Environ Monit Assess DOI 10.

1007/s10661-011-2205-5

An evaluation of alternative household solid waste treatment practices using life cycle inventory assessment mode
Nguyen Phuc Thanh & Y asuhiro Matsui

Received: 24 September 2010 / Accepted: 30 June 2011 # Springer Science+Business Media B.V 2011 .

Abstract Waste disposal is an important part of the life cycle of a product and is associated with environmental burdens like any other life-cycle stages. In this study, an integrated assessment for solid waste treatment practices, especially household solid waste, was undertaken to evaluate the impact contribution of household solid waste treatment alternatives towards the sustainable development by using Life Cycle Inventory Assessment method. A case study has been investigated under various possible scenarios, such as (1) landfill without landfill gas recovery, (2) landfill with landfill gas recovery and flaring, (3) landfill with landfill gas recovery and electric generation, (4) composting, and (5) incineration. The evaluation utilized the Life Cycle Inventory Assessment method for multiple assessments based on
N. P Thanh : Y Matsui . . Graduate School of Environmental Science, Okayama University, Okayama, Japan N. P Thanh . College of Environment and Natural Resources, Can Tho University, Can Tho, Vietnam N. P Thanh (*) . 3-1-1 Tsushima-naka, Okayama 700-8530, Japan e-mail: phucthanhn@gmail.com N. P Thanh . e-mail: thanhnguyen0880@yahoo.com

various aspects, such as greenhouse gas emission/ reduction, energy generation/consumption, economic benefit, investment and operating cost, and land use burden. The results showed that incineration was the most efficient alternative for greenhouse gas emission reduction, economic benefit, energy recovery, and land use reduction, although it was identified as the most expensive for investment and operating cost, while composting scenario was also an efficient alternative with quite economic benefit, low investment and operating cost, and high reduction of land use, although it was identified as existing greenhouse gas emission and no energy generation. Furthermore, the aim of this study was also to establish localized assessment methods that waste management agencies, environmental engineers, and environmental policy decision makers can use to quantify and compare the contribution to the impacts from different waste treatment options. Keywords Greenhouse gas (GHG) emission . Scenario analysis . Household solid waste . Life Cycle Inventory Assessment (LCIA) . Waste treatment practice

Introduction Vietnam has been faced with a high amount of municipal solid waste (MSW), especially household solid waste (HSW) and its inappropriate management system. For sustainable development, MSW management has to be balanced between environmental sustainability,

Environ Monit Assess

economical affordability, and social acceptability to ensure the quality of life for now and future. To evaluate the performance of MSW management system, especially waste treatment practices, life cycle approach is appropriate for a proper comparative evaluation of various waste management practices (Barton et al. 1996; Del Borghi et al. 2009). Life Cycle Inventory Assessment (LCIA) is a part of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) approach, which has been defined as a technique for assessing the environmental aspects and potential impacts associated with a product, by compiling an inventory of relevant inputs and outputs considering the entire life cycle of a product systemfrom cradle to grave (from raw material acquisition through production, use, and disposal); evaluating the potential environmental impacts associated with those inputs and outputs; and interpreting the results of the inventory analysis and impact assessment phases in relation to the objectives of the study (ISO 1997). LCIA/LCA has been successfully utilized in the field of solid waste management to assess environmental impacts of solid waste management systems (Harrison et al. 2000), to compare the environmental performance of different scenarios for management of mixed solid waste (Mendes et al. 2004; Chaya and Gheewala 2007) as well as to evaluate the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of waste management practices (Chen and Lin 2008). Global warming has become a serious problem over the last decade; solid waste is recognized as one of the major sources of anthropogenic emissions generated from human activities. Solid waste treatment methods play an important role of impact on global warming. When exploring the correlation between MSW treatment and GHG emission, the volume and physical composition of the waste matter must be taken into account. Due to differences in local environments and lifestyles, the quantity and composition of waste often vary. This leads to differences in waste treatment practices and causes different volumes of GHG highlighting the need for local research (Chen and Lin 2008). The purpose of this study assessed the effect of solid waste treatment practices, especially HSW towards sustainable development. The study proposes to use the LCIA method with waste material flow, which will provide a database of the assessment factors and normalization references for aspects, such

as GHG emission/reduction, energy generation/consumption, economic benefit, investment and operating cost, and land use burden. A case study has been investigated under various possible scenarios, which include all available treatment methods (practices) that can apply for the current situation of Vietnam such as (1) landfill without landfill gas (LFG) recovery, (2) landfill with LFG recovery and flaring, (3) landfill with LFG recovery and electric generation, (4) composting, and (5) incineration (mass burning).

Methodology Research area This study estimated the impacts of alternative treatment practices using life cycle inventory method for the Mekong Delta region, where includes 12 provinces and one centrally city (which is under the administrative control of central Vietnamese government). Can Tho City (CTC) was chosen as the representative model for this region. The concerning information of research areaCTCwas shown in the preceding paper (Thanh et al. 2010), which focused on four central districts of CTC: Ninh Kieu, Binh Thuy, Cai Rang, and O Mon. Waste quantity and composition The data related to evaluate in this study have been obtained from a previous research by Thanh et al. (2010), who conducted a study to evaluate the quantity and detailed composition of HSW to identify opportunities for waste recycling in CTC. Two-stage survey of 100 households was conducted for dry season and rainy season in 2009. HSW was collected from each household and classified into 10 physical categories and 83 subcategories. Results of previous research have been introduced the HSW information including waste quantity and composition by physical categories, presented in Table 1. Figure 1 presents detailed HSW composition in average percentage by 83 subcategories of two-stage survey (dry season and rainy season). In this study, the authors desired to calculate the HSW quantity by physical compositions for study areas four central districts of CTC. The HSW quantity was calculated based on the estimated population by 2007around 524,927 people (GSO 2007)and the average waste generation rate (g/cap/

Environ Monit Assess Table 1 HSW generation by physical categories for study areas Categories Percent Waste generation rate (g/cap/day) Plastic Paper Food waste Rubber and leather Grass and wood Textile Metal Glass Ceramic Miscellaneous Thanh et al. (2010) Total 6.79 4.74 84.64 0.12 1.13 0.24 0.64 0.87 0.11 0.69 100 19.37 13.52 241.47 0.34 3.21 0.69 1.83 2.49 0.32 1.97 285.28 Tons/day 10.17 7.10 126.75 0.18 1.69 0.36 0.96 1.31 0.17 1.03 149.75 Tons/year 3,711.26 2,590.41 46,265.25 65.14 615.03 132.20 350.62 477.08 61.31 377.45 54,659.18

day) of the previous studyaverage value of two surveys (stages), presented in Table 1. The HSW generation of four central districts was also calculated and summarized in Table 1. LCIA application for HSW treatment practices

Eni

Gei Uei Goal and scope definition The LCIA models have included all processes, ancillary materials, energy use, and emissions within the system boundaries defined in Fig. 2. The components of Net emission for alternative HSW treatment practices are shown in Table 2. Inventory analysis of alternative treatment practices for HSW GHG emissions from combustion The GHG was produced during combustion (by incinerator) was mainly CO2 and N2O (EPA 2002). The calculations of GHG emission based on emission factors including: (1) emissions from the combustion (mass burning) of HSW; (2) CO2 produce when generating power instead of utilities; and (3) the reduction in emissions caused by energy consumption due to the recovery of non-combustible metals for use in manufacturing. In accordance with the GHG inventory guidelines developed by the IPCC (1997), the net emissions factors were therefore calculated as shown below: Eni Gei Uei Rem 1 Rem

Net GHG emissions factor from material i combusted at mass burn incinerator facilities (tons CO2 eq./ton, i=type of combusted material see Table 3) Gross GHG emissions per ton material i combusted (tons CO2 eq./ton) Avoided CO2 emissions per ton material i combusted at mass burn incinerator due to power generation utilization (tons CO2 eq./ton) Avoided CO2 emissions per ton combusted due to metal recovery (tons CO2 eq./ton).

The net emission factors (normalization references) for LCIA models was calculated in ton of carbon equivalent (tons CO 2 eq./ton), emitted by the combustion facilities (mass burn facilities) of HSW, listed in Table 3. In this table, the negative values indicate that material had a positive effect to GHG emission reduction by a respective treatment alternative. GHG emission from landfilling In evaluating GHG emissions from organic waste and mixed HSW buried in the landfill, the main emission items were considered including CH4 and CO2 produced during carbon storage (EPA 2002). CH4 can be chemically oxidized or converted by bacteria to CO2. This part was assumed to be 10% of the total CH4 output. The LFG recovery rate in particular has a big influence on the net GHG emissions due to the greater global warming potential (GWP) value of CH4. The effect of these variations in net emissions will affect the choice of HSW treatment practices, so for this

Environ Monit Assess

Fig. 1 The distribution of HSW composition by different seasons (Thanh et al. 2010)

study the average LFG recovery rate was set at 75% (EPA 2002). As the ash from complete incineration contained no organic carbon when it arrives at the landfill, the burial of ash would generate no LFG. No incineration will completely remove the carbon, but it can be assumed that the landfill of incinerators ash will result in no LFG emissions (McDougall et al. 2001). The net emission normalization references for LCIA models of other landfill technologies (with LFG recovery and flaring and with LFG recovery and electric generation) are listed in Table 3. GHG emissions from organic waste composting The organic waste composting is benefit not only for

reducing the GHG emissions from HSW and the waste burden gone to landfill site but also for producing the composted soil amendment that is useful for agriculture. The GHG emissions that may be produced by composting included: (1) CH4 generates by anaerobic decomposition; (2) carbon storage caused by long-term carbon compounds; and (3) N2O produces by materials initial nitrogen content. To assess the GHG emissions created by composting, according to the IPCC (2006), emission factors for CH4 (4 g CH4/kg waste treated) and N2O (0.3 g N2O/kg waste treated) were used. On the other hand, the compost fertilizer applies into agriculture that increases the soils carbon level. Moreover, the stable carbon compounds are created

Environ Monit Assess

Fig. 2 System boundary of concept models for LCIA (adapted and modified from EPA 2002)

by composting process will support an increase in humus substances and aggregates allowing carbon to be stored long periods of time in the soil. The soil carbon restoration and increased humus formation factor values are used to reflect the carbon storage factor for soil. The net GHG emissions from longterm carbon storage in soil were called net carbon flux. This aspect was also taken into consideration in this study, this emission factor had a value of (0.055) tons CO2 eq./ton. In this study, the GWP of CH4 and N2O (over a 100-year time horizon) was 23 and 296 times, respectively, greater than that of CO2 (IPCC 2001).
Table 2 Components of Net emissions for alternative HSW treatment practices Alternative HSW treatment practices

Evaluation of alternative treatment practices Calculation of GHG emission and reduction GHG baseline emission The GHG baseline emission from waste is the amount of methane calculated in tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2 eq.) that would be generated from disposal of waste at a solid waste disposal site in the absence of the project activity (UNFCCC 2008). In this study, the baseline emission was determined via the Tool to determine methane emissions avoided from dumping waste at a solid waste disposal site (UNFCCC 2008) and the

GHG sources and sinks Forest Carbon sequestration or soil carbon storage Waste management GHG

Composting Combustion

Increase in soil carbon storage No change

Compost machinery emission and transportation emission. Non-biogenic CO2, N2O emissions, avoided utility emissions, and transportation emissions. CH4 emissions, long-term carbon storage, avoided utility emissions, and transportation emissions.

Landfill EPA (2002)

No change

Environ Monit Assess Table 3 Net emissions from combustion and landfill facilities Waste components Net GHG emission from landfill (tons CO2 eq./ton) Net GHG emissions from combustion (tons CO2 eq./ton) with LFG recovery with LFG recovery and flaring and electric generation 0.22 0.22 0.27 0.24 0.20 0.14 0.22 0.19 0.22 0.19 0.19 0.06 0.26 0.07 0.23 0.26 Aluminum cans Steel cans Iron Other metals Glass Ceramic Miscellaneous EPA (2002), Chen and Lin (2008) 0.01 0.43 0.47 0.47 0.01 NA NA 0 0 0 0 0.10 0.22 0.3 0.23 0.30 0.23 0 0.05 0 0.16 0.17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.16 0.26 0.33 0.09 0.33 0.09 0 0.02 0 0.19 0.19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Plastic

HDPE LDPE PET Other plastics

Paper

Corrugated cardboard Magazine Newspaper Office paper Book Textbook Mix paper (other papers)

Kitchen waste (food waste) Rubber and leather Grass & wood Garden waste (yard trimmings) Wood (dimensional lumber) Textile Metal

2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (IPCC 2006). Regarding calculation and prediction of the baseline emissions from the solid waste disposal site, the authors used a spreadsheet model for Estimating Methane Emissions from Solid Waste Disposal Sites (IPCC Waste Model), developed by the IPCC (2006). In this study, GHG baseline emissions were calculated based on the waste composition, shown in Table 1 and the reference of default emission factors in the guideline of the 2006 IPCC tier 1 approach. GHG emission and reduction GHG emission reduction is the difference between GHG emission within project activities compare to baseline emission (Plchl et al. 2008; UNFCCC 2007b, 2008). Generally, emission

reduction in the year y is calculated according to the following equations: ERy BEy PEy Ly PEy PEprocessing; y PEenergy consumption; y PEenergy generation; y 3 2

Where ERy in the emission reduction in the year y; BEy is the baseline emission in the year y; PEy is the project emission in the year y; and Ly is the leakage emission in the year y. The emission was considered within the project boundary as defined in the Glossary of Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) terms version 01 (UNFCCC 2007a). The

Environ Monit Assess

project emission (PEy) in this study was defined so as to include total emission from energy consumption (PEenergy consumption,y) and from processing of project activities (PEprocessing,y), excluding the emission from energy generation (PEenergy generation,y); which is expressed in Eq. 3.

(2004) reported that the baseline emission factor for the Vietnam electricity system was 0.585 tCO2 eq./MWh by 2008. Economic assessment As discussed above, some of the alternative waste treatment practices can generate energy, while some alternatives can create products such as compost fertilizer for agriculture application. In addition, GHG emission reduction can be converted to Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) and be credited for trading. In the present study, the economic assessment calculated based on the amount of useful products, such as the energy generation/consumption, outcome product as compost, and GHG emission reduction certificate. Regarding treatment alternatives that generate energy, especially electricity, the generated energy can sell to the National Electricity System with the price is US$0.04/kWh at the present. Composting yields compost that we are thinking of products such as fertilizer for soil supplementation. Good-quality compost accounted for approximately 30% of final compost product, if

Energy consumption and generation Other solid waste treatment alternatives generate and consume the various amount of energy, which is based on the applying technology, types of consuming/ generating energy, waste composition, etc. (Thanh and Matsui 2009). In this study, energy consumption and generation of each process were generally referred to as the normalization references (McDougall et al. 2001), presented in Table 4. The energy consumption and generation in this section would be calculated in electric energy (kWh). For energy consumption like diesel fuel with density of 0.85 kg/L, which generates energy of 38.6 MJ/L (10.81 kWh/L) by the combustion process, this value was used for estimation. In this study, it was assumed that electricity consumed was imported from the grid. Tuyen and Michaelowa

Table 4 Energy contents and residual waste of waste treatment alternatives Processes Energy (kWh per input ton)a Consumption Generation Landfill without 0.6 l of LFG recovery diesel Landfill with 0.6 l of LFG recovery diesel and flaring Landfill with 0.6 l of LFG recovery diesel and electric generation No No 100 100 100 100 Remarksa % residual wastes to final disposala Typical value applying this study (%)

84.38 kWh 1.5 kWh per Nm3 LFG 250 Nm3 LFG/ton of per ton of biodegradable waste biodegradable (organic, paper, and waste textile fraction) Collection efficiency: 75% Conversion efficiency: 30%

100

100

Composting

30

No

4.05.0 (source10 (as the current status separated bio-waste) of Vietnam, bio-waste separated at composting plant) 3.25.2 5

Incineration

70

520

Generation: gross electricity production efficiency: 23%

McDougall et al. (2001)

Environ Monit Assess

supported by suitable nutrient components, it can sell on the market at prices as high as US$30/ton (Thanh et al. 2009). For the composting process, the final product accounted for 50% of input loading, the mass loss was due to evaporation and biodegradation of the organic fraction (McDougall et al. 2001). By reducing GHG emissions from alternatives, carbon credits or CERs are generated, that is, climate credits issued by the CDMExecutive BoardUNFCCC. These credits can be sold on international markets to developed countries. The trading price for carbon credits unit (US$/ton CO2 eq.) depended on the world market. In this study, the trading price of carbon credits was based on the current price in Vietnam, US$812/ton CO2 eq. (Michaelowa and Wucke 2009) and the price of US $10/ton CO2 eq. was used as an estimate. Required capacity for dumping at final disposal This part evaluates the required capacity (tons/day) for dumping of residual wastes from treatment alternatives to final disposal as a landfill site. Regarding to calculate the amount of residual waste gone to final disposal, the authors referred the simple illustration, presented in Table 4. It was assumed that no GHG emit from residual waste of composting plants and incinerators.
Table 5 Description of scenarios Scenarios Landfill without LFG recovery Landfill with LFG recovery and flaring Landfill with LFG recovery and electric generation Composting Description Open dumping landfill (LFG is not collected and treated) Sanitary landfill combines with LFG flaring

Description of scenario In order to analyze the impacts of alternative treatment options towards the GHG emission reduction, energy content, reduction of land use requirement, and various economic assessments for proposing the appropriated selection, a scenarios analysis based on the alternative HSW treatment options was conducted. Classification scenarios categorized by waste treatment alternatives, which should be appropriated applications in Vietnamese cities. The authors used simple assumptions as well as the specific boundaries and technologies, presented in Table 5.

Results and discussion GHG baseline emission of HSW generation Figure 3a presents an illustration of the GHG baseline emission in total (tons CO2 eq.) and in daily rate as (g CO2 eq./cap/day) of biodegradable components of the HSW for four central districts of CTC. These emissions were calculated using 1-year waste quantification described above (at the year 2007, 149.75 tons/day) and considering the emissions over 80 years. Results showed that GHG baseline emissions were 325.19 g CO2 eq./cap/day, of which the food component accounted for a very large share

Definition/Boundary 100% of amount of waste was dumped by landfill as an open dumping in natural condition. 100% of waste was dumped by sanitary landfill within LFG collection, and flaring. 100% of waste was dumped by sanitary landfill within LFG collection, treatment and electric generation. Compostable wastes were treated by composting plant with technology of aerobic compost and 10% residual components were dumped by landfill (assume that no GHG emitted from this part) 100% of waste was treated by incinerator with technology of Semi-continuous (fluidised bed) combined thermal power system, 5% residual material was dumped by landfill (assume that no GHG emit from this part)

Sanitary landfill combines with LFG recovery by electric generation Composting plant

Incineration

Incineration within thermal power recovery

Environ Monit Assess

a
70000 325.19

b
GHG baseline emission (g CO2 eq./cap/day)
60000 277.68 50000 40000 62,306 53,203 30000 20000 7,916 10000 0 41.31 250 200 150 100 50 240 1.26 0 300

GHG baseline emssion (ton CO2 eq./yr)

Ton CO2 eq. g CO2 eq. per cap per day

350

900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1 6 11 16 21 26 Textile Paper Garden Food

GHG baseline emission (ton CO2 eq.)

Total

Food

Paper

Garden

947

4.94

Textile

Waste components

Time period (years)

Fig. 3 a, b GHG baseline emission by components

(277.68 g CO2 eq./cap/day), followed by paper (41.31 g CO2 eq./cap/day); the remainder was a very low value as garden wastes (4.94 g CO2eq./cap/day), and textiles (1.26 g CO2 eq./cap/day). On the other hand, Fig. 3b shows the annual GHG baseline emission of biodegradable components in the period time of the first 30 years. Amount of emissions was mainly depended on waste compositions, illustrated in Fig. 3a, b. The major GHG emissions from waste were caused by food component. In comparison to others, the baseline emission of the food component was quickly dropped down after stopping waste loading. This identified that the GHG emission of food component occurred in the short time period after disposing waste. Scenarios analysis: impact analysis of alternative HSW treatment practices GHG emission and reduction Table 6 presents the GHG emission of each alternative scenario. The results showed that scenario 1 (landfill without LFG recovery) was the highest emission practice, the following were scenarios 4 (composting), 2 (landfill with LFG recovery and flaring), and 3 (landfill with LFG recovery and electric generation), respectively. While the scenario 5 (incineratormass burning) was, respectively, the smallest GHG emission practice. The GHG emission of this case presented with

minus value; this means that this scenario was contribution to GHG reduction. This was GHG emission reduction factor. Table 6 also expresses the GHG emission reduction of each scenario. The GHG emission reduction was calculated as a comparison between the GHG emission and the GHG baseline emission. The results showed that landfill without LFG recovery scenario was no emission reduction, while composting scenario was the lowest emission reduction, the following were landfill with LFG recovery and flaring scenario and landfill with LFG recovery and electric generation scenario, respectively. The GHG emission reduction of incineration scenario was higher than the GHG baseline emission; therefore, the percentage of their emission reduction was higher than 100%. This point shows that this scenario not only reduces the baseline GHG emission from the project but is also a GHG reduction factor. Therefore, within the estimation of GHG emission and reduction, the disposal practices were ranked priority in order as (5), (3), (2), (4), and (1), respectively. Energy consumption and generation Table 6 presents the energy consumption, generation and export of each scenario. The total amount of energy exported to the grid was electricity generation excluding energy recovery for its demands. It meant

Environ Monit Assess Capacity % reduction (ton/day)

3,593.97 539.09

Emission Reduction % reduction Consumption Generation Export

67,388.03

9,137.34

971.29

971.29

that the amount of energy consumption was recovered by the energy generation. The results showed that the incineration scenario was the highest energy export potential; the following was the sanitary landfill with LFG recovery and electric generation, whereas amount of energy export of remaining scenarios was minus value due to zero energy generation by these scenarios. In comparison among scenarios, the scenario of incineration was the most energy consumption treatment practice; however, it was also the most energy generation and export alternative. The scenario of composting was a treatment method with no energy generation, while it consumed much more energy than landfill scenarios. Therefore, within the estimation of energy content, the disposal practices were ranked priority in order as (5), (3), (2), (1), and (4), respectively. Economic assessment Table 6 shows the benefit estimation for each scenario, the incineration was the most beneficial alternative, followings were composting scenario, sanitary landfill with LFG recovery and electric generation, and sanitary landfill with LFG recovery and flaring, respectively. The scenario of landfill without LFG recovery was no benefit practice. Regarding investment and cost estimation for each treatment alternative, Ayalon et al. (2001) presented an interisting example mentioning about investment cost and annual operating costs for alternative treatment practices (see Table 7). The results showed that composting was the lowest cost for both investment and annual operation, whereas incineration scenario was required the highest cost for both investment and annual operation. Landfill with LFG recovery and electric generation scenario was much more expensive than the scenario of landfill with LFG recovery and flaring for both investment and annual operation cost. Therefore, within the estimation of economic benefit, the alterative practices were ranked priority in order as (5), (4), (3), (2), and (1), respectively. However, within the estimation of investment and operating cost, the alterative practices were ranked priority in order as (1), (4), (2), (3), and (5), respectively (it was assumed that scenario 1 was little investment and cost).

Required capacity for final disposal

0.00

0.00

0.00

72.00 41.93 1,550.33 143.76 0.00 90.82 155.03 15.67 3,593.97

1,655.43 149.75

1,695.18 149.75

0.00 149.75

Composting Energy CER selling buying/ selling selling

Economic aspects (US$/day)

38.85

38.85

0.00

0.00

0.00

Energy (kWh/day)

10,108.63

Table 6 Impact analysis of alternative HSW treatment practices

0.00

96.98

99.31

GHG (tCO2eq./day)

0.00

Landfill without LFG recovery 170.70

165.54

169.52

Landfill with LFG recovery and flaring Landfill with LFG recovery and electric generation Composting

Alternatives

Incinerator (mass burn)

7.07

5.16

1.19

177.74

104.12

10,482.58

971.29

971.29

971.29

77,870.61

0.00

0.00

0.00

2,695.52

365.49

1,777.36

7.49

95.00

Environ Monit Assess Table 7 Investment cost and benefit estimation for GHG mitigation from HSW Alternatives Size of typical plant (tons/day) 400 400 Investment cost (US$106) 2 5 Investment cost of reduction (US$/tonCO2 eq.) 18 45 Annual operating cost (15 year) (US$/ton CO2 eq.) 1.21 3.02

Landfill without LFG recovery Landfilling + LFG flare 50% collection efficiency Landfilling+LFG collection and energy recovery 50% efficiency Aerobic composting Incineration Ayalon et al. (2001)

250 500

1 50

9 194

0.58 12.94

Required capacity for dumping at final disposal Table 6 presents the required capacity of residual waste discharged to final disposal sites, the results showed that the scenarios 1, 2, and 3 (landfill practices) like final disposal sites, almost collected waste dumped. Therefore, these scenarios require with large land area for treatment. Whereas, composting scenario and incineration scenarios discharge with very low amount of residual wastes, which gone and dumped at landfill sites. Incineration was the most scenarios with 95% for volume reduction of waste treated, following was composting scenario with 72% for volume reduction.
Fig. 4 Multiple assessments for scenarios

Multiple assessments In order to give out the overview of waste treatment alternatives based on many aspects, such as GHG emission/reduction, energy generation/consumption, economic benefit, investment and operating cost, and land use burden. The estimation of waste treatment alternatives for above-mentioned aspects was encoded in the qualitative scales, which defined in priority ranking by comparing among 5 scenarios. The range of scale was defined from 5 to 1, as a scenario which was very positive effect = 5 and vice versa with a scenario which was least positive effect = 1, respectively.

Environ Monit Assess

Figure 4 presents the multiple assessments for all of the scenarios based on many aspects. The results showed that, incineration was the most efficient alternative for GHG emission reduction, economic benefit, energy recovery, and land use reduction; although it was identified as the most expensive for investment and operating cost. Besides, composting scenario was alternative with quite economic benefit, low investment and operating cost, and rather land use reduction, although it was identified as much GHG emission and no energy generation. Regarding landfill scenarios, the priority of efficient alternatives was ranked as scenario 3, 2, and 1, respectively; although, scenario 1 was identified as the cheapest alternative for investment and operating cost.

Conclusions and recommendations In the urban cities of Vietnam, biodegradable waste accounted for a very high percentage of total HSW, around 80%. This share had the most GHG emission potential among all components of total HSW. Biological treatment as composting seems the suitable alternative for treating this waste. This practice is useful not only for reducing GHG emissions but also for mitigating waste burden to landfill sites and attendant costs. Furthermore, it suggests the potential for developing CDM projects in MSW fields, especially for HSW. The interesting findings obtained from the current study used to propose policy implications and recommendations for the future researches. Moreover, the evaluations and discussions in this paper expected to be useful for decision-makers, authorities, and planers for choosing, improving, or planning the waste treatment practices to achieve the sustainable development regarding solid waste management with three areas: environmental sustainability, economical sustainability and social acceptance. The contribution to impacts made by a regional waste management policy can be clearly quantified through life-cycle assessment. This tool has been successfully utilized in developed countries with advanced methods and more reliable. However, until now, there is no guideline or relevant method relating to life-cycle assessment for waste management in Vietnam. The assessment and inventory model used this research provide not only a reference for the local

governments of Vietnam in their waste management policies but also a presentation for the national aspect to express Vietnams impacts and reduction results in various waste treatment options. However, the applied life cycle inventory assessment method was deficient in several ways and could be developed to be more suited for environmental assessment of waste management system. Moreover, the emission factors and normalization references used for calculating in the assessment were in general cases, which might be little suitable for developing countries, especially Vietnam. It is recommended that other life cycle inventory assessment methods should be applied and assessed to compare and interpret. This may be made life cycle inventory assessment a more reliable tool for decision-support. The authors recommend that future researches should be focused on the inventory development for the emission factors and normalization references using to calculate the life cycle inventory assessment for Vietnam case.

References
Ayalon, O., Avnimelech, Y & Shechter, M. (2001). Solid waste ., treatment as a High- Priority and Low-Cost Alternaative for Greenhouse Gas Mitigation. Environmental Management, 27(5), 697704. Barton, J. R., Dalley, D., & Patel, V S. (1996). Life cycle . assessment for waste management. Waste Management, 16, 3550. Chaya, W., & Gheewala, S. H. (2007). Life cycle assessment of MSW to energy schemes in Thailand. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15, 14631468. Chen, T. C., & Lin, C. F. (2008). Greenhouse gases emissions from waste management practices using Life Cycle Inventory mode. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 155, 2331. Del Borghi, A., Gallo, M., & Del Borghi, M. (2009). A survey of life cycle approaches in waste management. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 14, 597610. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2002). Solid waste management and greenhouse gases: A life-cycle assessment of emissions and sinks (2nd ed.). Washington: US Environmental Protection Agency. EPA530-R-02-006. GSO. (2007). Statistical yearbook of can Tho city: Districts and suburban districts. Ha Noi: General Statistical Office Statistical Publishing House. Harrison, K. W., Dumas, R. D., & Barlaz, M. A. (2000). Life-cycle inventory model of municipal solid waste combustion. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 50, 9931003. IPCC. (1997). IPCC 1996: Guidelines for national greenhouse inventories. In J. T. Houghton, L. G. Meira Filho, B. Lim, K. Tranton, I. Mamaty, Y Bonduki, D. J. Griggs, & B. A. .

Environ Monit Assess Callander (Eds.), Intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC). Paris: IPCC/OECD/IEA. IPCC. (2001). Third Assessment IPCC report. In J. T. Houghton, Y Ding, D. J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P J. van . . der Linden, X. Dai, K. Maskell, & C. A. Johnson (Eds.), Climate change 2001: The Scientific Basic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. IPCC. (2006). Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. In H. S. Eggleston, L. Buendia, K. Miwa, T. Ngara, & K. Tanabe (Eds.), Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme. Japan: IGES. ISO (1997). Environmental standard ISO 14040, Environmental managementlife cycle assessmentprincipal and framework, Reference Number: ISO 14040: 1997(E). McDougall, F. W. P Franke, M., Hindle, P & Pocter, G. ., ., (2001). Integrated Solid Waste Management: A Life Cycle Inventory (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell. Mendes, R. M., Aramaki, T., & Hanaki, K. (2004). Comparison of the environmental impact of incineration and landfilling in So Paulo City as determined by LCA. Resource, Conservation and Recycling, 41, 4763. Michaelowa, A., & Wucke, A. (2009). CDM Highlights 74: Monthly newsletter of the GTZ Climate Protection Programme (CaPP), a project carried out on behalf of the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (2009). Available at http://www.gtz.de/en/ themen/umwelt-infrastruktur/umweltpolitik/14317.htm (accessed August 2009). Plchl, C., Wetzer, W & Ragonig, A. (2008). Clean development ., mechanism: An incentive for waste management projects? Waste manage Res., 26, 104110. Thanh, N. P & Matsui, Y (2009). Evaluation of the alternative ., . treatment methods for GHG emission mitigation from municipal solid waste management: case study of Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Asian Journal on Energy Environment, 10(01), 3552. Thanh, N. P Matsui, Y Fujiwara, T., & Hung, N. T. (2009). ., ., Greenhouse gas emission content by the alternative treatment methods of municipal solid waste management. Journal of Science and Technology, 47(5A), 102110. Thanh, N. P Matsui, Y & Fujiwara, T. (2010). Household solid ., ., waste generation and characteristic in a Mekong Delta city, Vietnam. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(11), 23072321. Tuyen, T.M., Michaelowa, A. (2004). Discussion paper: CDM baseline construction for Vietnam national electricity grid. Hamburgisches Welt-Wirtschafts-Archiv (HWW A). UNFCCC (2007a). Glossary of CDM term version 01. Available at http://cdm.unfccc.int/Reference/Guidclarif/index.html (accessed 27 July 2007). UNFCCC. (2007b). AM0025: Avoided emissions from organic waste through alternative waste treatment processes V ersion 10.1. Bonn: UNFCCC CDM Executive Board. UNFCCC. (2008). Tool to determine methane emission avoided from dumping waste at a solid waste disposal site, V ersion 02, EB39. Bonn: UNFCCC-CDM Executive Board.