this LCA is to analyse the potential and performance of the MSW management system of Germany with regard to global warming potential, human health effects and toxicity cause in the fresh water ecosystem in result determining that whether Germany is on the right line towards sustainability with reaching the zero waste objective (zero landfill of untreated waste), higher separate waste collection rates and advance technology. This is done by comparing 2 scenarios, one of year 2006 which is based on the current waste management strategies and the other one of year 2020 which is based on the zero waste target, advance technology and higher separate recyclables collection. Thus examines the contribution of environmental burden that MSW management system make currently and will make in year 2020 with future identified changes in the system.

Overall results as well as specific waste fraction treatment results are presented for both scenarios. Different types of household-type commercial waste and household waste is also differentiated by the type of treatment method. The results of the analysis have the capacity of direct comparison, but inter waste fractions results comparison is not possible. For example, it is not possible to compare results for recycling of LWP as material with the results of WIP since LWP and waste incinerated in thermal plant have non-comparable properties and hence different environmental impacts (positive and negative).

2.6.2 Life Cycle Inventory:

In order to ensure possible maximum consistency and advantage of synergies the data in this for the life analysis is taken from projects published UBA and BMU. In particular, research works such as Bilitewski, et al., (2008), Witzenhausen Institute (2008), Lahl & Lahl (2009) and Wasteconsult (2007). Much of the data and associated assumptions (which remain unchanged in this LCA) are collected from Status Report 2005 (ko-Institut, 2005). MSW quantities data is extracted from the Federal Statistical Office Germany and EuroStat websites and where it is required the data from these websites is presented in conjution with the data from the projects mentioned earlier. Basic operation inventory data (emission factors) of the waste treatment methods is used as it is in IWM-2 model and described in McDoughall et al. (2008).

2.6.3 Limitations and assumptions:

The basic suitability of assessing waste management issues with life cycle assessment method has been proved by number of works mentioned in the literature review. However, as the subject of investigation is waste management in Germany in context of Closed Substance Cycle and Waste Management Act Germany (Federal Law, 2000) and assessing it in IWM-2 model involves a number of issues and limitation. Some of these are given as follow;

Instead of considering the departure of the material from the usual life cycle (cradle to grave), the study undertakes the waste management service as it is as life cycle to be assessed. Life cycle starts from the generation of the waste. Wastes previous life cycle (recovery) is not relevant to this study.

At the end of the life cycle if a product departs from waste management service it may get recycled several times until its final elimination thermally or by landfilling. According to closed cycle approach spirit quantifiable benefits of further recycling can be ploughed back which makes it unimportant to give to analyse the life of the material departed from the classic life cycle of waste management service.

IWM-2 has no space for the separate treatment of the waste wood. This means that the model doesnt incorporate the operation data to treat wood. So separately collected waste wood is not analysed in this LCA.

Transportation and collection is eliminated from the life cycle of both scenarios due to the fact that both the scenarios are dealing with the same amount of the waste and it is assumed that 100% of the waste generated is collected and transported for both scenarios. In addition to this no technical advancement are inline or under consideration by German policy makers. So practically there is no difference between year 2006 and year 2020 in terms of collection and transport.

2.6.4 Functional Unit:Functional unit of this LCA is 42.67 million tonnes of municipal waste which was the total MSW generated in year 2006 in Germany. Both scenarios (2006 and 2020) deals with same waste quantities. Same amount of the waste quantities for both scenarios guarantee the comparability of the scenarios and equivalence of the benefits.

2.6.5 System Boundary:In order to ensure the comparability of scenarios system boundaries are formed. The data supplied to these system boundaries for the analyses is described in the cases on the individual waste streams. The system boundary is presented below in figure 2.2:

Figure 2.2: The modelled scenario considered in the study. (-) system boundary, () input/output

This LCA of waste management is not designed on the basis of the material flows. Instead, separated waste fractions are considered by incorporating the calculations of all each waste fraction under different treatment steps. E.g. 1 kg of waste is composed of 0.5 kg organic waste and 0.5 kg of bottom ash. Organic portion is composted and bottom ash is land filled. In order to design LCA of the 1 kg of the waste we have two options.1. We can analyse two different waste fractions under one scenario which divides into landfill and composting (Non-material flow/waste fraction scenario).2. We can analyse it under two different scenarios for landfill and composting (Material flow)/Treatment type scenarios).

2.6.6 Scenarios description:The following scenarios are compared:

2.6.6.1 2006 (Actual):LCA of current situation with help of the data extracted from Federal Statistical Office Germany and other project reports. Data is supplemented by self-calculation and based on the material and energy input and output for year 2006.

2.6.6.2 2020 (advance):This scenario considered following points; Technical Improvements of treatment technologies are assumed. In year 2006, 94,000 t of untreated waste is disposed of as landfill. This waste is diverged to thermal and biological plants on pro rata basis in this scenario. 50% increase in the separate collection is assumed 2020 (advance). 50% of the plastics, metals, paper & board and organic waste (bio/green) which was part of the residual waste (household) and commercial mix waste in 2006 are included in separated collected waste streams in 2020. 28% decrease in residual and commercial is seen due to this separate collection leading to decrease in input to Incineration and Biological plants.

2.6.7 Waste streams:Waste Balance for the year 2006 (Destatis, 2012) is presented below in table 2.2 is published by Federal Statistical Offices Federal Germany. It is most recent available municipal waste balance sheet which is supplemented by many of the research projects described in inventory.

Table 2.2: Waste quantities according to waste balance 2006 Germany

2.6.7.1 Waste streams for Investigation:Waste streams for investigation are presented in table 2.3. The individual streams are reported as shown according to Destatis, (2012). Waste quantities presented against Incineration and landfill only represents the input sent to incineration plants and landfills (untreated waste only in 2006) directly. Additional quantities of waste from M (B) plants, sorting and treatment residues from recovery of LWP are also incinerated and landfill (treated). 1.2 m. t of separately collected PBC increased in 2020 (advance) scenario by 50% more collection which is in 2006 (actual) part of residual waste (14.3 m. t of HW and 3.8 m. t of HCW). In the case of organic (bio/green) separate collection of waste, it is assumed 2.3 m.t of organic is additionally separated from residual waste in 2020 which breaks down into 2/3% of bio waste and 1/3% of green waste. In case of LWP in 2020 (advance), plastics (0.64 m. t) recyclable composites (0.37 m. t) and metals (0.32 m. t) are additionally recovered as a result of 50% increase recovery from residual waste as compare to 2006 (actual). As a whole a total of around 5 million t/a recyclable quantities are separated from residual waste because of the 50% increased separate collection in scenario 2020 (advance) which is subtracted on the weighted basis equally from M(B) plants (2 m. t) and Incineration (3 m. t), which results in a decline of 28% in each case as compare to 2006 (actual) scenario. Table 2.4 shows the different waste stream generated per head per annum in 2006 in Germany and calculated based on the above assumption of 50% more collection of recyclables in 2020 (advance) for the population of 82.4 million in Germany.

Table 2.3: Waste streams for investigation and increase or decrease in waste quantities in 2020 as compare to 2006.

Table 2.4: Waste streams kg per head per annum and increase or decrease in waste quantities in 2020 as compare to 2006.

2.6.8 Waste Composition:The life cycle assessment of the individual treatment stages requires quantifying the changes in waste streams in the scenarios which importantly depend on composition of residual waste. Lack of latest reliable data is notice for Germany. In 1987, a national sorting survey of HW was conducted. More recently, a survey for whole of Bravia was conducted and some other examples are present for other parts of Germany. But these analyses are not whole of Germany representatives. Due to all these reason this study is based on Kern, (2001) data. Kern, (2001) also used as residual waste composition data in ko-Institut, (2005) also known as Status Report 2005 Germany. Residual waste is collected from two sources (house hold and commercial) composition of each type is presented in table 2.5 and 2.6. By this the average composition of the residual waste to be treated in 2006 (actual) is calculate and shown in table 2.7. This table also show the change in average waste composition of mix of residual waste due to increased separate waste collection. This composition for both scenarios is taken as the basis of the analysis. Table 2.8 show the effect of 50% removal of recyclables for the residual mix on the absolute quantities and also present new residual mix quantities after removal.

Table: 2.5 Table: 2.6Table 2.5: Composition of Residual waste from Households (Kern, 2001)Table 2.6: Composition of HCW (Kern, 2001)

Table 2.7: Composition of waste for 2006 and 2020, taken as the basis of the analysis.

Table 2.8: Absolute quantities of residual mix for scenario 2006 and 2020.

2.6.9 Residual waste to Landfill:

Untreated waste landfilling dont have any role in the German waste management sector environmental account, still in 2006 waste statistics shows 94000 t/a (1.1 kg/h/annum) of untreated waste stream to landfill (table 5,6). The approach is adopted that all emissions (including future emissions for 100 year) caused by the land filled waste are charged to the waste with compositions describe in table 9 for 2006.

Further it is assumed that in Germany landfill sites are available with gas capture facility as it is mandatory technical requirement according to the TASi (Muller et. al, 1998). Due to the diffuse escape of gasses the efficiency of gas capture decreases so gas capture efficiency is assume to be 50% (sent to CHP plants) the rest of the gas is burned by flaring. Leachate collection efficiency is assumed to be 80%. Biologically pre-treated waste landfilling results are the part of M(B) plants results but the technical detail of the land site are for the pre-treated waste. The following results for the landfilling of the residual mix for 2006. In 2020 scenario it is assumed that zero amount of waste is land filled.

Table 2.9 present values of impact indicators in the concern units for scenario 2006. Full detail of calculation is presented in the appendix 1.

ProcessClimate Change (Kg CO2 eq.)Human Health (kg p-DCB eq.)Ecotoxicology (kg p-DCB eq.)

Landfill48538801.521126362.49-32560.30

Total48,538,8021,126,362-32,560

Table 2.9: Results of LCA of residual waste Landfilling in 2006 (actual)

2.6.10 Residual waste to WIPResidual waste to incineration plants with energy recovery is reported as 10.8 m. t/a (131.1 kg/h/annum) (table 2.3, 2.4). According to IFEU (2005) the incineration plants with energy recovery operates at thermal efficiency of 30% and gross electrical efficiency of 10%. Same figures are assumed for 2006 (actual) scenario. For 2020 (advance) scenario an improvement in net electrical efficiency 14% and thermal efficiency of 45% is assumed which is the target to be achieved till year 2020 (UBA 2007). ISI (2009) states that in Germany the electricity by biogenic sources replaced 16%, 59% and 25% electricity produced by lignite, coal and natural gas respectively. This section as well the whole LCA has adopted this electricity mix in the modelling. Furthermore it is important to mention here that the power needs of incineration plants with energy recovery in Germany are met from their own generated electricity (GEMIS, 2008). Heating systems distribution losses of 10% are applied to both scenarios (Fritsche et. al., 2008).In 2006, 50% and 10% of the Fe and NF metals respectively are reported to be separated the ashes and recycled. 2020 (advance) assumes higher efficiencies with 70% and 50% for iron and non-ferrous metals respectively (Dehoust et. al., 2002). Bottom ash reused efficiency is assumed to be 100% in both scenarios. This is due to the reason that no ash quantities are reported to be landfilled.Specific findings of the above describe details of the treatment of the residual waste amounts for both scenarios in incineration plants are given in table 2.10 and 2.11. Recycling credits are given to the incineration plants due to the reuse of bottom ash and Fe and NF metal separated from ash. More over a quick comparison between the impact categories of two scenarios is also presented in figureProcessClimate Change (Kg CO2 eq.)Human Health (kg p-DCB eq.)Ecotoxicology (Kg p-DCB eq.)

Thermal10,467,236,447168199397.8-724720.7608

Recycling-275,154,93412687231.42-9506325.921

Total10,192,081,514180,886,629-10,231,047

Table 2.10: Results of LCA of residual waste incineration for 2006 (actual).ProcessClimate Change (Kg CO2 eq.)Human Health (kg p-DCB eq.)Ecotoxicology (Kg p-DCB eq.)

Thermal7,247,074,762130352925.5-812879.0311

Recycling-198,757,9889161926.609-6866885.663

Total7,048,316,774139,514,852-7,679,765

Table 2.11: Results of LCA of residual waste incineration for 2020 (advance).

Figure 2.3: Comparison of impact categories of landfilling of residual waste for both scenarios.2.6.11 Residual waste to Mechanical Biological Plants:MSW balance data under treatment by M(B) plants is extracted from waste statistics sources, wasteconsult (2007) and Bilitewski et al. (2008). Soyez (2001), Wallmann et al. (2008), Wiegel (2012), Wiegel (2008) and Wallmann et al. (2009) were also examined to gather detail information. Total input to M (B) plants in both scenarios is given in table 2.12 and 2.13. These tables also describe the quantities of the waste fractions which are separated from the input and send to different destination. This data is based on the references cited above and supplemented by own calculations. In scenario 2020 (advance) the waste streams changes due to the increased separate collection of recyclables from residual waste assumed. The recovered fraction for Incineration with energy recovery is treated with same technical specifications as described in section 2.6.10.At present (2006 (Actual)), treatment in aerobic M(B) plants account to 69% and 31% is treated in M(B) with anaerobic biological plants (Bilitewski, et al., 2008). According to Schulte (2009) increase percentage of the waste should be treated in anaerobic plants which operate with less environmental burden as compare to aerobic plants. Due to this many of the aerobic treatment plants in Germany are planning to upgrade with a fermentation stage. So in 2020 (advance) it is assumed that 80% of the total input is treated in anaerobic and 20% in aerobic plants.Recovered material in form of High calorific waste subdivides in different waste fractions as described in table 2.14 and 2.15 for both scenarios. Energy recovery efficiencies of this waste stream are given in table 2.16. The technical specification of the M(B) plants are described in table 2.17 (Bilitewski et al., (2008).

Table 2.12: Waste stream data for MB plants for 2006 (Actual).

.Table 2.13: Waste stream data for MB plants for 2020 (Advance).

Table 2.14: Treatment technology applied to recovered high calorific waste 2006 (Actual)

Table 2.15: Treatment technology applied to recovered high calorific waste 2020 (Advance).

Table 2.16: Energy recovery efficiencies of different treatment method and mean values.

Table 2.17: Technical Specification of M(B) plants.

Results for M(B) plants are presented in table 2.18 and 2.19. The results are subdivided in to the method of treatment (land fill of biologically treated waste, recycling of metals and ash, thermal treatment with incinerators and high calorific waste processing) adopted under the M (b) waste stream. More over a quick comparison of the scenarios is presented.ProcessClimate change (Kg CO2 eq.)Human Health (kg p-DCB eq.)Ecotoxicology (Kg p-DCB eq.)

Biological77562163.124161398.211531395.854

Thermal3,381,800,28964734808.27-217537.0405

Landfill79580554.131847627.05462665.54731

Recycling-444,975,80012806894.34-14120957.2

Total3,093,967,20683,550,728-12,744,433

Table 2.18: Results of LCA of waste in M(B) plants for 2006 (actual).

ProcessClimate Change (Kg CO2 eq.)Human Health (kg p-DCB eq.)Ecotoxicology (Kg p-DCB eq.)

Biological1271175.7668620.6319423931.94

Thermal2,500,098,46649166565.78-390920.18

Landfill60398304.811183966.3228361.51

Recycling-273,125,0214240630.24-8078956.28

Total2,288,642,92654,659,783-8,417,583

Table 2.19: Results of LCA of waste in M(B) plants for 2020 (advance).

Figure 2.4: Comparison of impact categories values (MB Plants) for both scenarios.

2.6.12 BIO Waste and Green waste:Waste streams generated due to separate collection of organic waste (green and bio waste) are reported as 45.6 kg/h/a of bio waste and 49 kg/h/a of green waste for scenario 2006 (actual) (table 2.3 and 2.4). Due to the increase separate collection of organic waste assumed in scenario 2020 (advance) bio waste stream jumps to 64 kg/h/a and green waste stood at 58.3 kg/h/a. Organic waste is largely composted.

In 2006 (actual) 7.2% is processed by digestion (bio gasification) and the rest 92.8 is send to composting plants. During the composting process the mass loss due to drying and other reasons is reported to be 50% in composting plants and 60% for bio gasification plants (BGK, 2008). Hence the compost produced is 3628369 tonnes by composting process and 225209 tonnes of compost is produced by bio gasification process which gives a total of 3853578 tonnes of compost by both processes out of which 63% is marketable and rest which is 37% is send to incineration plants with energy recovery which equates to about 1425824 tonnes of compost with an overall recovery efficiency of 16.5% for power and 22% for heat. About 265203 tons of the treated waste which contains bottom ash and hazardous material is land filled in the end of the process (Witzenhausen, 2007).

In scenario 2020 (advance) it is assumed that 42 % is sent to composting plant, 8% of the organic waste with high calorific value of 9.36 MJ/kg is separated and treated by thermal energy recovery and 50% is treated by bio gasification. It is assumed that 90% of the compost produced is marketable and the rest 10% is incinerated. Over all energy recovery efficiency for separated high calorific value organic waste and 10% of the non-marketable compost produced is given as 20% for power and 41% for heat.No latest technical data is available for composting plants in Germany But according to the set standards mentioned in TIAQC (TA Luft, 2009) average power consumption of the composting plants in Germany is 25 KWh/t which is assume to be 20 KWh/t for 2020 (advance) scenario.

The results for the composting plants show the impact figures for the separately collected organic waste processing by different treatment methods. Recycling credit has been given to the results by IWM-2 due to the production of compost and reuse of ash from thermal units. A quick comparison of the impact of two scenarios is also presented in figure 2.5.

ProcessClimate Change (Kg CO2 eq.)Human Health (Kg p-DCB eq.)Ecotoxicology (Kg p-DCB eq.)

Biological61967757.663311644.1981220342.7

Thermal-207,835,730-11253695.95-179517.8

Landfill035.5768314076.564

Recycling-103,466,699-472283.52710

Total-249,334,671-8,414,3001,044,901

Table 2.20: Results of LCA of organic waste processing for 2006 (actual).

ProcessClimate Change (Kg CO2 eq.)Human Health (kg p-DCB eq.)Ecotoxicology (Kg p-DCB eq.)

Biological-236896414.8-12709572.51-4691905.078

Thermal72,319,966-7122196.845-171069.6774

Landfill017.7092312024.384

Recycling-164,226,984-749629.59330

Total-328,803,433-20,581,381-4,860,950

Table 2.21: Results of LCA of organic waste processing for 2020 (advance).

Figure 2.5: Comparison of impact categories values for the treatment of organic waste.

2.6.13 Paper, board and cartons (PBC):In the case of PBC the waste quantity increased from 8.08 m. t in 2006 to 9.24 m. t. in 2020 due to increased separate collection of recyclables. Reprocessing technology is assumed to be same for both scenarios except reduced power consumption to 20kWh/t as compare to 25khw/t for sorting plants which operates separately in the case of PCB waste in Germany. The reprocessing gives rise to losses in the form of paper sludge (5.3%) and rejected material (0.6%) which is applied to both scenarios. For both scenarios, WIP treatment is adopted in the case of rejected material and coal-fired power plants use the paper sludge as fuel. In the case Gross efficiency of energy recovery for WIP and coal-fired power plants is assumed to be 20% in scenario 2006 (actual) and 40% in 2020 (advance).

Results are shown in table 2.22 and 2.23 are for the separate treatment steps undertaken to complete the over treatment of PCB in Germany. Recycling credits are given for the reprocessing of the paper in paper mills, Landfill of bottom ash from the thermal units is also considered in the cycle and included in the results.

ProcessClimate Change (Kg CO2 eq.)Human Health (kg p-DCBeq.)Ecotoxicology (Kg p-DCB eq.)

Sorting91226725.454,893,3711804016.16

Thermal505,986,498-4502262.918-85948.90

Landfill07.33851.0928

Recycling1,324,730,87636537800.8922262067.41

Total1,921,944,10036,928,91623,980,986

Table 2.22: Results of LCA of PBC waste processing for 2006 (actual).

ProcessClimate Change (Kg CO2 eq.)Human Health (kg p-DCB eq.)Ecotoxicology (Kg p-DCB eq.)

Sorting41698814.642,236,800824599.7422

Thermal441,572,884-12509085.16-215687.9141

Landfill08.357653971.8884

Recycling923,050,45925458855.7415511837.89

Total1,406,322,15815,186,57916,121,722

Table 2.23: Results of LCA of PBC waste processing for 2020 (advance).

Figure 2.6: Comparison of impact categories values for the treatment of PBC waste.

2.6.14 Glass:In the case of the glass waste which is reported to be recovered 100% in 2006 so no extra separate collection of glass waste is possible nor assumed for 2020 (advance). Furthermore there is no difference assumed in the recovery technologies of both scenarios. Due to these facts the comparison of two scenarios has not been done for this glass waste stream. Waste glass is processed in sorting plants with power consumption of 25khw/t and sent to glass manufacturer. The specific findings for glass reprocessing for both the scenarios are same and presented in table 2.24.

ProcessClimate change (Kg CO2 eq.)Human Health (p-DCBeq.)Ecotoxicology (Kg p-DCBeq.)

Sorting21728701.061,165,483429687.63

Recycling-168,071,641-40386025199-9006195.52

Total-146,342,940-40,384,859,699-8,576,155

Table 2.24: Results of LCA of glass waste processing for 2006 (actual) and 2020 (advance).

2.6.15 Light weight Packaging:In the LWP fraction for 2020 (advance) as it is assumed that 50% recyclable are collected from residual waste as compare 2006 (actual), this extra collection is done by the extension of the collection practice to include non-packaging waste made of similar materials. This is because the changes caused in recyclable waste fractions percentage cannot be accurately calculated. But in table 2.25, the breakdown of LWP is presented which is used for both scenarios. Breakdown is given below in table 2.15 (IFEU, 2006). No improvement in the reprocessing technology is assumed.

Table 2.25: Recyclable fractions of recovered LWP.

Plastic waste fraction in LWP is composition of different type of plastics. The detail is given in table 2.26 (IFEU/HTP, 2001).

Table 2.26: Plastic waste composition.

The entire disposal path is studied in the assessment including disposal of sorting losses and left overs. Due to the ban on non-pre-treated waste landfilling, the losses and left overs are treated in WIP with energy recovery. The results of the LCA are presented in table 2.27 and 2.28. A quick comparison between scenarios on impact category basis is also shown in figure 2.7.

ProcessGWP (Kg CO2 eq.)Human Health (Kg p-DCBeq.)Ecotoxicology (Kg p-DCBeq.)

Sorting27731571.781,487,498548393.13

Thermal1,982,392,79732450109.22-494724.26

Recycling-8,187,028,818-314703110.9-112597651

Total-6,176,904,449-280,765,504-112,543,982

Table 2.27: Results of LCA of LWP waste processing for 2006 (actual).

ProcessClimate Change (Kg CO2 eq.)Human Health (kg p-DCBeq)Ecotoxicology (Kg p-DCBeq)

Sor