POLITECNICO DI MILANO

Solid Waste Management and Treatment

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT (LCA):

General characteristics and application to waste management
Prepared by Lucia Rigamonti

1. INTRODUCTION TO LCA ............................................................................................................ 2

2. THE BEGINNINGS ........................................................................................................................ 2
3. THE LCA STRUCTURE................................................................................................................. 3
3.1 PHASE 1: GOAL AND SCOPE DEFINITION .................................................................... 4
3.2 PHASE 2: LIFE CYCLE INVENTORY ANALYSIS (LCI) ................................................ 9
3.3 PHASE 3: LIFE CYCLE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (LCIA).............................................. 10
3.3.1 Impact assessment methods .......................................................................................... 15
3.4 PHASE 4: LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION .................................................................. 17
4. LCA APPLIED TO WASTE MANAGEMENT ........................................................................... 19
4.1 THE SYSTEM BOUNDARY ............................................................................................. 20
4.2 REASONS FOR APPLYING LCA TO WASTE MANAGEMENT .................................. 21
4.3 HOW TO MODEL SOME SUB-UNITS............................................................................. 22
4.3.1 Pre-treatments ............................................................................................................... 22
4.3.2 Incineration with energy recovery ................................................................................ 22
4.3.3 Recycling ...................................................................................................................... 23
4.3.4 Landfill .......................................................................................................................... 25
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................... 26

1
1. INTRODUCTION TO LCA

The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is part of a methodological framework designed to address a
sustainable development through preventive interventions. The life cycle of a product or of any
human activity is, in fact, examined “from cradle to grave” by means of an inventory analysis of the
inputs (materials, energy, natural resources) and the outputs (emissions to air, water and soil) of the
system under study, the assessment of the potential environmental impacts associated to this
inventory, the interpretation of the results obtained through the previous phases and, finally, the
drawing of possible interventions. Currently, the effectiveness of the methodology is proved by ISO
(International Standards Organisation) through the publication of the related technical standards:
ISO 14040 of 2006 and ISO 14044 of 2018 (which substitutes the previous ISO 14040 (1997),
14041 (1998), 14042 (2000), 14043 (2000) and 14044 (2006)).
Originally, the LCA was developed to evaluate the environmental impacts associated with products
and production processes. Gradually, this methodology was extended also to services, as the waste
management.
In the following sections the LCA methodology is described, with particular reference to the
general structure and to the adjustments needed for its application to the waste management service.

2. THE BEGINNINGS

The LCA can be considered as an evolution of the energetic analysis. The first studies were
undertaken in the late sixties, when some important industries started to show a particular interest to
themes like resource savings (energy and materials) and reduction of the emissions added in the
environment.
The main characteristic of the LCA methodology is the innovative way to address the analysis of
industrial systems. From the typical engineering approach, which privileges a separate analysis of
any single production process, the assessment is moved to a wider vision of the production system,
in which all the transformation processes (from the raw material extraction to the end-of-life of the
products) are taken into consideration. Indeed, some researchers who started to deal with resources
consumption problematic (especially energy resources) within the industrial processes by applying
rigorous scientific criteria, understood that the only effective and comprehensive way to study a
production system is to examine its performances following step by step the raw materials
progression, starting from their extraction from ground through their transformation and
transportations till their disposal. This is the so-called “cradle-to-grave” approach (or “cradle-to-
cradle” if the materials are recycled and re-enter the cycle). The focus is no longer only on the
production step, but all the up-stream processes and the down-stream processes are included in the
analysis.
The first examples of life cycle analysis appeared in the early ’70s. The methodology was applied
by some important North American industries and by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (US-EPA) as a decision support tool. These studies were called REPA (Resource and

2
Environmental Profile Analysis), and they had as main objective the characterization of the life
cycle of some materials used in important industrial productions.
In the late 1980s the concept of sustainable development was launched and, at the same time, in
Europe, the Handbook of industrial energy analysis was published by Boustead and Hancock. This
was a milestone in the history of the LCA methodology, as it was the first manual to offer an
operative description of the analytical process, which is a fundamental part of the current LCA.
The term LCA was coined during the SETAC (Society of Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry) congress in Smuggler Notch (Vermont - USA) in the 1990, to better characterize the
objective of the analysis, hitherto carried out under the name of REPA.
The several initiatives for the improvement of the LCA methodology began to actualize in the early
90’s with the publication of some manuals and computation tools for its practical implementation.
The effort of the ISO committee for the standardization of the methodology was actualized by
issuing the ISO 14000 regulation series and, in particular, the ISO 14040, 14041, 14042 and 14043
(as further refinement of the guidelines proposed by SETAC), afterwards replaced in 2006 by the
new ISO 14040 and ISO 14044.

3. THE LCA STRUCTURE

From a methodological point of view, the LCA definition proposed by SETAC, presently
formalized in the ISO 14040, is as follows: “LCA addresses the environmental aspects and
potential environmental impacts (e.g. use of resources and environmental consequences of releases)
throughout a product's life cycle from raw materials acquisition, through production, use, end-of-
life treatment, recycling and final disposal”.
There are four phases in an LCA study:
1. The goal and scope definition phase: it is the first phase in which the goal of the study, the
functional unit and the reference flow, the system boundary, the assumptions and limits are
defined;
2. The life cycle inventory analysis phase (LCI phase): it is the second phase of LCA. It is an
inventory of input/output data with regard to the system being studied. It involves collection
of the data necessary to meet the goals of the defined study;
3. The life cycle impact assessment phase (LCIA phase): it is the third phase of the LCA. It
aims at understanding and evaluating the magnitude and significance of the potential
environmental impacts due to the resources consumption and the environmental emissions
evaluated in the inventory phase;
4. The interpretation phase: it is the final phase of the LCA in which the findings of the
inventory analysis and the impact assessment are evaluated in relation to the defined goal
and scope in order to reach conclusions and recommendations.
The four phases should not be kept separately (Figure 1), but should be considered part of an
iterative process. During the data acquisition, for example, the system becomes more familiar and
new requirements or limitations may emerge, which may demand a revision of the goal or scope of

3
the study. Similarly, the interpretation phase may lead to a review of the scope, as well as the
typology and the quality of the data collected to achieve the established goal.

Figure 1: LCA structure

3.1 PHASE 1: GOAL AND SCOPE DEFINITION

The goal and scope definition identifies two distinct stages, i.e. the goal definition and the scope
definition.
The goal definition involves the statement of the following items: the intended application, the
reasons for carrying out the study, the intended audience, and whether the results are intended to be
used in comparative assertions intended to be disclosed to the public. A key factor is to state the
reasons for executing the LCA study (e.g., to obtain information on the critical phases of a system
or to compare two systems). Three different situations are distinguished (Table 1):
A) The LCA study will be used to support a decision on the analysed system, but the extent of
changes that the decision implies in the background system and in other systems are "small".
"Small changes" means non-structural changes, i.e. changes only in already installed
equipment of a production facility. This study usually is a small-scale study, it has a
short/medium term (up to 5 years), and mainly focuses on products (e.g. study to develop
the environmental product declaration - EPD - or to evaluate which of the 5 copy machines
shows the best environmental performances);
B) The LCA study will be used to support a decision on the analysed system and the extent of
changes that the decision implies in the background system and in other systems are "big",
i.e. changes are structural changes (e.g. new production plants/technologies for material X
need to be installed or old ones taken out of operation in direct market consequence of the
analysed decision). This study is usually characterized by a medium/long term (from 5 years
to above), it involves a large scale, and it is typically a strategic study (e.g. study to analyse
4
 the environmental impacts arising from the decision to replace by 2050 the 50% of the
diesel used in the United States with bio-diesel);
C) The LCA will not be used to support a decision on the analysed system, i.e. the study has an
accounting / monitoring character (e.g. monitoring of the environmental impacts of an
industrial sector; a report of the environmental impacts within an environmental
management system – EMS). For this case, two subtypes can be differentiated: these are
firstly studies that are interested in including any existing benefits the analysed system may
have outside this system (e.g. benefits of recycling or of co-products that avoid producing
them in other ways) (situation C1), and secondly studies that aim at analysing the system in
isolation without considering such interactions (situation C2).
It is very important to understand from the beginning of the study which is the decision-context
situation because it is associated with different modelling principles and different methodological
choices for solving cases of multi-functionality.
The modelling principles are two:
- Attributional modelling: it depicts the actual or forecasted specific or average supply-chain
plus its use and end-of-life value chain. The existing or forecasted system is embedded into
a static technosphere. The system is hence modelled as it is or was (or is forecasted to be);
- Consequential modelling: it depicts the generic supply-chain as it is theoretically expected
in consequence of the analysed decision. The system interacts with the markets and those
changes are depicted that an additional demand for the analysed system is expected to have
in a dynamic technosphere that is reacting to this additional demand.
Table 2 shows the existing relationship between type of study (situations A, B, C1 or C2) and type
of model (attributional or consequential).
In defining the scope of an LCA, many elements shall be defined. In particular, the following items
shall be clearly described: the product system to be studied and its functions, the functional unit, the
system boundary, the procedures to solve the cases of multi-functionality, the LCIA methodology
and types of impacts, and the data quality requirements.
The system boundary determines which unit processes are included in the analysis. The selection
of the system boundary shall be consistent with the goal of the study. A complete LCA should
include the entire life cycle (from cradle to grave or also from cradle to cradle), but sometimes some
phases are excluded. For example, studies from cradle to gate are very common: they start with the
extraction of raw materials and end with the manufacturing of the product. The deletion of life cycle
stages, processes, inputs or outputs is only permitted if it does not significantly change the overall
conclusions of the study. Any decisions to omit life cycle stages, processes, inputs or outputs shall
be clearly stated, and the reasons and implications for their omission shall be explained. It is helpful
to describe the system using a process flow diagram showing the unit processes and their inter-
relationships. It's important to underline that studies about the same system but that adopt different
system boundary imply different results.
The scope of an LCA shall clearly specify the functions (performance characteristics) of the system
being studied and the adopted function unit. The functional unit defines the quantification of the
identified functions of the system and it is defined as the "quantified performance of a product
system for use as a reference unit". The functional unit shall be clearly defined and measurable. One

5
of the primary purposes of a functional unit is to provide a reference to which the input and output
data and the results are normalized (in a mathematical sense) and so it shall be consistent with the
goal and scope of the study. Having chosen the functional unit, the reference flow shall be defined
(Figure 2). Comparisons between systems shall be made on the basis of the same function(s),
quantified by the same functional unit in the form of their reference flows. For example, if the study
is used to choose between a glass container and a cardboard container for a juice, the functional unit
could be "containing a certain amount of juice" and the reference flows will be the quantity of each
material required to produce the container of this certain volume.
In the presence of multiple-output systems (i.e. co-production), multiple-input systems (e.g. waste
treatment processes) and multiple-use or “cascaded use” systems (e.g. recycling) the problem of the
so-called multi-functionality shall be deal with. Imagine that a system produces together two
products, A and B. In most LCA studies, one is interested in the specific life cycle inventory of only
one of the co-functions (product A or B). To achieve this, only the appropriate inputs and outputs of
the process (i.e. consumed materials, energy carriers and parts, resource flows, emissions, wastes,
etc.) are to be counted for the analysed function, i.e. the inventory of the specific function is to be
isolated. The ISO standards give a hierarchy of procedures for solving these situations:
a) Step 1: Wherever possible, the multi-functionality should be avoided by
1) dividing the unit process to be allocated into two or more sub-processes and collecting the
input and output data related to these sub-processes (Figure 3), or
2) expanding the product system (Figure 4): for example, if the system produces the co-
products A and B and the interest is only to the impacts associated with A life cycle, it is
possible to expand the system boundary by including, with a negative sign, a process which
provides B through conventional production. This approach has mostly been used for systems
where a co-product can replace one or more other products, e.g. heat from co-generation to
substitute heat from oil. The assumption under this approach is that the energy or materials
produced or recovered in the multi-functional system substitute for activities in the
background system, and so avoid the burdens associated with these activities. The
environmental impacts allocated to the main product or service are then calculated to include
“credits” for the avoided environmental burdens by subtracting them from the total impacts of
the system. In some cases the resulting impacts can be negative.
b) Step 2: if step 1 is not feasible, the inputs and outputs of the system should be partitioned
("allocated") between its different products or functions in a way that reflects the underlying
physical relationships between them; i.e. they should reflect the way in which the inputs and outputs
are changed by quantitative changes in the products or functions delivered by the system.
c) Step 3: where physical relationship alone cannot be established or used as the basis for allocation,
the inputs should be allocated between the products and functions in a way that reflects other
relationships between them. For example, input and output data might be allocated between co-
products in proportion to the economic value of the products.
Not the whole LCA scientific community agrees to follow this hierarchy. Especially in LCA studies
applied to waste management, the applied procedure for solving multi-functionality depends on the
type of study (A, B, C1 or C2), as summarised in Table 2.

6
Data quality requirements shall be specified to enable the goal and scope of the LCA to be met.
The data quality requirements should address the following:
a) time-related coverage: age of data and the minimum length of time over which data should be
collected;
b) geographical coverage: geographical area from which data for unit processes should be collected
to satisfy the goal of the study;
c) technology coverage: specific technology or technology mix;
d) precision: measure of the variability of the data values for each data expressed (e.g. variance);
e) completeness: percentage of flow that is measured or estimated;
f) representativeness: qualitative assessment of the degree to which the data set reflects the true
population of interest (i.e. geographical coverage, time period and technology coverage);
g) consistency: qualitative assessment of whether the study methodology is applied uniformly to the
various components of the analysis;
h) reproducibility: qualitative assessment of the extent to which information about the methodology
and data values would allow an independent practitioner to reproduce the results reported in the
study;
i) sources of the data;
j) uncertainty of the information (e.g. data, models and assumptions).

Table 1: Possible decision-context situations (EC - JRC, 2010)

Kind of process-changes in background system / other systems
None or small-scale Large-scale
YES Situation A
Situation B
"micro-level decision
DECISION "meso/macro-level decision support
support"
SUPPORT?
Situation C
"accounting"
NO
(C1: including interactions with other systems; C2: excluding if
interactions with other systems)

Table 2: Existing relationship between the type of study, type of model and resolution method for
cases of multi-functionality
Type of
Type of model Resolution of cases of multi-functionality*
study
System boundaries expansion modelled through
A Attributional
the current average production mix
System boundaries expansion modelled through
B Consequential
the long term marginal production mix
System boundaries expansion modelled through
C1 Attributional
the current average production mix
C2 Attributional Allocation
* for the all cases the first choice is the system subdivision in mono-functional sub-processes

7
Figure 2: Identification of functions, definition of the functional unit and determination of the
reference flow (ISO/TR 14049)

Figure 3: Resolution of the multi-functionality problem by splitting the analysed system into sub-
processes in order to distinguish those related to product A (P1, P2 and P3) and those, instead,
related to product B (P4 and P5) (source: EC - JRC, 2010)

8
Figure 4: Resolution of the multi-functionality by expanding the system boundary including the
alternative production of the product B: "avoided burden method" (source: EC - JRC, 2010)

3.2 PHASE 2: LIFE CYCLE INVENTORY ANALYSIS (LCI)

The inventory analysis represents the second phase of an LCA study. It consists in the construction
of a model of the reality that shall represent as accurate as possible all the exchanges among the
single processes of the analysed system (Figure 5). The definition given by the ISO 14040 standard
is as follows: "phase of life cycle assessment involving the compilation and quantification of inputs
and outputs for a product throughout its life cycle". The goal of this phase is thus to quantify all the
input and output streams associated with the different steps of the life cycle of the product (Figure
6). The input and output data shall be referenced to the functional unit. The major headings under
which data may be classified include:
⎯ energy inputs, raw material inputs, ancillary inputs, other physical inputs,
⎯ products, co-products and waste,
⎯ releases to air, water and soil, and
⎯ other environmental aspects (e.g. land use).

Figure 5: Example of a set of unit processes within a product system (ISO 14040)

9
 Figure 6: Main processes for which inputs and outputs shall be collected (Baldo, 2000)

The final result of this process is an environmental inventory that includes the amounts of material
and energy consumption/production, of direct emissions into air, water and soil, and of waste.
The process of conducting an inventory analysis is iterative. As data are collected and more is
learned about the system, new data requirements or limitations may be identified that require a
change in the data collection procedures so that the goals of the study will still be met. Sometimes,
issues may be identified that require revisions to the goal or scope of the study.
Data can be distinguished into three categories according to their origin: primary data (deriving
from direct surveys), secondary data (obtained from literature, such as databases and other studies),
and tertiary data (from estimates and average values). Whenever possible, data should be primary
data. If these are not available, secondary data can be used. The use of databases simplifies the data
collection but at the same time it arises the question of whether the source is trustworthy and the
interpretation is correct.

3.3 PHASE 3: LIFE CYCLE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (LCIA)

The third phase of LCA aims at understanding and evaluating the magnitude and significance of the
potential environmental impacts for a product system throughout the life cycle of the product using
the LCI results. This process involves associating inventory data with specific environmental
impact categories and category indicators, thereby attempting to understand these impacts.
Issues such as choice, modelling and evaluation of impact categories can introduce subjectivity into
the LCIA phase. Therefore, transparency is critical to the impact assessment to ensure that
assumptions are clearly described and reported.
The elements of the LCIA phase are illustrated in Figure 7.

10
 Figure 7: Elements of the LCIA phase (ISO 14040)

The LCIA phase shall include the following mandatory elements:

• Selection of impact categories, category indicators and characterization models (see also
paragraphs 3.3.1). The selection of impact categories, category indicators and characterization
models shall be both justified and consistent with the goal and scope of the LCA.
The selection of impact categories shall reflect a comprehensive set of environmental issues
related to the product system being studied, taking the goal and scope into consideration. The
impact categories can be divided into two groups: the categories related to the inputs (i.e. to
materials and resources consumption in the analysed system) and the categories related to the
outputs (i.e. the impact is due to the emissions in the environment). The first group includes the
depletion of abiotic resources (e.g. fossil fuels and minerals), the depletion of biotic resources
(e.g. wood), the land use (in terms of land occupation, land transformation, decrease of
biodiversity). Categories in the second group are, for example, the climate change, the
stratospheric ozone depletion, the human toxicity, the ecotoxicity (terrestrial and aquatic), the
photochemical ozone formation, the acidification, the nutrient enrichment (namely
eutrophication in the water sector).
When defining the impact categories, an indicator must be chosen somewhere in the
environmental mechanism (Figure 8). The environmental mechanism is the total of
environmental processes related to the characterization of the impacts. Characterization models
reflect the environmental mechanism by describing the relationship between the LCI results,
category indicators and, in some cases, category endpoint(s). The characterization model is
used to derive the characterization factors. Often indicators are chosen at an intermediate level
11
 somewhere along that mechanism; sometimes they are chosen at endpoint level. For example,
for the climate change impact category different indicators exist: the infrared radiative forcing
is an example of mid-point indicator, whereas the Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALY) (i.e.
the number of year life lost and the number of years lived disabled) is an example of end-point
indicator.
• Assignment of LCI results to the selected impact categories (classification): this procedure
leads to the assignment of the inventory results to the selected environmental impacts,
represented by the established environmental impact categories. An example of classification is
shown in Table 3.
• Calculation of category indicator results (characterization): it involves the conversion of LCI
results to common units and the aggregation of the converted results within the same impact
category. This conversion uses characterization factors that express the different strength of
each substance in determining that impact. For example, many substances contribute with a
different strength to the climate change impact category: carbon dioxide, methane,
chlorofluorocarbons, and dinitrogen monoxide. Once these emissions are quantified, the results
can be converted into kg of CO2-equivalent by applying the characterization factors called
Global Warming Potentials (GWPs) calculated by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change). For each impact category, the characterization factors are calculated
throughout a characterization model which describes the environmental mechanism that, from
the LCI results, brings to the category indicator endpoint. The outcome of this step is a
numerical indicator result for each impact category.
In addition to the elements of LCIA listed before, there could be optional elements and information
as listed below which can be used depending on the goal and scope of the LCA:
• Normalization: it is the calculation of the magnitude of the category indicator results relative to
some reference information. The aim of the normalization is to understand better the relative
magnitude for each indicator result of the product system under study. Normalization
transforms an indicator result by dividing it by a selected reference value. Some examples of
reference values are
⎯ the total inputs and outputs for a given area that may be global, regional, national or local,
⎯ the total inputs and outputs for a given area on a per capita basis or similar measurement, and
⎯ inputs and outputs in a baseline scenario, such as a given alternative product system.
At the end of this step, all the indicators will be expressed with the same unit of measure. This
means that the magnitude of the impact indicators can now be compared.
• Grouping: it is the assignment of impact categories into one or more sets as predefined in the
goal and scope definition, and it may involve sorting and/or ranking. Grouping is an optional
element with two different possible procedures, either
⎯ to sort the impact categories on a nominal basis (e.g. global, regional and local spatial scales
or the damage impact on human health, natural environment and resources consumption), or
⎯ to rank the impact categories in a given hierarchy (e.g. high, medium, and low priority).
Ranking is based on value-choices. Different individuals, organizations and societies may have
different preferences; therefore it is possible that different parties will reach different ranking
results based on the same indicator results or normalized indicator results.
12
• Weighting: it is the process of converting indicator results of different impact categories by
using numerical factors based on value-choices. The purpose of this procedure is to get a final
result represented by a single index, which defines the global impact caused by the examined
activity. The main approaches for the definition of the weights are the followings (Baldo et al.,
2008):
− Distance-to-target: it is based on the gap between the current environmental burden and a
target level. The greater the excess load, the greater the weight factor. The target value is
usually defined by using national or international legislative standard or objectives regarding
the environmental quality. This approach has some problems associated with the fact that the
standards are expressed not only on scientific basis, but also considering technical limitations,
control feasibility and other political factors. Moreover, the objectives and the results of the
analysis may differ from State to State.
− Social panel: the weighting coefficients are determined by a social panel, which is
considered able to assess the importance of the impact categories. These assessments can be
managed through several methods related to social sciences, as well as the panel group can be
chosen according to various criteria (group of experts, group of consumers, group of
governmental stakeholders).
− Monetization: the importance of the impact category is estimated by taking into
consideration the expenses necessary to remove the effects of the impacts (such as the health
care costs for diseases originated by the atmospheric pollution), or by considering the
willingness to pay to avoid the impact (for example the costs bear for waste treatment plants).
The first case is called Environmental Control Costs, while the second one is defined as
Environmental Damage Costs (among these the Swedish method EPS is well-known).
The weighting step is based on value-choices. Different individuals, organizations and societies
may have different preferences; therefore it is possible that different parties will reach different
weighting results based on the same indicator results or normalized indicator results. In an LCA it
may be desirable to use several different weighting factors and weighting methods, and to conduct
sensitivity analysis to assess the consequences on the LCIA results of different value-choices and
weighting methods.
There is no scientific way to reduce LCA results to a single overall score or number, hence it cannot
be used for comparative assertions. Weighting shall not be used in LCA studies intended to be used
in comparative assertions intended to be disclosed to the public.
Data and indicator results or normalized indicator results reached prior to weighting should be made
available together with the weighting results.
Weighting can particularly be useful for routine decisions in product design, and for decisions that
imply many different types of information, e.g. environmental, economic, legal and social
information.

13
 Table 3: Example of classification
Ozone
Global Human
Emissions photochemical Acidification
warming toxicity
formation
Fossil carbon dioxide ×
Sulphur oxides × × ×
Non-methane volatile
×
organic compounds
Methane × ×
Nitrogen oxides × × ×
Particulate PM10 ×
Propane ×
Butane ×
Formaldehyde ×
Benzene × ×
Toluene ×
Polycyclic aromatic
×
hydrocarbons
Metals (eg. As, Pb, Cr,
×
Cu, Zn, Ni, V)
Mercury ×
Dioxins/furans ×
Ethylene ×
Hydrogen fluoride ×
Ammonia × ×
Hydrochloric acid ×
Dinitrogen monoxide ×
Carbon monoxide ×

14
 Figure 8: Concept of category indicators (ISO 14044)

3.3.1 Impact assessment methods

For most LCA studies, already existing impact categories, category indicators and characterization
models will be selected. In order to support the LCIA and to provide comparable results, the LCA
software packages available in the market include various characterization methods. Each
characterisation method includes:
• a list of impact categories
• for each impact category, the classification
• for each impact category, the corresponding indicator
• for each impact category characterised by a certain indicator, the characterisation factors
• eventually, normalisation factors, grouping procedures and weighting factors
It is suggested to choose the characterization method that best suits to the study, considering also
the following aspects:
• depending on the goal and scope of the LCA study, for example, it could be important to choose
a characterization method that provides a single value of the total impact instead of a method
that provides the results for the different impact categories without any aggregation (Table 4), or
it could be useful to apply a method which gives particular consideration to the toxicity
indicator or which includes the land use impact category;
• it is also important to consider who will read the results, e.g. researchers, managers or citizens.
Especially in this last case, it is not recommended to apply the weighting step, as each citizen
might attribute different weights to the impact categories and thus he could disagree with the
weights applied in the study (and consequently with the results of the study);
• some countries, such as Switzerland, have developed a specific method: if the results will be
shown in that specific Country, it is better to adopt the corresponding method.
A good idea is to apply different methods and then compare the obtained results.

15
Table 4: Characterization methods underlining the presence (x) or the absence (-) of the grouping,
normalization and weighting phases
Method Grouping Normalization Weighting
CML 2001 - x -
Eco-indicator 99 x x x
EDIP 2003 - x x
Impact 2002+ x x -
ReCiPe x x x
Cumulative Energy Demand - - x
IPCC 2007 GWP - - -

Here below a short description of the most common characterisation methods used in LCA studies
is given.
• “Eco-indicator 99”: it is the update of the Eco-indicator 95 method, developed in Netherlands
within a research program promoted by PRé Consultants with the participation of famous
multinationals (Philips, Volvo) and public institutions. Eco-indicator 99 includes normalization and
weighting procedures, leading to the calculation of a single value for the total environmental impact
of the system. Before the normalization step, the impact categories are grouped in three damage
categories: the human health, the ecosystems quality and the resources depletion (Figure 9). It is an
example of method that applies the end-point approach for the calculation of the indicators.
• “CML 2001”: is the update of the CML 1992 method, developed by the Leiden University of
Amsterdam in 1992. The proposed impact categories are: the abiotic depletion, the climate change,
the stratospheric ozone depletion, the human toxicity, the ecotoxicity, the photochemical ozone
formation, the acidification and the eutrophication. This is an example of method that applies the
mid-point approach for the calculation of the indicators.
• “ReCiPe”: it was developed from the Eco-indicator 99 and the CML 2001. It considers 16
impact categories. It integrates and harmonises mid-point and end-point approach in a consistent
framework.
• “EDIP 2003”: it is a Danish method developed in 1996 and updated in 2003. The normalization
step is based on the comparison between the calculated potential impacts and a reference value with
respect to which the environmental consequences are known.
• “IPCC 2007 GWP”: this method includes only one impact category, i.e. the climate change. The
impact can be calculated for different time horizons: 20, 100 and 500 years.
• “Cumulative Energy Demand”: this method focuses only on the consumption and production of
energy resources. The impact is given for 5 impact categories: 1. non-renewable resources, fossil; 2.
non-renewable resources, nuclear; 3. renewable resources, biomass; 4. renewable resources, wind,
sun, geothermic; 5. renewable resources, water.
• “IMPACT 2002+”: it was developed in Switzerland. Each impact category is expressed by using
both a mid-point indicator and an end-point indicator.
The Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) Guide (European Commission - Joint Research Centre
2013) recommends the assessment of 14 impact categories and for each of them indicates the
indicator and the characterization model that has to be applied.
16
 Carcinogenics

Respiratory organics
Human health
Respiratory inorganics

Climate change

Ozono layer
LCI result

Single score
Radiation Ecosystem quality

Ecotoxicity

Land-use

Acidification/Eutrophication
Resources
Minerals
Fossil fuel

Figure 9: Impact assessment phase in the Eco-indicator 99 method

In the document “Recommendations for Life Cycle Impact Assessment in the European context”
prepared in 2011 by EC-JRC, characterisation models and associated characterisation factors are
classified according to their quality into three levels: recommended and satisfactory, recommended
but in need of some improvements and recommended, but to be applied with caution. Based on this
classification, the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) Guide (EC-JRC, 2013) reports the impact
categories that have to be considered in a LCA study and the associated impact assessment models
that have to be applied. An update on this topic is represented by the document “Supporting
information to the characterisation factors of recommended EF Life Cycle Impact Assessment
method” prepared in 2018 by EC-JRC (EC-JRC, 2018).

3.4 PHASE 4: LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION

The life cycle interpretation phase comprises several elements:

• The identification of the significant issues based on the results of the LCI and LCIA phases of
LCA: the objective of this element is to structure the results from the LCI or LCIA phases in
order to help determine the significant issues, in accordance with the goal and scope
definition. Examples of significant issues are
⎯ inventory data, such as energy, emissions, discharges, waste
⎯ significant contributions from life cycle stages to LCI or LCIA results, such as individual
unit processes or groups of processes like transportation and energy production.
• An evaluation that considers completeness, sensitivity and consistency checks: the objectives
of the evaluation element are to establish and enhance confidence in, and the reliability of, the
results of the LCA or the LCI study, including the significant issues identified in the first
17
 element of the interpretation. The evaluation shall be undertaken in accordance with the goal
and scope of the study. During the evaluation, the use of the following three techniques shall
be considered:
⎯ completeness check: its objective is to ensure that all relevant information and data needed
for the interpretation are available and complete. If any relevant information is missing or
incomplete, the preceding phases (LCI, LCIA) should be revisited or, alternatively, the goal
and scope definition should be adjusted. If the missing information is considered unnecessary,
the reason for this should be recorded.
⎯ sensitivity check: its objective is to assess the reliability of the final results and conclusions
by determining how they are affected by uncertainties in the data, allocation methods or
calculation of category indicator results, etc.
⎯ consistency check: its objective is to determine whether the assumptions, methods and data
are consistent with the goal and scope. If relevant to the LCA or LCI study the following
questions shall be addressed.
a) Are differences in data quality along a product system life cycle and between different
product systems consistent with the goal and scope of the study?
b) Have regional and/or temporal differences, if any, been consistently applied?
c) Have allocation rules and the system boundary been consistently applied to all product
systems?
d) Have the elements of impact assessment been consistently applied?
The results of data quality analysis and uncertainty analysis should supplement these checks.
Uncertainty is introduced into the results of an LCI due to the compounded effects of input
uncertainties and data variability. One approach is to characterize uncertainty in results by
ranges and/or probability distributions. Whenever feasible, such analysis should be performed
to better explain and support the LCI conclusions.
• Conclusions, limitations, and recommendations: the objective of this part of the life cycle
interpretation is to draw conclusions, identify limitations and make recommendations for the
intended audience of the LCA. Conclusions shall be drawn from the study. This should be
done iteratively with the other elements in the life cycle interpretation phase. A logical
sequence for the process is as follows:
a) identify the significant issues;
b) evaluate the methodology and results for completeness, sensitivity and consistency;
c) draw preliminary conclusions and check that these are consistent with the requirements
of the goal and scope of the study, including, in particular, data quality requirements,
predefined assumptions and values, methodological and study limitations, and application-
oriented requirements;
d) if the conclusions are consistent, report them as full conclusions; otherwise return to
previous steps a), b) or c) as appropriate.
Recommendations shall be based on the final conclusions of the study, and shall reflect a
logical and reasonable consequence of the conclusions. Whenever appropriate to the goal and
scope of the study, specific recommendations to decision-makers should be explained.
Recommendations should relate to the intended application.

18
4. LCA APPLIED TO WASTE MANAGEMENT

The LCA methodology was originally developed to assess the environmental impacts of products
and production systems. In recent years this procedure has been improved in order to make it
extensively applicable to all human activities that imply interaction with the environment, for
example to the activities connected to waste management. Thus, the LCA is applied not only to
products, but also to services, included the ones associated with the waste management where LCA
can be used as a support tool for the strategic planning of integrated waste management systems.
Even if it typically represents a phase of any product LCA, the waste management can be analysed
as a stand-alone system. The input is represented by the residues of human activities whereas the
outputs are the final emissions (solid, liquid, gaseous) in the environment and the new products (e.g.
recycled materials, energy, and compost). The waste management is a complex system, which
includes a large variety of processes and the related flows of materials, energy, resources and
emissions. This leads to the necessity of isolating the waste system from the product system and,
within itself, to find out which are the best synergies among the available sub-units. The aim is to
optimise the entire integrated system, both from a technological and managerial point of view.
Figure 10 shows schematically an integrated waste management system.

Figure 10: Integrated municipal solid waste management system scheme (Ramponi et al., 2002)

Some differences occur in a waste-oriented LCA compared to a product-oriented LCA (White et al.,
1995):
• In case of waste-oriented LCA, the functional unit is given in terms of the treatment of the input
(for example the treatment of 1 t of waste in a certain geographical area), while for product-
oriented LCA the functional unit usually refers to the system outputs (for example the
production of 1 kg of material). Indeed, the function of an integrated waste management system
is not the production, but the treatment of the waste;

19
• For a product, we consider the whole life cycle (from the extraction of raw materials to the final
disposal) if the LCA is a complete LCA; for waste management, the analysis starts when the
material becomes waste (if prevention activities are not included in the analysis) and finishes
when this waste becomes inert or leaves the system as an emission;

4.1 THE SYSTEM BOUNDARY

Considering an integrated waste management system, the system boundary includes all the waste
management operations, i.e. collection, transport, treatments, and final disposal. These activities
constitute the foreground system (Figure 11) and the emissions derived from them are called "direct
impacts". They include, for example, the air emissions from vehicles, thermal processes or
composting, and the biogas and the leachate produced in a landfill. The direct impacts include also
the noise and odours, even if these kinds of environmental pollution are generally neglected in an
LCA, as they do not represent any material or energy flow and so they cannot be handled through
the same approach applied for the other burdens. They are often called “non-flux burdens”.
Where an LCA is used to evaluate different alternatives, generally the processes that are common to
the alternatives are omitted from the analysis. Usually, for example, the activities which generate
the waste are omitted from the analysis: the examined system, thus, begins with the waste
collection. This is correct except when prevention activities are included in the system.
In addition to the foreground system, the activities that exchange materials and energy with it shall
be included in the analysis. These processes constitute the “background system” (Figure 11) and
cannot be neglected. They are for example the supply of electricity and fuels. The impacts
associated to these activities are called “indirect impacts”.
If the multi-functionality is solved by using the system expansion approach, there are also some
flows of materials and energy that go from the foreground system to the background system. For
example, energy produced in incineration plants or from the biogas combustion in a landfill or in an
anaerobic digestion plant, or materials produced in recycling and composting processes. Materials
and energy produced by the waste system substitute materials and energy usually produced in the
background system. These avoided productions should be included in the analysis and they imply
the so-called "avoided impacts". The modelling (i.e. the use of average data or marginal data) of
these avoided productions depends on the goal and scope of the study (see Table 2).
One of the advantages of the distinction between foreground system and background system is the
possibility to identify which activities require the collection of primary (local) data and which
activities can be instead modelled by using general, national or also international data. The
distinction gives thus a useful indication for the data collection step, where only for the activities
directly connected to the waste management primary data should be collected. It does not imply that
the impacts of the background system are less important or have a lower magnitude respect to the
impacts of the foreground system.

20
Figure 11: Foreground and background systems for an integrated waste management system
(Ramponi et al., 2002).

The life cycle inventory analysis for waste management can be summarized as follows:
• direct impacts: they are produced during the waste management (in the foreground system);
• indirect impacts: they are produced due to the supply of materials and energy to the foreground
system from background system;
• avoided impacts: they are associated with the activities of the background system that are
replaced (avoided) thanks to the materials and energy produced by the waste itself.
The total impact related to the whole system described above is given by the algebraic sum of:
• direct impacts, to which is given a positive sign;
• indirect impacts, to which is given a positive sign;
• avoided impacts, to which is given a negative sign;
Therefore, for each emission, each resource and each impact indicator, the total result can be either
positive or negative. A positive sign means that the waste management under study determines
additional impacts on the environment and the human health, despite the material and energy
recovery that takes place in the system. A negative sign means that the benefits associated with the
material and energy recovery that occurs in the waste management system more than offset the
impacts due to the treatment itself.

4.2 REASONS FOR APPLYING LCA TO WASTE MANAGEMENT

LCA applied to integrated waste management systems shows great potentialities, in particular as a
strategic support decision tool in the preparation and updating of waste management plans. By
applying this methodology is for example possible to answer to the following questions:
• which is the best strategies for the treatment of the residual waste?
• is the recycling of combustible materials (e.g. paper and plastics) energetically and
environmentally convenient when a high efficient waste-to-energy plant is available?
21
• how does the impacts of the waste management system change if some fractions are removed
from the residual waste by the separate collection?
• how does the impacts of the waste management system change if the heating value of the waste
sent to energy recovery increases due to the separate collection of the organic fractions?
The applicability of the methodology, however, is strictly depending on the data availability about
the involved processes. In this sense the preparation and maintenance of a database by the relevant
authorities (public or private) would be very useful. LCA studies performed by using data that do
not represent the reality under study may lead to not credible results and, therefore, to wrong
conclusions.

4.3 HOW TO MODEL SOME SUB-UNITS

An integrated municipal waste management system usually involves different treatments, which can
be considered as sub-units of the whole system. Among these are the composting and anaerobic
digestion of organic fraction, the recycling of packaging material, the pre-treatment of the residual
waste in mechanical-biological treatment plants, the incineration of the residual waste or of the SRF
(solid recovered fuel), the SRF co-combustion in industrial plants, and the landfill disposal.
Some of these sub-units are here analysed with the main aim to indicate which data should be used
for their assessment in an LCA study.

4.3.1 Pre-treatments
The most important data required to properly model the waste pre-treatments in an LCA study are
the electricity consumption, the emissions caused by the pre-treatments themselves (e.g. air
emissions) and the production of additional material flows (i.e. the mass balance). Of the latter, not
only the quantity but also the main characteristics should be defined, such as if the flow is made of
inert material or if it is still able to produce gaseous emissions or liquid releases. Each material flow
has then a specific destination (for example, a landfill, a recovery plant or a stabilization plant).
According to the goal and scope of the study, the LCA analysist will decide if also these treatments
have to be included in the analysis or not.
Other data are those related to the construction of the pre-treatment plant, for example the data
about the kind and quantity of materials used in the construction. The emissions associated to the
production of these materials can thus be included in the analysis.

4.3.2 Incineration with energy recovery

A waste-to-energy (WTE) plant is a multi-functional system: it treats the waste but at the same time
it produces energy.
The efficiency of the plant and thus the energy production is one of the most important data to be
collected when performing an LCA of this kind of plant. The benefits associated with the avoided
production of energy by conventional sources will be compared with the impacts added into the
environment by the WTE plant associated mainly with the air emissions at the stack and the
production of solid residues.

22
In the energy balance, these elements should be quantified: the energy feedstock of the waste (i.e.
its lower heating value), the energy required for the operation of the plant, and the energy produced.
About the energy produced, it is important to understand if it is only electricity or also heat. The
subsequent way of use of both electricity and heat should be investigated.
Indirect emissions come from the production of reagents used in the combustion chamber (e.g.
ammonia or urea) and in the flue gas abatement treatment line (e.g. lime, activated carbon and
sodium bicarbonate). The solid residues should be analysed till the end of their life, including for
example the recovery of ferrous scraps from bottom ash, the inertisation of fly ashes (and so the
eventual use of additives such as cement, bentonite and sodium silicate), the recovery of air
pollution control (APC) residues and the landfill disposal of the final residues.
As well as for the pre-treatments, the impacts associated with the plant construction may be
included in the analysis depending on the goal and scope of the study.

4.3.3 Recycling
Recycling is a very important stage of the waste management and its role in the energy and raw
materials saving is widely recognized. The preliminary assessment of the recycling possibilities
since the product design phase is by now considered an essential aspect for appropriate product
marketing.
Recycling is methodologically a case of multi-functionality, with the product to be recycled having
two functions: firstly the function(s) the product is primarily made for and secondly the function of
providing secondary resources for use in subsequent life cycles/systems.
We can distinguish among three different situations:
• close-loop recycling;
• open loop recycling – same primary route;
• open loop recycling – different primary route.
In a close-loop (or internal) recycling the material to be recycled is used in the same system which
generated it (i.e. it enters again the same supply-chain) replacing the input of newly produced
materials. The product sent to the recycling is thus processed in the same production line and it
constitutes a new equal product (Figure 12).
An open loop recycling system is instead characterized by the fact that the waste material or the
end-of-life product is recirculated but in a supply chain different from the originating one. Two
situations can be distinguished:
- the waste material and/or the end-of-life product from the first system is/are collected and
recycled and brought to use in another system, buy is/are replacing the same primary route of
its/their first cycle. This means that the waste material/the end-of-life product is recycled in a
production line based on the same material but which generates a different product (Figure 13).
For example, steel cans can be recycled to tailored blanks for cars, but as steel cans and the
tailored blanks need the same steel basis they are identical regarding their primary route;
- the waste material and/or the end-of-life product is/are collected and recycled and brought to use
in another system, replacing a different primary production route. This means that the waste
material/the end-of-life product is recycled in a production line traditionally based on a different
material (Figure 14). For example, the mix of post-consumer plastics may be recycled for the

23
 production of planks to be used in the realization of benches, which are traditionally made by
wood: in this case the recycled plastic is a wood substitute.

Figure 12: Schematic flow diagram of a close-loop recycling (Source: EC - JRC, 2010)

Figure 13: Schematic flow diagram of an open-loop recycling – same primary route (Source: EC -
JRC, 2010)

Figure 14: Schematic flow diagram of an open-loop recycling – different primary route (Source:
EC - JRC, 2010)

In an LCA, it should be considered that the recycling itself implies an increase in the energy
demand and in the emissions because of the transportation and treatment of the waste material/end-
of-life product to be recycled. At the same time, the production of a secondary material that can be
used in substitution for example of a primary material and the avoided disposal of the material sent
24
to the recycling imply a reduction in the global energy consumption and emissions. Therefore, if the
recycling is aimed to achieve energy savings, it means that the energy required to collect and
reprocess the waste should be lower than the total energy needed to extract the raw materials and to
dispose the waste itself. This reasoning should be extended to all the environmental variables in
order to address the analysis from an LCA point of view.
In the calculation of the amount of primary material that can be replaced by the secondary material
(i.e. the one obtained throughout the recycling) the possible quality deterioration that may happen in
the recycling activities should be taken into account. This phenomenon, called “down-cycling”,
may lead to the followings:
• the secondary material could replace the primary material only in certain applications,
• there could be a limit to the maximum number of cycles of recycling,
• a greater amount of the recycled material could be necessary to provide the same functionality of
products made by virgin raw materials,
• the secondary material should be mixed with primary material or higher quality secondary
material to meet the minimum technical specifications.
In order to consider this phenomenon in the modelling, a corrective factor is introduced: it is less
than 1 and thus it implies a reduction of the amount of the material “replaced” by the secondary
material. For example, in a consequential LCA, if 1000 kg of secondary pulp are obtained from the
recycling of waste paper, they will replace an amount of virgin pulp less than 1000 kg. The
corrective factor can be calculated on the basis of technical considerations (e.g. the maximum
number of cycles of recycling) or economic considerations (the ratio between the market price of
the secondary material and that of the primary material is usually considered).

4.3.4 Landfill
In an LCA, the landfill should be considered for what concern both the materials and energy
consumption as well as for the emissions released during the construction and the running phase.
The construction phase, including the realization of leachate and biogas collection facilities, is not
so difficult to be modelled as this is a traditional activity of geotechnical and civil engineering.
More difficult is the modelling of the emissions associated with the biological processes that happen
inside the landfill. In fact, the anaerobic processes and the consequent biogas production start only
after some years since the waste has been disposed and they finish after several decades. This aspect
is rather complex to be modelled in an LCA, as the emissions expansion over time should be taken
into account.
In relation to the energy balance, the activities to be considered are the facilities construction, the
management activities, the energy recovery from the biogas and the feedstock energy of the
disposed waste.
The use of land can be important and can be considered including the land use impact category in
the analysis. Other impacts, such as the morphological alteration of the area and its permanent
degradation, are usually not taken into account because of the difficulty to translate them in
numerical values.

25
REFERENCES

• Baldo G.L. (2000). LCA - Uno strumento di analisi energetica ed ambientale. IpaServizi,
Milano.
• Baldo G.L., Marino M., Rossi S. (2008). Analisi del ciclo di vita LCA - Gli strumenti per la
progettazione sostenibile di materiali, prodotti e processi. Edizioni Ambiente. ISBN 978-88-89014-
82-0.
• EC DG Environment & JRC (2013). Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) Guide: Annex II of
Commission Recommendation of 9 April 2013 on the use of common methods to measure and
communicate the life cycle environmental performance of products and organisations. Official
journal of the European Union, L124/1, 4.5.2013.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/smgp/product_footprint.htm
• EC - JRC (2010). ILCD Handbook: General guide for Life Cycle Assessment – Detailed
Guidance. http://eplca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
• EC - JRC (2011). ILCD Handbook: Recommendations for Life Cycle Impact Assessment in the
European context. http://eplca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
• EC – JRC (2013). Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) Guide: Annex II of Commission
Recommendation of 9 April 2013 on the use of common methods to measure and communicate the
life cycle environmental performance of products and organisations. Official journal of the
European Union, L124/1, 4.5.2013.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/smgp/product_footprint.htm
• EC – JRC (2018). Supporting information to the characterisation factors of recommended EF
Life Cycle Impact Assessment method – New models and differences with ILCD.
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/supporting-information-characterisation-factors-
recommended-ef-life-cycle-impact-assessment-methods
• UNI EN ISO 14040 (2006), Environmental management -- Life cycle assessment -- Principles
and framework.
• UNI EN ISO 14044 (2018), Environmental management -- Life cycle assessment --
Requirements and guidelines.
• ISO/TR 14047 (2012), Environmental management -- Life cycle impact assessment --
Illustrative examples on how to apply ISO 14044 to impact assessment situations.
• ISO/TR 14049 (2012), Environmental management -- Life cycle assessment -- Illustrative
examples on how to apply ISO 14044 to goal and scope definition and inventory analysis.
• Ramponi L., Morselli L., Masoni P. (2002). Applicazione della metodologia LCA a sistemi di
gestione integrata dei rifiuti in ambiti territoriali regionali e nazionali. In: “I rifiuti: la chimica, il
ciclo di vita, la valorizzazione, lo smaltimento, il controllo ambientale” di Morselli L. e Marassi R.,
editore FrancoAngeli, pp: 353-371.
• White P., Franke M., Hindle P. (1995). Integrated Solid Waste Management: A Life Cycle
Inventory. Blackie Academic and Professional, London, Aspen publications, 1st edition.

26