Presentation on Environmental Product Declarations and benchmarking delivered by Amlan Mukherjee of WAP Sustainability during the CalAPA Spring Asphalt Pavement Conference March 7-8, 2024 in Ontario.

1. The Emerald Eco-Label Tool &
Lessons Learned
What can we learn from EPDs?
March 7, 2023
Amlan Mukherjee, PhD, PE
Lianna Miller, LCACP
Ben Ciavola, PhD

2. Consider us your outsourced sustainability
department.
We are a team of talented sustainability
professionals that provide technical and
strategic competencies to clients.
We help manufacturers, brands, retailers,
healthcare, and financial organizations
achieve their ESG / sustainability
objectives.
WAP Sustainability was created out of
understanding the role of the
Sustainability Manager firsthand. We
know this is a complex area to navigate.
2
© 2023 WAP Sustainability, LLC

3. Technique to quantify
environmental impacts of
products and processes
Track all material and energy
flows from the system over the
life cycle
Convert environmental outputs
into environmental impact
potentials using TRACI – impact
assessment method
Mid-point indicators such as
Global Warming Potential (GWP)
– kg of CO2 equiv.
3
Life Cycle Assessment
Full life cycle: Cradle-to-grave
Cradle-to-gate: Embodied Carbon

4. Analysis of Mix Contributions
Mix with 5% asphalt binder, 30% RAP
Average ton-miles travelled (sample of 15 plants):
• Truck: Aggregate: 21.5 ton-miles/ton, RAP: 50 ton-miles/ton
• Binder: 3.9 ton-miles/ton (Rail)
20.05718
12.44564
10.82773
1.53216
1.18879
0.51615
0.19519 0.14028
Global Warming Potential - kg of CO2 Eq.
Asphalt binder: 42.7%
Natural gas, in plant: 26.5%
Transport, truck: 23.1%
Electricity, in plant: 3.3%
Aggregate: 2.5%
Diesel, in equipment: 1.1%
RAP: 0.4%
Transport, train: 0.3%
79.4%
11.5%
6.7%
1.0%
0.8%
0.3%
0.1% 0.1%
Non-renewable Energy - MJ
Asphalt binder: 79.4%
Natural gas, in plant: 11.5%
Transport, truck: 6.7%
Electricity, in plant: 1.0%
Aggregate: 0.8%
Diesel, in equipment: 0.3%
RAP: 0.1%
Transport, train: 0.1%

5. Product Category Rules
Rules that govern LCA supporting an Environmental Product Declaration (EPD)
A PCR specifies:
• The goal, scope
• Functional and/or declared units
• The modules and processes
• Guidelines for data collection
• Time horizon of reporting
• Use of geographically pertinent data.
PCR Principles and
Procedures: ISO 14025
Core PCR (part A): ISO 21930
Background
Data
- Fuels
- Electricity
- Transportation

6. 6
© 2023 WAP Sustainability, LLC
Tools to Assess Data Quality
Public Data
- Open data
- Sourced federally or from
proprietary sources
- Transparent Background
Data
- Fuels
- Electricity
- Transportation
The 2022 ACLCA PCR Guidance:
Process and Methods Toolkit
The Enhanced Pedigree Matrix for
data quality assessment (builds on
EPA’s Pedigree Matrix – Bhat 2021)

7. Environmental Product Declarations
Standard instrument to reporting LCA outcomes based on a Product Category Rule
✓ Environmental impact indicators (such as Global Warming Potential),
✓ Total primary energy consumption and material resource consumption.

8. Environmental
Product
Declarations
Standard instrument to
reporting LCA outcomes based
on a Product Category Rule
✓ Environmental impact
indicators (such as Global
Warming Potential),
✓ Total primary energy
consumption and material
resource consumption.

9. User Friendly Web Based Tool
Three main types of data:
1. Plants
☐ Electricity, fuel, water, production volume
2. Ingredients
☐ Aggregate, Binder, & Additives
3. Mixes
☐ Amounts of aggregate, binder, and additives in
each mix
☐ Distances travelled for each mix ingredient
Order
of
Operations

10. 10
© 2023 WAP Sustainability, LLC
Data Input
Easy Input Process
Reflects Mix Design Process
- Aggregate, Binder, RAP, RAS
- Distances travelled
- Sanity checks for calculation

11. 11
© 2023 WAP Sustainability, LLC
Data Integration
Upstream Materials and
Associated Industries
Integration with
associated PCRs and
Industries
- Aggregate PCR + EPD
tool
- Emulsion PCR
- Pavement Recycling &
Preservation

12. 12
© 2023 WAP Sustainability, LLC
Continuous Data Improvement
Additives
Integration with additive
manufacturers
- Product specific options
- Direct integration with mix
design
- SurfaceTech ACE
XP Polymer Fiber
- Cargill Anova 1815
Rejuvenator
- Cargill Anova 1501
WMA
- Ingevity Evotherm
- Recycling agents

13. 13
© 2023 WAP Sustainability, LLC
EPD Verification
EPDs from Tool are VERIFIED
Tool has gone through a third
part review.
- Implements a digital PCR
- NAPA Quality Control Program

14. 14
© 2023 WAP Sustainability, LLC
Mix Optimizer
Use Your OWN Data to Optimize
your Design
Use the same data that is
consistent with the PCR and the
EPD you produce.
- Engineer your mixes
- Meet Buy Clean Requirements
Materials
Energy
Materials
Energy

15. Why Emerald Eco Label & Optimizer
Your Data is Private AND you Provide Transparency
• You get to use the “best available” background data
• You get product and facility specific upstream data
• You can optimize your mixes – with your data
Support with Data Development, Quality Control
• 5 years or March 31, 2027, whichever is sooner.
• Use PUBLIC DATA – transparent and consistent
• Best Industry Data – through upstream EPD
Unlimited number of EPDs per Plant
• Improve your mixes.

16. Consider us your outsourced sustainability
department.
16
© 2023 WAP Sustainability, LLC
Technical support for EPD Development
Integration with Energy Star
Data Collection: Quality Control
Benchmark to GSA Thresholds
Assessment and improvements

17. Sustainability Initiatives in the Spotlight
Must Follow EPA’s Interim Determination
- Select top 20% performing GWP
-- Else top 40% … at least above average.
Therefore:
- Industry wide
GWP benchmarks
- Thresholds

18. Low Embodied Carbon
Construction Materials – 11
Projects being piloted
GSA – Lower Embodied Carbon Materials
• Emphasize use of product and facility
specific EPDs
• Inclusion of Energy Star metrics

19. Asphalt Mix Impacts: Sources of Variability
By life cycle phase
A1
Design
Mix
Design
A2
Transport
Aggregate
Transport
Total
Total
A3
Production
Climate
Region
+
Production

20. Representative
Sample
of EPDs Collected
GWP for A3
GWP for A2
GWP for A1
Empirical
Distributions
DSA2 & DSA3
Classify by
Mix Properties
or Function
Factors not within
the control of
Producers
Establish market
segments to ensure
equity
Classify by mix type
and function
Avoid comparing
unfairly

21. Asphalt Mix Impacts: Sources of Variability
By life cycle phase
A1
Design
Mix
Design
Estimates Based on
Material Design
- If we have the mix
design … AND …
- If we know the
upstream LCI … THEN …
- We know the GWP

22. Phase-by-phase Benchmarking
A1 Material Mass balanced with
GWP Intensity
kg CO2e/tonne ingredient
(*/shtn)
Neat Binder Aggregate 631.51 (573.06)
3.5% SBS Modified Binder Aggregate 758.71 (688.49)
Lime Aggregate 1389.0 (1259.9)
RAP Aggregate + Neat Binder 0.781 (0.710)
Aggregate
(USLCI, prescribed)
Neat Binder 1.94 (1.761)
A1: Impact of Mix Specifications on GWP

23. Insights
Impact of
Specifications on
GWP
Relationship between
high GWP
and use of lime in
asphalt mixtures
A1
Design
Mix
Design

24. Asphalt Mix Impacts: Sources of Variability
By life cycle phase
A2
Transport
Aggregate
Transport
A3
Production
Climate
Region
+
Production
Climate Zones Impact Energy Use.
Transportation Distance Travelled
Varies

25. 2016 –
PCR on Version 2.0
What Have We Learned?
1072
Mixes
331
Plants
91
Organizations

26. State By State Trends
in GWP

27. Insights
Impact of
Geology on
GWP
Geology
determines
availability of
aggregate
A2
Transport
Aggregate
Transport

28. Insights
Impact of
Climate on
GWP
Small but
significant
influence
A3
Production
Climate
Region
+
Production

29. Insights
Impact of
Climate on
GWP
Small but
significant
influence
A3
Production
Climate
Region
+
Production

30. GSA: 72.6
GSA: 64.8
GSA: 55.4 Benchmarking
Methodology
Submitted to
FHWA
Conformant to
ISO 21678
1
3.3
2.1
18.7
4.6
41.3
21.8
23.2
24.4
25.4
27.2
27.5
59.37
63.07
63.07
80.67
68.37
105.37
36.57
Colorado
Florida

31. Benchmarking
Methodology
Submitted to
FHWA
Conformant to
ISO 21678
Better
than GSA
Easy to
qualify –
not excel
Total
mess Easy to
qualify –
not excel

32. Sustainability = Innovation
Amlan Mukherjee, Director
amlan@wapsustainability.com
+1.906.370.5240

33. Phase-by-phase Benchmarking
A2 by State
Florida
kg CO2 e/tonne
(kg CO2 e/shtn)
Louisiana
kg CO2 e/tonne
(kg CO2 e/shtn)
All Others
kg CO2 e/tonne
(kg CO2 e/shtn)
20%
3.3
(3.0)
15.7
(14.2)
0.21
(0.18)
40%
18.7
(17.0)
24.0
(21.8)
1.4
(1.2)
50%
36.9
(33.5)
28.7
(26.0)
2.5
(2.2)
Average
41.3
(37.5)
28.9
(26.2)
3.9
(3.5)
A2: Impact of Geology on GWP
Some states have different benchmarks

34. Phase-by-phase Benchmarking
A3 by AASHTO
Region
Wet No freeze
kg CO2e/tonne
(kg CO2e/shtn)
Wet Freeze
kg CO2e/tonne
(kg CO2e/shtn)
Dry No freeze
kg CO2e/tonne
(kg CO2e/shtn)
Dry Freeze
kg CO2e/tonne
(kg CO2e/shtn)
20%
23.2
(21.0)
20.9
(19.0)
17.5
(15.9)
21.9
(19.9)
40%
25.4
(23.0)
22.8
(20.6)
20.0
(18.1)
23.6
(21.4)
50%
26.1
(23.7)
23.6
(21.4)
21.8
(19.8)
25.8
(23.4)
Average
27.5
(25.0)
24.6
(22.3)
23.0
(20.8)
27.1
(24.6)
A3: Impact of Climate on GWP
Benchmarks differ by climate region