PACKAGING TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE VOL 6 159-172 (1993)

Selecting a Waste Management O p t i o n

using a Life-cycle Analysis Approach"

Neil Kirkpatrick
Pira International, Randalls Road, Leatherhead, Surrey KT22 7RU. UK

Solid-waste management, and i n particular the disposal o f used packaging, is currently

t h e subject of much topical debate. This is driven by b o t h consumer and legislative
pressures. Consumers see used packaging as a highly visible element o f municipal solid
waste, complaining o f excessive packaging and l o w levels o f recycling. Legislators,
perhaps in pandering t o the views expressed by consumer bodies, have been active
within the CEC and individual Member States by introducing (or proposing) legislation
or similar regulatory tools and targets t o facilitate a greater diversion of used packaging
from disposal by landfill t o alternative solid-waste management practices, in particular
recycling, which are widely accepted t o have a lower impact on the environment.
In this paper the relative environmental profiles o f pursuing alternative solid-waste
management practices t o disposal by landfill are explored, focusing not just on solid
waste per se but also on associated considerations of energy consumption and emis-
sions, which are invariably overlooked as factors contributing t o the environmental
impact o f solid-waste management practices.

Solid- waste management; life- cycle analysis; Land fill alternatives; Legislation

SOLID-WASTE MANAGEMENT IN An examination of all environmental impacts

CO NT EXT
Solid-waste management is one facet only of the
environmental debate. In this respect, it is essential
to recognize that environmental impacts do not
occur only when materials have served their useful
purpose and hence become waste, nor are they
restricted to considerations of solid waste only.
In quantifying the environmental impacts associ-
ated with any given product, it is necessary to
examine all stages of the life cycle, including
the initial extraction of raw materials from
the Earth's surface, manufacturing processes
(including conversion/finishing and distribution/
transportation) use, and finally disposal. Further,
it must be recognized that environmental impacts
result through the use of raw materials and con-
sumption of energy, which in turn lead to the
generation of atmospheric emissions, discharges
to a receiving water, and solid waste disposal.
over the complete life cycle of a given product is
referred to as the life-cycle analysis (LCA)
approach. It is only by adopting an LCA
approach that the issues of solid-waste manage-
ment can be placed in context. Solid-waste
management is only one step in a life cycle and
should be viewed as a process, itself requiring
inputs such as energy (for collection, sorting, pro-
cessing and transportation). resulting in emissions
to the atmosphere as well as possible discharges
to a receiving water and yet further solid waste
being generated. This approach to solid-waste
management is and example of the so-called
'black box principle', where solid-waste manage-
ment represents the black box (i.e. the process)
with the solid waste for disposal/processing being
an input into the system.
This concept of viewing solid-waste management
as a process with a series of inputs and outputs
challenges the whole notion of relative prioriti-

0894-3214/93/030159- 15s12.50
0 1993 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Received December 1992
160 N. KIRKPATRICK

Table 1. Environmental inputs and outputs for recycling 100 kg of mixed paper waste
Total Transport Unit energy Electricity Waste
management

Inputs (kg)
Fossil fuels 954.2666 3.4744 36.6729 950.7922 0.0000
Other non-renewables 0.0000 0 0000 0.0000 0.0000
Renewables 22.9416 0.0000 0.8849 22.9416 0.0000
Waste materials 1000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1000.0000
Ancillaries 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Net water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Net air 785.7386 7.5957 30.0136 778.1430 0.0000
Electrical energy (kWh)a 2592.6317 0.7427 2591.8890
Outputs (kg)
co2 1340.0473 10.6322 51.2767 1329.4151
co 0.7705 0.0576 0.0275 0 71 29
vo c 32.4948 0.0284 0.1568 4 0660 28.4044
NO 4.8447 0.2012 0.2177 5.6435
so2 14.8637 0.0459 0.5715 14.8179
Halides 0.0000 0.0000
Otherb 7.8890 0.0000 7.8890
Dust 0.0125 0.0125
TDS 0.0000 0 0000
TSS 1.0546 0.0000 1.0546
BOD 0.5083 0 0000 0.5083
COD 3.6213 0 0000 3.6213
Oils 0.0000 0.0000
Landfill weight 394.4497 0.0000 15.2143 394.4497 394.4497
Landfill volume (m3) 564.0631 0.0000 564.0631
Electrical energy (kWh) 0.0000 100.0000 2592.6317
~~

aRaw materials and environmental impacts associated with generation included

bLeachatesand smell gases included

zation of solid-waste management practices. Con-
vention dictates that solid-waste management
practices can be placed in a fixed order of prefer-
ence, often referred to as the solid-waste manage-
ment hierarchy.
The hierarchy is often presented as shown below,
with waste minimization as the most preferred
(least environmental impact) and landfill as the
least preferred (most environmental impact).
(i) waste minimization at source
(ii) re-use
(iii) recycle
(iv) incineration with energy recovery
(v) incineration without energy recovery
(vi) landfill
In recent years this hierarchy has been presented in
different ways, with additional practices, such as
composting/biodegradation, becoming integrated
above landfill and somewhere above or below the
different modes of incineration.
Having established that solid waste and solid-
waste management are only single elements of the
whole process of life-cycle analysis, we can now
explore further the relative inputs and outputs for
some of those solid-waste management practices
listed above. This will illustrate that assumptions
about the relative preferences for solid-
waste management practices do not necessarily
hold true but depend on the parameters under
consideration.
CHALLENGING THE SOLID-WASTE
MANAGEMENT HIERARCHY
The solid-waste management hierarchy was deter-
mined on the basis of a common-sense approach
focusing on considerations of resource conserva-
tion and optimization of the use of raw materials.
Cynically, however, one might argue that elements
LIFE-CYCLE ANALYSIS AND WASTE MANAGEMENT 161
10000.0000

1000.0000

100.0000

0
Y 10.0000
c

5
B
1.oooo

0.1000

0.0100

0.0010

0.0001

Figure 1. Inputs into the disposal of 1000 kg of paper by recycling

10000.0000

1000.0000

100.0000

0
Y 10 0000

1.oooo

0 1000
a -
0.0100

0 0010

0.0001

Figure 2. Outputs from the disposal of 1000 kg of paper by recycling

162 N. KIRKPATRICK

of its structure have more to do with political
and national concerns over the lack of available
licensed landfill space and perceptions of the
negative impacts associated with practices such as
incineration.
Waste minimization at source is undoubtedly
the most preferred (least environmental impact)
solid-waste management option. Environmental
considerations are invariably directly related to
economic considerations and on both accounts
there is no argument that the most preferred way
to tackle the solid-waste issue is to minimize those
quantities of materials that become waste in the
first place.
This is determined in two ways. The first con-
sideration is to ensure that raw materials are con-
verted into the desired product by the most
effective and efficient means available. Typically
this relates to the generation of pre-consumer
waste (or scrap), which by virtue of its nature repre-
sents both a loss of an economic resource and the
cleanest, i.e. least contaminated, category of waste
for subsequent treatment/reprocessing. The second
consideration relates to the quantities of raw mate-
rials used in the manufacture of a given product,
recognizing that the use of less materials (often
referred to as lightweighting) may be short-sighted
if it results in greater secondary, downstream losses
if that product is no longer able to perform its func-
tion to an equivalent performance standard.
The debate becomes much more complex when
considering the other elements of the solid-waste
management hierarchy. Consider, for example,
scenarios of recycling, incineration and landfill for
mixed paper waste and high-density polyethylene
(HDPE). As discussed previously, recycling,
incineration and landfill are themselves processes
with their own environmental inputs and outputs.
Further, to facilitate comparisons that reflect infra-
structure considerations, it is necessary to build
into these scenarios, environmental impacts associ-
ated with transportation.

Table 2. Environmental inputs and outputs for incineration of lOOOkg of mixed paper waste
Total Transport Unit energy Electricity Waste
management

Inputs (kg)
Fossil fuels 18.4584 3.4739 36.6729 14 9861 0.0000
Other non-renewables 0.0000 0.0000 0 0000 0.0000
Renewa bles 0.3616 0.0000 0.8849 0 3616 0.0000
Waste materials 1000.0000 0.0000 0 0000 1000.0000
Ancillaries 0.0000 0.0000 0 0000 0.0000
Net water 0.0000 0.0000 0 0000 0.0000
Net air 19.8589 7.5955 30.0136 12 2649 0.0000
Electrical energy (kWh)a 40.8665 0.7426 40.1243
Outputs (kg)
CO2 1514.7294 10.6320 51.2767 20 9539 1483.1461
co 0.4688 0.0576 0.0275 00112 0.400
voc 0.5388 0.0284 0.1568 0 0641 0.4476
NO 1.8901 0.2012 0.2177 0 0890 1.6000
SO2 0.5794 0.0459 0.5715 0 2336 0.3000
Halides 0.0000 0.0000
Otherb 0.1240 0.0000 0.1243
Dust 0.0325 0.0125 0.0200
TDS 0.0000 0.0000
TSS 0.0000 0.0000
BOD 0.0000 0.0000
COD 0.0000 0.0000
Oils 0.0000 0.0000
Landfill weight 6.2165 0.0000 15.2143 6 21 72 6.2165
Landfill volume (m3) 8.8896 0.0000 8.8896
Electrical energy (kWh) 1691.0019 100.0000 40 8665 1691.0019

aRaw materials and environmental impacts associated with generation included.

bLeachates and smell gases included.
LIFE-CYCLE ANALYSIS AND WASTE MANAGEMENT 163

10000.0000

1000.0000

Figure 3. Inputs into the disposal of 1000 kg of paper by incineration

1rJooo 0000

1000 0000

10.0000

1.oooo

0.1000

0.0100

0.0010

0.0001
g s g g ; n s

% o

Figure 4. Outputs from the disposal of 1000 kg of paper by incineration

In the case studies discussed in this paper, it has
been assumed that all transportation is by 9-t
diesel-powered lorries with an average utility of
50% travelling equal distances in urban, rural
and motorway traffic.
For transportation to a municipal solid-waste
incinerator or landfill site, it has been assumed
that the average distance travelled is 25km,
whereas for transportation to a recycling centre,
it has been assumed that the average distance
travelled is 250 km. This recognizes the poor infra-
structure currently in existence for recycling. These
figures may be perceived to be biased, and hence in
the comparisons made the contributions resulting
from transportation have been indicated sepa-
rately in all cases.
The results obtained for 1000 kg of mixed waste
paper and 1000 kg of HDPE are set out in Tables
1-6 and Figures 1-12 and summarized in Tables
7 and 8. These data represent western European
164 N. KIRKPATRICK

Table 3. Environmental inputs and outputs for disposal of 1000 kg of mixed paper waste by landfill
Total Transport Unit energy Electricity Waste
management

Inputs (kg)
Fossil fuels 11.0931 3 4638 36.6729 7.6293 0.0000
Other non-renewables 0.0000 0 0000 0.0000 0.0000
Renewables 0.1841 0 0000 0.8849 0.1841 0.0000
Waste materials 1000.0000 0 0000 0.0000 1000.0000
Ancillaries 0.0000 0 0000 0.0000 0.0000
Net water 0.0000 0 0000 0.0000 0.0000
Net air 13.8166 7 5726 30.01 36 6.2440 0.0000
Electrical energy (kWh)a 20.8037 0 7404 20.0633
Outputs (kg)
Electrical energy (kWh) 0.0000 100.0000 20.8037
COZ 21.2674 10 5999 51.2767 10.6675
co 0.0631 0 0574 0.0275 0.00057
voc 0.2899 0 0284 0.1568 0.0326 0.2279
NO 0.2458 0 2006 0.2177 0.0453
SO2 0.1646 0 0457 0.5715 0.1 189
Halides 0.000 0 000
Otherb 0.0633 0 0000 0.0633
Dust 0.0124 0 01 24
TDS 0.0000 0 0000
TSS 0.000 0 0000
BOD 0.0000 0 0000
COD 0.0000 0 0000
Oils 0.0000 0 0000
Landfill weight 1003.1651 0 0000 15.2143 3.1651 1003.1651
Landfill volume (m3) 1054.5261 0 0000 1054.5261

'Raw materials and environmental impacts associated with generation included

bLeachates and smell gases included.

average values and have been abstracted from the
Pira International database generated as part of
its major research programme on the life-cycle
analysis of packaging.
In both cases, it can be seen that recycling
requires much greater quantities of fossil fuels
(largely to generate the energy required to facilitate
the process) compared with incineration and land-
fill. As a consequence relatively substantial levels of
carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas) are generated.
Incineration also results in relatively substantial
levels of carbon dioxide, especially in the case
of HDPE. However, even allowing for a 30-35%
efficiency of energy conversion, incineration may
offer quite respectable levels of electrical energy
recovery.
It is interesting to note that solid-waste manage-
ment practices are not strictly defined, in the sense
that even recycling and incineration (in the case
of paper) generate solid waste through losses,
removal of contaminants and/or ash formation.
In making these comparisons it is emphasized
that there is no attempt to advocate recycling,
incineration or landfill as a preferred method of
solid-waste management. Rather, it is intended
simply to illustrate that depending on the particu-
lar perspective, each option may be argued to be
more or less favourable than any other.
PRlORlTlZATlO N OF ENVIRONMENTAL
CONCERNS
There is at present no universally accepted way of
prioritizing environmental concerns. This being
the case, for the purposes of discussion some
of the perceived relative advantages and dis-
advantages of each of the solid-waste management
 LIFE-CYCLE ANALYSIS AND WASTE MANAGEMENT 165

10000.0000

1000.0000

100.0000

3 10.0000
.-E
E, 1.0000
.-
5 0.1000

0.0100

0.0010

0.0001

Figure 5. Inputs into the disposal of 1000 kg of paper by landfill

1000.0000

100.0000

0 10.0000
1
E
.-
I

I.oooo
-
E,
P 0.1000

0.0100

0.0010

0.0001

g
N s $ q g 4 b J g $ g g" d 5 f
I 0

Figure 6 . Outputs from the disposal of 1000 kg of paper by landfill

166 N. KIRKPATRICK

Table 4. Environmental inputs and outputs for recycling l000kg of HDPE

Total Transport Unit energy Electricity Waste
management

Inputs (kg)
Fossil fuels 449.5610 48.4496 36.6729 401.0864 0.0000
Other non-renewables 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Renewables 9.6782 0.0000 0.8849 9.6778 0.0000
Waste materials 1000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1000.0000
Ancillaries 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Net water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Net air 434.1 083 105.8362 30.0136 328.2553 0.0000
Electrical energy (kWh)a 1093.6873 10.3566 1083.3281
Outputs (kg)
Electrical energy (kWh) 0.0000 100.0000 1093.6873
co2 709.0925 1485.2821 51.2676 560.8064
co 1.0123 0.7116 0.0275 0.3007
voc 14.1420 0.4425 0.1568 1.7152 11.9811
NO 5.1 323 2.751 5 0.2177 2.3807
so2 6.8883 0.6374 0.5715 6.2508
Halides 0.0000 0.0000
Otherb 3.3289 0.0000 3.3281
Dust 0.1729 0.1729
TDS 0.0000 0.0000
TSS 0.000 0.0000
BOD 0.0000 0.0000
COD 0.0000 0.0000
Oils 0.0000 0.0000
Landfill weight 166.4035 0.0000 15.2143 166.3964 166.3964
Landfill volume (m3) 237.9570 0.0000 237.9469

aRaw materials and environmental impacts associated with generation included.

bLeachates and smell gases included.

10000.0000 -- 1

1000.0000

100.0000

2 10.0000
-c
-
E, 1.oooo

s 0.1000

0.0100

0.0010

0.0001

Figure 7. Inputs into the disposal of 1000 kg of HDPE by recycling

LIFE-CYCLE ANALYSIS AND WASTE MANAGEMENT 167

1ooo.ooO0

100.0000

D 10.0000
-
1
E
1.oooo
-E,
0.1000

0.0100

0.0010

0.0001
g s g g p $a k ig p z i
Figure 8. Outputs from the disposal of 1000 kg of HDPE by recycling

Table 5. Environmental inputs and outputs for incineration of lOOOkg of HDPE

Total Transport Unit energy Electricity Waste
management

Inputs (kg)
Fossil fuels 18.4602 3.4743 36.6729 14 9870 0 0000
Other non-renewables 0.0000 0.0000 0 0000 0 0000
Renewables 0.3616 0.0000 0.8849 0 3616 0 0000
Waste materials 1000.0000 0.0000 0 0000 1000 0000
Ancillaries 0.0000 0.0000 0 0000 0 0000
Net water 0.0000 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000
Net air 19.8604 7.5956 30.01 36 12 2656 0 0000
Electrical energy (kWh)a 40.8670 0 7427 40 1243
Outputs (kg)
Electrical energy (kWh) 3778.1 41 5 100.0000 40 8670 3778 1415
co2 31 74.4444 10.6322 51.2767 20 9552 31 42 8571
co 1.3688 0.0576 0.0275 00112 1 3000
voc 0.5402 0.0284 0.1568 0 0641 0.4476
NO 5.4901 0.2012 0.2177 0 0890 5 2000
so2 6.6394 0.0459 0.5715 0 2336 0 3600
Halides 0.000 0.0000
Otherb 0.1243 0.0000 0.1243
Dust 0.0625 0.01 25 0.0500
TDS 0.0000 0.0000
TSS 0.0000 0.0000
BOD 0.0000 0.0000
COD 0.0000 0.0000
Oils 0.0000 0.0000
Landfill weight 6.2172 0.0000 15.2143 6 2176 6.21 76
Landfill volume (m3) 8.8906 0.0000 8.8912

aRaw materials and environmental impacts associated with generation included.

bLeachates and smell gases included.
 168 N. KIRKPATRICK
10000.0000

1000.0000

100.0000

=. 10.0000
.-c
~

1.oooo
E,
.-
s 0.1000

0.0100

0.0010

0.0001

-8 a
L

ii

Figure 9. Inputs into the disposal of 1000 kg of HDPE by incineration

10000.0000

1000.0000

100.0000

0 0100

0 0010

0 0001

Figure 10. Outputs from the disposal of 1000 kg of HDPE by incineration

LIFE-CYCLE ANALYSIS AND WASTE MANAGEMENT 169

Table 6. Environmental inputs and outputs for disposal of 1000 kg of HDPE by landfill
Total Transport Unit energy Electricity Waste
management

Inputs (kg)
Fossil fuels 11.1162 3.4639 36.6729 7.6301 0.0000
Other non-renewables 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Renewables 0.1845 0.0000 0.8849 0.1841 0.0000
Waste materials 1000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1000.0000
Ancillaries 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Net water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Net air 13.8320 7.5727 30.0136 6.2446 0.0000
Electrical energy (kWh)a 20.8058 0.7404 20.0634
Outputs (kg)
Electrical energy (kWh) 0.0000 100.0000 20.8058
c02 21.2719 10.6000 51.2767 10.6685
co 0.0631 0.0574 0.0275 0.0057
voc 0.2907 0.0284 0.1568 0.0326 0.2284
NO 0.2459 0.2006 0.2177 0.0453
so2 0.1647 0.0457 0.5715 0.1189
Halides 0.0000 0.0000
Otherb 0.0638 0.0000 0.0634
Dust 0.0124 0.0124
TDS 0.0000 0.0000
TSS 0.000 0.0000
BOD 0.0000 0.0000
CO D 0.0000 0.0000
Oils 0.0000 0.0000
Landfill weight 1003.1717 0.0000 15 2143 3.1654 1003.1654
Landfill volume (m3) 1164.5355 0.0000 1 164.5266

'Raw materials and environmental impacts associated with generation included

bLeachates and smell gases included.

10000.0000

1000.0000

100.0000

9 10.0000
-c 1.oooo
E,
I

5 0.1000

0.0100

0.0010

0.0001

Figure 11. Inputs into the disposal of 1000 kg of HDPE by landfill

170 N. KIRKPATRICK
10000.0000

1000.0000

100.0000

a 10.0000
-c
Y

1.oom
-
5
0.1000

0.0100

0.0010

0.0001

Figure 12. Outputs from the disposal of 1000 kg of HDPE by landfill

" 3
Table 7. Total environmental input and outputs Table 8. Total environmental inputs and out-
for various management systems for mixed puts for various management systems for
paper waste HDPE
Inputs (kg) Recycling Incineration Landfill Inputs (kg) Recycling Incineration Landfill

Fossil fuels 954 18 11 Fossil fuels 450 18 11

Other non-renewables 0 0 0 Other non-renewables 00 0.0 00
Renewables 23 0.4 0.2 Renewables 97 0.4 02
Waste materials 1000 1000 1000 Waste materials 1000 1000 1000
Ancillaries 0 0 0 Ancillaries 00 0.0 00
Net water 0 0 0 Net water 00 0.0 00
Net air 786 20 14 Net air 434 20 14
Electrical energy Electrical energy
(kWh) 2600 41 21 (kWh) 1094 41 21

Outputs (kg) Outputs (kg)

COZ 1340 1515 21 co2 709 31 74 21
co 0.8 0.5 0.06 co 10 1.4 0 06
voc 32.5 0.5 0.3 vo c 14 1 0.5 03
NO 5.8 1.9 0.2 NO 51 5.5 02
SO2 14.9 0.6 0.2 so2 69 0.6 02
Halides 0.0 0.0 0.0 Halides 00 0.0 00
Other 7.9 0.1 2 0.06 Other 33 0.1 0 06
Dust 0.01 0.03 0.01 Dust 02 0.06 0 01
TDS 0.0 0.0 0.0 TDS 00 0.0 00
TSS 1.05 0.0 0.0 TSS 00 0.0 00
BOD 0.51 0.0 0.0 BOD 0 00 0.0 00
COD 3.62 0.0 0.0 COD 0 00 0.0 00
Oils 0.0 0.0 0.0 Oils 00 0.0 00
Landfill weight 394 6.2 1003 Landfill weight 16 6 6 1003
Landfill volume 584 8.9 1055 Landfill volume 238 9 1165
Electrical energy 0.0 1691 0.0 Electrical energy 00 3778 00
(kWh) (kWh)
LIFE-CYCLE ANALYSIS AND WASTE MANAGEMENT
practices discussed above are listed in Table 9,
which is based (where possible) on the quantifiable
measures illustrated in Tables 1-6.
The most obvious conclusions reached from
these comparisons are that on environmental
grounds there are arguments for and against the
claim that each of recycling, incineration and land-
fill is preferred, whereas on economic grounds, capi-
tal investment and current net costs for disposing/
processing dictate that landfill is the cheapest
method of solid-waste management. This fact has
been recognized by government and regulatory
authorities and leads them to the conclusion that
to promote the diversion of solid waste from land-
fill to any alternative solid-waste management
practice, it is necessary to increase the cost of
disposal by landfill with diversion of funds made
possible also through recycling credits.
HOW TO RESOLVE T H E D I L E M M A OVER
PREFERRED SOL1D-WASTE
M A N A G E M E N T PRACTICES
The first point to re-emphasize here is that the rela-
tive environmental impact of solid-waste manage-
ment can be considered only in the context of a
full life-cycle analysis.
Interpretation of the findings of a life cycle
analysis requires additional steps, typically
referred to as classiJication and valuution, in
order to build up a holistic picture of quantified
measures and their relative contributions to
different environmental concerns. Collectively,
these considerations define life-cycle assessment.
CIassiJication entails an aggregation (summa-
tion) of related parameters into what are generally
referred to as ‘potential factors’; for example, the
aggregation of atmospheric emissions, such as
carbon dioxide and methane, into a global warm-
ing potential factor, where the units might be
expressed as carbon dioxide equivalents. The
latter would allow for the fact that methane
is believed to contribute over 20 times more to
global warming on a comparative per unit weight
basis.
Valuation provides an interpretation of the rela-
tive environmental significance of those parameters
aggregated at the classification stage, which in an
ideal world should be on the basis of scientifically
derived formulae, although in reality it is currently
conducted based on subjective perception.
To this end, classification and valuation have
171
been selected as key areas for future research activ-
ities to be carried out by Pira International.
Without there being a definitive approach to
conducting life-cycle assessment studies (as dis-
tinct from life-cycle analysis studies), one
approach that companies might use to justify a
given solid-waste management (or other) practice
is to specify precise targets in their environmental
policy and then use these to provide the necessary
framework against which decisions can be made.
Adopting this approach, it is not vital-although
it is desirable-to know the relative contribution
to individual environmental concerns made by all
parameters quantified. The principle operates on
the bases of a ‘less is best philosophy’, which serves
to provide some direction, though, admittedly, it
will not resolve all topics for discussion, owing to
the complexity of the subject and the interactions
that occur when one parameter contributes to
more than one environmental concern.
To follow this approach, it is first necessary to
quantify all environmental inputs and outputs
that occur as a result of an organization’s activ-
ities, as laid down in the review of environmental
effects described in BS7750 ‘Specification for
environmental management systems’. This will
include all inputs and outputs resulting from
manufacturing processes, as well as those asso-
ciated with heating, lighting, transportation and
procurement (including packaging).
This is no simple task, but it is the only way a
given organization can build up a detailed picture
of the impact on the environment of its nor-
mal operations. Taking a simple case, a company
may specify in its environmental policy a target
to decrease its energy consumption by a given
percentage over a defined period of time. If that
company had sufficient resources to process its
solid waste by incineration with energy recovery,
then that could provide the justification for select-
ing incineration with energy recovery as the pre-
ferred solid-waste management practice.
In reality, such business decisions can only be
taken bearing in mind the legislative and regula-
tory framework that exists and the key to business
success is recognizing the resulting economic impli-
cations. The question then arises as to whether a
decision based on environmental grounds that
was not the cheapest option to adopt could be
exploited in order to achieve market gain, thereby
providing a financial justification by an indirect
means as opposed to the obvious bottom line con-
siderations of assuming a static market.
172
~~
Table 9. Relative advantages and disadvantages of recycling, incineration and landfill
Relative advantages
Recycling Resource conservation
Diversion of solid waste from landfill
Public perceptions
Incineration Energy recovery (where appropriate)
Diversion of solid waste from landfill
Landfill Low energy consumption
Low atmospheric emissions
Reclamation of land
Capital investment/cost
Opportunity for energy recovery through
controlled combustion of landfill gas,
water pipe curculation systems
CONCLUSIONS
This paper has discussed the complexities of the
environmental debate concerning solid-waste
management in the context of life-cycle analysis
and corporate, organizational environmental
management. The main conclusions reached are
as follows.
(i) Solid-waste management is only one facet of
the environmental debate;
(ii) solid-waste management practices are
themselves processes requiring inputs of
energy and resulting in the generation of
atmospheric emissions typically leading to
discharges to a receiving water and, in
many cases, solid waste for further
disposal/processing;
(iii) environmental impacts associated with
solid-waste management practices must be
considered in the context of all other life
cycle environmental impacts;
(iv) the author disagrees that the conven-
tional solid-waste management hierarchy is
fixed;
(v) waste minimization at source is recognized
to be the best common-sense approach to
minimizing the environmental impact
N. KIRKPATRICK
Relative disadvantages
Consumption of fossil fuels/energy
Generation of carbon dioxide
Consumption of net air (oxygen)
(Generation of solid waste)
Capital investment cost
Poor infrastructure
Lack of end markets for recycled products
Dependence on use of virgin materials
Generation of carbon dioxide
(Generation of solid waste)
Control of stack emissions
Capital investment/cost
Public perception nuisance
Inefficient use of raw materials
Unwanted generation of landfill gas
Potential instability over many years
Public perceptions/nuisance
associated with solid-waste management
practices;
(vi) transportation considerations should be
included when seeking to address the envir-
onmental impacts associated with solid-
waste management practices;
(vii) the relative environmental profiles for recy-
cling, incineration and landfill for paper and
HDPE do not present a clear picture as to
which practice is the least or most environ-
mentally preferred;
(viii) there is no universally accepted way of
prioritizing environmental concerns;
(ix) an organization may specify targets to be
met in its environmental policy and use
these as a justification for selecting a
given practice/product on environmental
grounds;
(x) management decisions relating to environ-
mental matters cannot be considered in iso-
lation from legislative responsibility or
economic common sense;
(xi) adopting a particular viewpoint or practice
based on environmental considerations
may potentially be used to gain market
share, thus rendering apparently economic-
ally non-viable recommendations ultimately
profitable.