Understanding the Validity of a LCA

Changing the way we look at natural resources
EarthEarthShiftShiftChanging the way we look at natural resources
Understanding theg
Validity of a LCA
S i bili i P k iSustainability in Packaging
March 15, 2010
L l M ELaurel McEwen
laurel@earthshift.com
802-434-3326 ext 103

Typical
Stumbling BlocksStumbling Blocks
Life Cycle Assessment Framework
• Goal & Scope
– Functional Unit
Goal &
Scope
Definition
Goal &
Scope
Definition
– Functional Unit
– System Boundary
• S iti it t
Inventory
Analysis
I
InterpretationInterpretation
• Sensitivity to
Assumptions
i i
Impact
Assessment
• Comparative Assertions
EarthEarthShiftShift

The Functional UnitThe Functional Unit
• The basis for comparisonThe basis for comparison
– Consider:
• Function defined as closely asy
possible to end-use
• Performance quality
• Performance duration
• If necessary, physical or spatial
concernsconcerns
• Must reflect differences in functionality between two
materials or products
p
1 gallon of good paint ≠ 1 gallon of cheap paint

Functional Unit Exercise
Goal: Compare the environmental impacts, cradle to grave, a
ceramic vs paper hot drink cup.
What is the service performed?
H d th ti diff i lit f iHow do the options differ in quality of service
performed?
What do you have to add to each option to make them they p
same? Ceramic Disposable
100 uses 1 use
No sleeve 100 sleeves
99 washes 0 washes
1 disposal 100 disposals
p p
1 ceramic cup 100 paper cups
FU = 100 8 oz servings of a hot drink

Goal:
To compare the environmental
burdens of a glass vs. a plasticg p
16 oz. jar of peanut butter.
Plastic Glass
Peanut Butter 16 oz. 16 oz.
Jar 1 3 oz PET 6 2 oz GlassJar 1.3 oz PET 6.2 oz Glass
Lid .3 oz PP .5 oz Steel
Seal 1 gm Paper 1 gm PE
What is the functional unit ?
What is the system boundary ?

Functional Unit Exercise
Goal: Compare the environmental impacts, of a glass vs. a plastic 16 oz jar of
peanut butter.
What is the service performed?
How do the options differ in quality of service performed?
A h id i lAre they identical or….
Is oxygenation of oils faster in plastic?
Does the flavor alter faster in plastic?
Wh t d h t dd t h ti t k thWhat do you have to add to each option to make them
the same?
How can we get an equal 12 month shelf life?
FU = A container that can hold 16 oz of peanut butter for a 12
month shelf life
month shelf life

Process Map for Jar of Peanut Butter
Raw
Materials
Manufacture Distribution Use Disposal
Roasting/
G i di
Peanuts T
Sugar T
Grinding
T
Distribution
Center
Mixing
Oil T
Glass T Jar Mfg T
Center
T Municipal
Waste
Paper T
PP T
Printer T
Lid Mfg T
Retailer
T
User
Storage T
Recycling
Individual
Packaging
Ink T
Paper T
Box Forming/
Printing T
Recycling
Carton
Packaging
Cardboard T
Film T
Shrink
Wrapping
Carton
Packaging T
Printing T

Plastic Glass
Peanut Butter 16 oz. 16 oz.
Jar 1.3 oz PET 6.2 oz GlassJar 1.3 oz PET 6.2 oz Glass
Lid .3 oz PP .5 oz Steel
Seal 1 gm Paper 1 gm PE
Assumptions
• Both packages give me the same 12 month shelf life without
refrigeration……ignore use phase
• Both packages have the same spoilage……ignore peanut butter
I i fi i h d d 1 000k di ib i• I am transporting finished product 1,000km to my distribution
center.
• Materials are all transported the same distance into my plant,Materials are all transported the same distance into my plant,
100km
• Glass package needs a sturdier master with 20% more corrugated
b d
board.
• Average US waste treatment of all materials at end of life.

Results

If forgot
transport intransport in
system boundary
With 1,000km transport
Without 1,000km transport

Sensitivity to AssumptionsSensitivity to Assumptions
• Both packages give me the same 12 month shelf life withoutp g g
refrigeration……ignore use phase
• Both packages have the same spoilage……ignore peanut butter
• I am transporting finished product 1,000km to my
distribution center.
• Materials are all transported the same distance into my plant• Materials are all transported the same distance into my plant,
100km
• Glass package needs a sturdier master with 20% more
corrugated board.
• Average US waste treatment of all materials at end of life.

Sensitivity to Transport Distance

Sensitivity
PETPET
Recycling
7% PET recycled at end of life
100% PET recycled at end of life

Sensitivity
GlassGlass
Recycling
22% Glass recycled at end of life
100% Glass recycled at end of life

ScopeScope
• the functions of the product
i h fsystem, or, in the case of
comparative studies, the
systems;
• the functional unit;
• the system boundary (cut off
rules);
• data requirements;
• assumptions;
• limitations;rules);
• allocation procedures;
• impact categories selected
d h d l f lif
• limitations;
• value choices
• data quality requirements;
• type of critical review if any;
and methodology of life
cycle impact assessment
(LCIA), and subsequent
i i b d
• type of critical review, if any;
• type and format of the report
required for the study.
interpretation to be used;

Comparative AssertionsComparative Assertions
“In order to decrease the likelihood ofIn order to decrease the likelihood of
misunderstandings or negative effects on external
interested parties, a panel of interested parties shall
conduct critical reviews on LCA studies where the
results are intended to be used to support a
ti ti i t d d t b di l d t thcomparative assertion intended to be disclosed to the
public.”
ISO 14044 (2006) section 5.1

Critical ReviewsCritical Reviews
• Provide:
– Reassurance to the commissioner that the study was done correctly andReassurance to the commissioner that the study was done correctly and
presents quality information
– Reassurance to readers that the results presented are backed up by science
– Solid substantiation against claims of false advertising or “greenwashing”g g g g
• The review team (panel of at least three members) should
include members familiar with the major technologies
t dpresented
• The review team should include members independent of the
commissioner and the practitionerp
• The review team should include at least one experienced LCA
practitioner (usually its chair)

The review team ensures that:The review team ensures that:
• the methods used to carry out the LCA are consistent with ISO 14044
ISO th d l– ISO methodology
– Includes all the disclaimers required by ISO
• the methods used to carry out the LCA are scientifically and technically valid,
– Ensure there is no blatant burden shifting (e.g., assessing only energy and GHG in the case of
bio-based products or fuelsbio based products or fuels.
• the data used are appropriate and reasonable in relation to the goal of the study,
– Data on all flows are reasonable
– Boundary conditions are drawn fairly
• the interpretations reflect the limitations identified and the goal of the studythe interpretations reflect the limitations identified and the goal of the study,
– Sensitivity to all assumptions
– Uncertainty analysis to understand data quality limitations
– Information required for secondary goals, such as product improvement is included in the study
• the study report is transparent and consistentthe study report is transparent and consistent.
– Life cycle inventory (gate to gate) data are required for the review panel to assess this, although
it may remain confidential in the published report
Source: ISO 14044, EarthShift 2010

Organize an effective study
WHAT IS YOUR GOAL ?
WHO IS YOUR AUDIENCE ?
• Convene goal and scope meeting with interested parties
• Conduct screening level LCA first
to test your system boundaries, and your assumptions,
to see where you need further LCI data, and
to learn which impact categories are important.
• Refine your screening level LCA to meet your goals and
reporting needs

Extra slidesExtra slides

Environment Labels
and Declarationsand Declarations
International
ISO 14021 (1998) T 1 E l L b l• ISO 14021 (1998) Type 1 Environmental Labels
A label provided by a third party organization whom specifies the standards.
• ISO 14024 (1999) Type II Environmental Labels
An environmental claim made by the manufacturer themselves without evaluation by a thirdAn environmental claim made by the manufacturer themselves, without evaluation by a third
party.
• ISO 14025 (2006) Type III Environmental Labels
Environmental Product Declarations (EPD) providing quantified environmental data usingEnvironmental Product Declarations (EPD) providing quantified environmental data using
predetermined parameters set out in a product category rule (PCR). Requires a LCA.
• ISO 21930 (2007)
Environmental Product Declarations (EPD) for building products( ) g p
National
• FTC Part 260, Guides for use of Environmental Marketing Claims

EPDEPD
Example

EPD Infrastructure
GEDnet
Potential US
Program/repository
Program
Operator
Product Forum Product
Category Rules (PCR)
Independent Verifier
Life Cycle
Assessment
LCI
Data
Independent VerifierEPD

Current US Legislation
HR 3543 (carbon disclosure) – Directs EPA to study the feasibility of
establishing a national program for measuring reporting publicly disclosingestablishing a national program for measuring, reporting, publicly disclosing,
and labeling products or materials sold in the United States for their carbon
content
HR 2454 (American Clean Energy and Security Act) – Passed
Sets forth provisions concerning clean energy, energy efficiency, reducing
global warming pollution, transitioning to a clean energy economy, andg g p g gy y
providing for agriculture and forestry related offsets
Senate 1733 (Energy Bill) - Provides for the establishment of a cap and
trade system for greenhouse gas (GHG) emission allowances and sets goals
of reducing U.S. emissions by 20% by 2020 and by 83% by 2050.

Understanding the Validity of a LCA

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Understanding the Validity of a LCA

Similar to Understanding the Validity of a LCA (20)

Understanding the Validity of a LCA