Waste Indicators

More documents

Recommendations

Info

3 Screening of environment andresource issues in wastemanagementThe project started with a systematic review of the 22 main waste fractions inthe ISAG system (see Appendix A). Hazardous waste was not divided intosub-fractions, as the indicators proposed are not expected to providesubstantial new information on the environmental impacts of the fractions.In the review of environmental issues for the 22 fractions, each fraction hasbeen labelled with one or more crosses showing where there are significantdifferences in environmental impacts from typical treatment of the differentfractions. Table 3.1 summarises these crosses, subsequently used in choosingparameters to be included in the new indicators. Data accessibility is anotherarea of significant importance for the extent of work in the calculation ofLCA-based indicators, and the result of the review is summarised in Table 1.1in Appendix B. Accessibility and suitability of data are subsequently treated inmore detail in Chapter 6 in connection with the assessment of the amount oftime required to prepare indicators for the entire waste management field.It is important to realise that the crosses in Table 3.1 are relative within thefraction, and that they express expected significant differences among thetypical treatment options. Crosses are based on a life-cycle perspective, so thatfor example plastic incinerated instead of plastic recycled gives a cross forsmog. Incineration leads to a need for production of virgin plastic giving acontribution to VOC pollution. Thus, crosses are meant to show where tofind the “focal points” within the different waste fractions.A comparison between information in the table and waste quantities registeredfor each fraction brings us closer to clarification of the waste fractionsrepresenting the largest environmental potentials for change, and thoserepresenting insignificant areas of effort.3.1 Important parameters for all fractionsTable 3.1 summarises all tables of Appendix A where grounds are given forthe allocation of the crosses in the table. It gives an outline of parameters withthe largest impact in the choice of treatment option for all waste fractions.Both energy-related resources and pollution, and resources not related toenergy consumption are important in the choice of treatment option for by farthe major part of waste fractions. In addition, landfill requirement is a possibleconsequence in the choice of treatment option for most waste fractions, and itis thus an important factor for a number of waste fractions.Emission of toxic compounds to the environment is also a problem covering alarge part of waste treatment. For toxic impacts, heavy metals or persistentorganic compounds are found for almost all waste fractions. These substances26
cause problems – for some treatment options considerably more than forothers. For all waste fractions with a cross in the energy column, the energyrelateddifferences among the different treatment options may beconsiderable. Thus, there will be differences both in relation to influence onglobal warming and acidification that relate to energy issues. All energyrelatedenvironmental impacts are not included in the allocation of crosses inthe other columns.The only essential impact on global warming that is not related to energyconsumption is the emission of methane gases from organic waste fractions,where the choice of treatment option may be of significance.Regional impacts from acidifying or eutrophying pollutants that are notrelated to energy may be due to, for example, paper causing watercontamination upon recycling.Issues relating to working environment seem to be related to certainmanpower-intensive fractions, such as sorting paper and plastic into subfractionsinstead of incineration. Crosses, however, have been set based onvery rough estimates in the review.3.2 Assessment of data for all fractionsThe other issue examined in the review of the different waste fractions was anassessment of data sources in addition to the basic ISAG data. This review isincluded in the analysis of amount of time required to carry out acomprehensive mapping of the waste management field (see Chapter 6).In order to calculate an LCA indicator it is necessary to be able to break downthe mixed fractions into materials and analyse these between relevanttreatment options. Only in this way will it be possible to link relevant LCAdata to disposal of materials.Problems of data especially concern the mixed fractions for incineration andlandfilling, as these fractions stand for considerable quantities, and as nocontinuous studies of waste composition are made. This applies particularly to“mixed burnable”, “non-burnable waste” and “construction and demolitionwaste”, but also to “metals” that cannot be specified in more detail. For allmixed fractions extensive studies will be required to update the break-downinto materials regularly.Thus, ISAG statistics as they are today are not particularly suitable for statinganything on the fate of the different materials. This would require a morespecific analysis of where the different materials end up upon disposal. This isdone for a number of materials in the so-called material-flow statistics thathave been prepared especially for a number of packaging materials, and anumber of mass-flow analyses that have been prepared particularly for heavymetals. ISAG statistics may be used in particular for stating environmentalimpacts from management of waste fractions currently separated forreprocessing. If more detailed material flow/mass-flow analyses are available,it will also be possible to assess the environmental and resource-relatedpotential from a change in waste management. Chapter 6 and Appendix Bestimate the amount of time required to collect data for the individual wastefractions.27
Page 1 and 2: Environmental Project No. 809 2003M
Page 3 and 4: Indhold1 WASTE INDICATORS - TRIAL R
Page 6: PrefaceThe project on “Developmen
Page 9 and 10: Model B can be carried out initiall
Page 11 and 12: Both presentation methods (referred
Page 13 and 14: The significance of the potential s
Page 16 and 17: 2 From waste quantities toenvironme
Page 18 and 19: a number of materials in the so-cal
Page 20 and 21: 2.2.1 Environment and resource indi
Page 22 and 23: that if any material is removed fro
Page 24 and 25: 2.3.4 Which indicators are relevant
Page 28 and 29: Table 3.1 Differences in environmen
Page 30 and 31: 4 Calculation method andassumptions
Page 32 and 33: Calculations are based on data from
Page 34 and 35: Table 4.3 Calculated factors (norma
Page 36 and 37: have taken place in the area. Calcu
Page 38 and 39: 5 Results of calculationsThe calcul
Page 40 and 41: Total resource consumption associat
Page 42 and 43: Figure 5.4Total primary energy cons
Page 44 and 45: Figure 5.7Total landfill requiremen
Page 46 and 47: Figure 5.10Consumption of resources
Page 48 and 49: 5.4 Indicators with focus on saving
Page 50 and 51: In relation to current recycling th
Page 52 and 53: Figure 5.14Realised savings from cu
Page 54: Figure 5.18Realised resource saving
Page 57 and 58: need updating before being applicab
Page 59 and 60: Table 6.1Total time required for st
Page 61 and 62: One of the points is that focus is
Page 63 and 64: Model B will be suitable for meetin
Page 65 and 66: perspective cf. statistics /36/. Th
Page 68 and 69: 9 ReferencesThe list of references
Page 70: (31) Sewage sludge from municipal a
Page 73 and 74: Appendix A1.12.2 Environment and re
Page 75 and 76: Appendix A1 Waste fractions and env
Page 77 and 78:
Appendix AFor recycling, the ISAG s
Page 79 and 80:
tion*) All resource consumption and
Page 81 and 82:
Appendix AEnergy-derived environmen
Page 83 and 84:
Appendix ABoth upon incineration an
Page 85 and 86:
Appendix ArecoveryLandfillingDecomp
Page 87 and 88:
Appendix A1.6.2 Environment and res
Page 89 and 90:
Appendix ATable 1.17: Significant e
Page 91 and 92:
Appendix ARecycling of rubber as a
Page 93 and 94:
Appendix A1.9.3 Data basisTable 1.2
Page 95 and 96:
Appendix AIn so-called selective de
Page 97 and 98:
Appendix Anecessary there is a long
Page 99 and 100:
Appendix A1.14 Other recyclables1.1
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Appendix A”Domestic waste from pr
Page 105 and 106:
Appendix AUpon incineration of slud
Page 107 and 108:
Appendix A1.20.2 Environment and re
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Appendix A1.23 Electrical equipment
Page 114 and 115:
Appendix BTime consumption forcompr
Page 116 and 117:
Appendix B2.1 Review of material fr
Page 118 and 119:
• Iron and steel (excl. stainless
Page 120 and 121:
Appendix Bthat statistics cover qua
Page 122 and 123:
Appendix BIt is estimated that ther
Page 124 and 125:
Appendix BTable 2.1:Data sources fo
Page 126 and 127:
Appendix CAssumptions for calculati
Page 128 and 129:
Appendix CSo the only possibility l
Page 130 and 131:
Appendix CThe EDIP project uses a l
Page 132 and 133:
Appendix CThis method will often un
Page 134 and 135:
Appendix C2) In the EDIP database t
Page 136 and 137:
Appendix Chas supplied in connectio
Page 138 and 139:
Appendix C1998, which has been used
Page 140:
Appendix CThus, slag is primarily r
show all

Waste Indicators

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?