Green biz lca workshop

Life Cycle Assessment
A Tutorial
GreenBiz
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 1:30-4:30PM

Tom Gloria, Ph.D.
Industrial Ecology Consultants

Agenda
 Introductions
 General Introduction to LCA Concepts
 Interface Case Study
 The Importance of the Goal & Scope Definition Step
 Life Cycle Inventory Analysis
 Break
 Life Cycle Impact Assessment
 Interpretation
 Hands on exercise
 Practical Guidance
 Q&A
Industrial Ecology Consultants 2

• Industrial Ecology is an interdisciplinary field that focuses on the
sustainable combination of Business, Environment & Technology
• Corporate Sustainability Strategy
• Life Cycle Assessment
– Conduct Studies
– Capacity Building
– Expert Review
• Green Marketing and Eco-Labeling
– PCR/EPD development
– Expert Review
• Carbon Management
• Design For X (DfE, DfR, DfD, DfS)
• www.industrial-ecology.com & www.life-cycle.org


Background – Client Base


Background – Affiliations


Agenda
 Introductions
 Break
 Interpretation
 Q&A

The “Grand Objectives” of Sustainability
Ω1 Maintaining the existence of the human species

Ω2 Maintaining the capacity for sustainable development

Ω3 Maintaining the diversity of life

Ω4 Maintaining the aesthetic richness of the planet

Agenda 21 http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?documentid=52

Ω1 Societal Concerns
Human species Global climate change
extinction
Human organism damage

Water availability and
quality

Resource depletion: fossil
fuels


Sustainable Water availability and
Development quality

Resource depletion of
fossil fuels
Soil depletion
Optimal land use
Additional resource
depletion (minerals,
metals, species
extinction)


Biodiversity of living Global climate change
things
Stratospheric ozone
depletion
Water availability and
quality
Acid deposition

Thermal pollution



Aesthetic Richness Smog
Aesthetic degradation
Habitat protection and
open space
Oil Spills
Odor


Focus on Crucial Concerns
• Human Health
• Global Climate Change
• Water availability and quality
• Loss of biodiversity
• Depletion of fossil fuel resources
• Stratospheric ozone depletion


Targeted Activities in Connection with
Environmental Concerns
• Fossil fuel combustion
• Cement manufacture
• Rice cultivation
• Coal mining
• Ruminant populations
Global • Waste treatment
•
Climate
Biomass Burning
• Emissions of CFCs, HFCs, N2O
Change •
•
•
•
•
•


Key is to identify specific
recommendations related to targeted
activities

• Practice modular product design
• Develop Energy Star Products
• Utilize recycled materials
• Use energy efficient equipment
•
Energy Use •
(Fossil Fuel •
Combustion) •
•
•
•
•


Conceptual Sequence

Grand
Objectives Concerns Activities Recommendations
Company
Community Societal Environmental Design for
National Consesus Science Environment
Global
Graedel and Allenby (2010): Industrial Ecology and Sustainable Engineering


Life cycle perspective
Raw Materials

Product
Manufacture
Materials
Manufacture

Transportation
End Disposition Recycling Use & Distribution


Why LCA is a useful tool?
1. Whole system consideration
2. Framework based on Function
and Business Value
3. Examine tradeoffs among
multiple human health and
environmental issues
4. Presentation of tradeoffs for
design decision-making
5. Support communication and
marketing, branding, etc.
6. Support policy initiatives


LCA Background
• LCA is a technique for assessing the environmental
and human health aspects and potential impacts
associated with a product, where we:
1. Define goal, function & boundary to assess
2. Compile inventory of relevant inputs and outputs of a
product system,
3. Evaluate impacts to the environment and human health
4. Interpret the results of the inventory analysis and
impacts in the context of the objectives of the study –
state what has been proven.


How to do LCA according to ISO
• Goal & Scope Definition:
ISO 14040 and ISO 14044
– Determination of scope and
system boundaries Life cycle assessment framework

• Life Cycle Inventory: Goal and

– Data collection, modeling &
Scope
Definition
analysis
• Impact Assessment: Inventory
Interpretation
– Analysis of inputs and outputs Analysis

using category indicators
• Interpretation: Impact
– Draw conclusions Assessment

– Checks for: completeness,
contribution, sensitivity ISO 14040:2006 Environmental management - Life cycle assessment -
Principles and framework
analysis, consistency w/ goal
and scope, analysis, etc. ISO 14044:2006 Environmental management - Life cycle assessment -
Requirements and guidelines


ISO Standards
• ISO 14020 (1998) Environmental labels and declarations - General Principles
• ISO 14021 (1999) Environmental labels and declarations - Self-declared environmental claims (Type II
environmental Labelling)
• ISO 14024 (1999) Environmental labels and declarations - Type I environmental labelling - Principles and
procedures
• ISO 14025 (2006) Environmental labels and declarations - Type III environmental declarations - Principles
and procedures
• ISO 14031 (1999) Environmental Management - Environmental Performance Evaluation - Guidelines
• ISO 14040 (2006) Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Principles and Framework
• ISO 14044 (2006) Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Requirements and guidelines
• ISO 14046 () Environmental Management - Water Footprint - Requirements and guidelines
• ISO/TS 14048 (2002) Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Life Cycle Assessment Data
Documentation Format
• ISO/TR 14049 (2000) Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Examples of Application of ISO
14041 to Goal and Scope Definition and Inventory Analysis
• ISO/WD 14067-1 (2009) Carbon footprint of products -- Part 1: Quantification
• ISO/WD 14067-2 (2009) Carbon footprint of products -- Part 2: Communication
• ISO 14071 () Critical review processes and reviewer competencies -- Additional requirements and
guidelines to ISO 14044:2006
• ISO 21930 (2007) Sustainability in building construction - Environmental declaration of building products


Process
Flow
Diagram
LCA Study Steps Data collected in
a spreadsheet

LCA Specific
Software

Charts
Charts aggregated
normalized


Agenda
 Introductions
 Break
 Interpretation
 Q&A

Interface – Overarching Goals
“We strive to make sure every new Interface product is conceived
within [our] Sustainable Design Model “

“Since 1996, Interface has reduced its total
carbon dioxide emissions by 56% on an
absolute basis through improved energy
efficiency, increased use of renewable
energy, and utilizing carbon dioxide offsets
from a landfill gas project near the
company's LaGrange, Georgia facility. “


Interface, Inc.
Goal:
For Interface to understand their
product’s environmental impact
Identify areas to focus on for
improvement
Support external claims of environmental
performance via EPDs
Scope:
The assessment utilizes a cradle to grave
methodology.
Functional Unit:
The functional unit for this study was 1m2
of vinyl backed carpet with a 15yr life.


Starts with a process flow diagram


Data Gathering and Impact Assessment
Data:
Interface used internal process data
combined with LCA proprietary databases
in order to perform this assessment.

Impact Assessment:
The impact assessment methodology
chosen was US EPA TRACI Method


Global Warming Potential of a typical
Vinyl-backed Carpet Tile

Overall Product Breakdown
10% Other
Raw Material Breakdown
10% Process Energy
Nylon 6,6
Polyester Other 46%
7% 7%

Vinyl Resin
10%
80% Raw
Materials Plasticizer
18%
Latex
Polymer
13%

**Identified Nylon 6,6 as largest material impact

Potential Reductions
Base Case:
Avg. of 26oz Virgin N 6,6 Global Warming Potential Reductions
on Vinyl
100%
100% 91%

Percent of Base Case
Reduced Weight: 80%

Avg. of 22oz Virgin N 6,6 60% 52%
on Vinyl 40%

20%
Blended Reduced Weight: 0%
22oz (20%PLA and 80%PC Base Case Reduced Weight Blended Reduced
Recycled N 6,6) on Vinyl
Weight


Resulting Actions – Focus on Nylon

•Design changes to reduce fiber weight
while still keeping functionality
•Material substitution
–Post consumer nylon 6,6
–Eventual phase out of virgin nylon
– Industry limitations of PC
materials
–Continue to look at alternatives


Environmental Product Declaration
ISO 14020 and ISO 14025

http://www.ul.com/global/eng/pages/offerings/businesses/environment/


Agenda
 Introductions
 Life Cycle Impact Assessment & Weighting
 Break
 Q&A


How to do LCA according to ISO 14040/44
– Determination of purpose,
scope and system boundaries
• Life Cycle Inventory: Life cycle assessment framework

– Data collection, modeling & Goal and
analysis Scope
Definition
• Impact Assessment:
– Analysis of inputs and outputs Inventory
Interpretation
using category indicators Analysis

• Interpretation:
– Draw conclusions Impact
Assessment
contribution, sensitivity
and scope, analysis, etc.


Goal & Scope - The most important step in LCA
• Document purpose:
– Internal/external, eco-design,
support marketing, comparison of
products, support policy
• Identify stakeholders:
– Internal (design, marketing, mfg.)
– External (consumers, NGOs, gov’t,
suppliers)
• LCA coverage:
– scope (e.g., cradle-to-gate)
– cut-off criteria,
– data quality requirements,
– functional unit /reference flow,
– time frame,
– geographical boundary,
– allocation rules


Life Cycle Scope

• Extraction of raw
materials
• Processing of
materials
• Production
• Transport &
Distribution
• Use
• Reuse or recycle
• Disposal


Life Cycle Scope – Cradle to Grave or Cradle

materials
• Processing of
materials
• Production
• Transport &
Distribution
• Use
• Disposal


Life Cycle Scope – Cradle to Gate

materials
• Processing of
materials
• Production
• Transport &
Distribution
• Use
• Disposal


Life Cycle Scope – Cradle to Input Gate

materials
• Processing of
materials
• Production
• Transport &
Distribution
• Use
• Disposal


Life Cycle Scope – Cradle to Output Gate

materials
• Processing of
materials
• Production
• Transport &
Distribution
• Use
• Disposal


Life Cycle Scope – Gate to Gate

materials
• Processing of
materials
• Production
• Transport &
Distribution
• Use
• Disposal


Life Cycle Scope – Upstream

materials
• Processing of
materials
• Production
• Transport &
Distribution
• Use
• Disposal


Life Cycle Scope – Downstream

materials
• Processing of
materials
• Production
• Transport &
Distribution
• Use
• Disposal


What is the context?


Functional unit / Reference flow

• Per vehicle?
• Per passenger-mile?
• Cargo-capacity?
– Passenger + cargo
• Work productivity?
• Boundary
– Per person/family
– Local
– Regional Area
– National
– International



• Per vehicle?
• Per passenger-
mile?
• Cargo-capacity?
• Mid-life crisis
mitigation?

Making Comparisons

to


Balancing the Functional Ledger


Plastic vs. Woven Reusable bags
Functional Unit
• Functional unit: facilitating the transport of groceries
purchased over 4 years.
• Assumptions
– The two plastic bags can lift the same weight and volume as woven
bag
– 2080 uses / lifespan (520/year uses or 10 per week)
– Woven bag is 100% cotton, Reusable woven bags lasts 4 years.
– Plastic is 100% recycled LDPE content & recycled at end of life


Coffee cup: Paper vs. Reusable Plastic
Functional Unit

• Functional unit: 5 years’ usage for an equivalent amount of
coffee drinking
• Assumptions:
• Usage for each product is 2 cups of coffee per day X 250
workdays per year = 500 usages per year
• Reusable cup life span is 5 years before getting broken or
sufficiently soiled to require disposal
• Reusable cup is washed once per day (250 times per year)
– Half of these washes are by hand and half are as part of a full dishwasher
load
• Paper cups are disposed of after each use


MAC vs. PC
Functional Unit
• Functional unit: Similar usage levels over an assumed 6-year
usable life.

• Assumptions:
– Assumes overall product can be used 6 years, but certain
components (memory, non-solid-state hard drive, possibly LCD
monitor) would need to be replaced / upgraded during that
time
– Will use industry averages for costs/impacts of extraction,
manufacture, transportation, etc.
– Will use as much brand & model-specific input & impact
information as possible
– Are they the same? iTunes, iCloud, look and feel, reliability, etc.


System Boundaries
Included Excluded
• Raw materials extraction • Capital equipment
• Processing of materials • Infrastructure
• Production of product • Maintenance of equipment
• Transportation of finished
product
• Use of product
• Maintenance/Cleaning of the
product
• Recycling collection and
processing
• Product disposal
• Ancillary materials
• All energy
• All Transport links


When do you stop collecting data?
The cut-off criteria for the study could be as follows:
1. Mass – If a flow is less than X% of the cumulative mass of
the model it may be excluded, providing its
environmental relevance is not a concern.
2. Energy – If a flow is less than X% of the cumulative
energy of the model it may be excluded, providing its
environmental relevance is not a concern.
3. Environmental relevance – assumed high – If a flow
meets the above criteria for exclusion, yet is thought to
potentially have a significant environmental impact, it will
be included.


Data Quality – basis for comparability
• Technology/Time Coverage :
– Example: Representative of 2012 manufacturing activities.
– Example: Secondary data to be representative within 5 years of the
technology coverage.
• Geographic Coverage:
– Example: North American general conditions
• Precision:
– Example: log normal and Geometric Standard Deviation (GSD)
• Representativeness: degree data represents reality
• Consistency
• Reproducibility
• Sources of the data – Primary, Secondary (average & technical
literature), Tertiary (aggregated databases)
• Uncertainty – overall uncertainty of data, model and assumptions
• Treatment of missing data – non-zero, zero, based on proxy


Allocation of Burden


Co-Product Allocation

1. If possible avoid allocation by either: dividing the unit processes so
that inputs and outputs can be assigned to specific products OR
expand the system to include the function of co-products.
2. If dividing the unit processes and system expansion are not
possible, the inputs and outputs of co-products should be divided
based on physical relationships between the co-products (e.g.
mass).
3. If allocation cannot be accomplished based on physical
relationships, then other relationships between the co-products
should be used (e.g. economic value).

Source: ISO 14040 Standard


Recycling Allocation
V(1)

P(1) R(1) P(2) R(2) P(3)

Use(1) Use(2) Use(3)

W(3)

• Closed Loop Recycling (amortized over loops - metals)
– L(1) = L(2) = L(3) = 1/3V(1) + 1/3W(3) + 1/3 (R(1) + R(2))
• Open Loop Recycling ( 50 / 50 or cut-off method - paper,
plastics)
– L(1) = (V(1) + W(3))/2 + R(1)/2
– L(2) = (R(1) +R(2))/2
– L(3) = (V(1) + W(3))/2 + R(1)/2

Goal & Scope Summary – the path forward
• Document purpose:
– Internal/external, eco-design,
support marketing, comparison
of products, support policy
• Identify stakeholders:
– Internal (design, marketing, mfg.)
– External (consumers, NGOs,
gov’t, suppliers)
• LCA coverage:
– Scope, cut-off criteria, data
quality requirements, functional
unit, reference flow, time frame,
geographical boundary,
allocation rules


Agenda
 Introductions
 Break
 Interpretation
 Q&A

– Data collection, modeling & Scope
Definition
analysis
Inventory
Interpretation




Life cycle perspective
Raw Materials

Product
Manufacture
Materials
Manufacture

Transportation
End Disposition Recycling Use & Distribution


Process Level Inventory

M E M E M E M E M E

MATERIALS PRODUCT
RAW FINAL
MANU- MANU- USE
MATERIALS DISPOSITION
FACTURE FACTURE

W W W W W

M = Materials
E = Energy
W = Wastes (air, water, & soil)


#1. Determine materials in product – by mass
Bill of Materials
(pounds, kg, ton, tonne)

M E M E M E M E M E

MATERIALS PRODUCT
RAW FINAL
MANU- MANU- USE
FACTURE FACTURE

W W W W W

M = Materials
E = Energy


#2. Determine Energy Use
Energy Bills
(electricity, NG, heating oil)
(kWh, ccf or therms, gallons)

M E M E M E M E M E

MATERIALS PRODUCT
RAW FINAL
MANU- MANU- USE
FACTURE FACTURE

W W W W W

M = Materials
E = Energy


#3. Determine Process Efficiency

M E M E M E M E M E

MATERIALS PRODUCT
RAW FINAL
MANU- MANU- USE
FACTURE FACTURE

W W W W W

M = Materials Typically measured as a percent
E = Energy of waste generated – i.e., how
W = Wastes (air, water, & soil) much falls on the floor, down a
pipe, or up a stack.

#4. Transportation Hops
Mode (truck, train, boat, plane)
Distance (miles, km)
Weight shipped (lbs., kg)

M E M E M E M E M E

MATERIALS PRODUCT
RAW FINAL
MANU- MANU- USE
FACTURE FACTURE

W W W W W

M = Materials
E = Energy


#5. Allocation of activities
Data is at the
facility level

M E M E M E M E M E

MATERIALS PRODUCT
RAW FINAL
MANU- MANU- USE
FACTURE FACTURE

W W W W W

M = Materials
E = Energy


#6. Use phase assumptions
How long does the product last?
Does it use energy in the use phase?
Does it use other resources?

M E M E M E M E M E

MATERIALS PRODUCT
RAW FINAL
MANU- MANU- USE
FACTURE FACTURE

W W W W W

M = Materials
E = Energy


#7. Ancillary Materials
Materials not in entrained in the
product (fertilizers, pesticides, water,
lubricating oils, catalysts)

M E M E M E M E M E

MATERIALS PRODUCT
RAW FINAL
MANU- MANU- USE
FACTURE FACTURE

W W W W W

M = Materials
E = Energy


Hybrid LCI – EIO and Process Level

EIO-LCA CMU Database
Center for Resilience – The Ohio State University
CEDA Database – access in SimaPro
PAS 2050 LC GHG of goods and services
WRI/WBSCD Supply Chain / Product Carbon Footprint
OECD Sustainable Materials Management
Sustainability Consortium/ Wal-Mart/Earthster

What do the datasets represent?
Unit
Process

Primary Aluminum
Production
Secondary Aluminum
Recovery/
Reprocessing
First-tier Aluminum
Product
Production

Product
Manufacture

Use Phase

End of Life


Cradle-to-Gate

Primary Aluminum
Production
Secondary Aluminum
Recovery/
Reprocessing
First-tier Aluminum
Product
Production

Product
Manufacture

Use Phase

End of Life


“Rolled –up”
Dataset or System
Level

Primary Aluminum
Production
Secondary Aluminum
Recovery/
Reprocessing Aluminum product
manufacture including
First-tier Aluminum scrap and recovery flows
Product
Production

Product
Product
Manufacture
Manufacture

Use Phase Use Phase

End of Life


Comprehensive LCI Database

Electricity Fuels Materials

Primary Aluminum
Production
Secondary Aluminum
Recovery/
Reprocessing Aluminum product
manufacture including
First-tier Aluminum scrap and recovery flows
Product
Production

Product
Product
Manufacture
Manufacture

Use Phase Use Phase

End of Life


Types of Data
• Primary Data Sources
– Data directly collected
– Actual measurements or meter readings
• Secondary Data Sources
– Data that compiles primary data sources
– Assembly of primary data into LCA databases
• Tertiary Data Sources
– These are sources that compile or digests secondary
sources.
– LCA databases

Available LCI Databases
• Proprietary
– ecoinvent Swiss database (2000+)
– PE GaBi 5.0 (2000+ up to 5000 special order)
– Boustead (claims 13,000 in 41 regions → ~300)
– (not updated anymore)
• Public Databases
– North American LCI Data base (US DOE NREL) [~139]
www.nrel.gov/lci
– LCA Digital Commons www.lcacommons.gov
– European Reference Life Cycle Database (ELCD) [300]
http://lca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/lcainfohub/datasetArea.vm
• More comprehensive list:
– www.life-cycle.org under “Resources”


Guidance by DQ in Set in Goal & Scope

• Cut-off Criteria
• Primary, Secondary, Tertiary Data Sources
• Technology/Time Coverage :
– Example: Representative of 2012 manufacturing
activities.
– Example: Secondary data to be representative within
5 years of the technology coverage.
• Geographic Coverage:
– Example: North American general conditions


Allocation: WRI Protocol


Recycling Allocation
V(1)

P(1) R(1) P(2) R(2) P(3)

Use(1) Use(2) Use(3)

W(3)

• Closed Loop Recycling (amortized over loops)
– L(1) = L(2) = L(3) = 1/3V(1) + 1/3W(3) + 1/3 (R(1) + R(2))
• Open Loop Recycling ( 50 / 50 method)
– L(1) = (V(1) + W(3))/2 + R(1)/2
– L(2) = (R(1) +R(2))/2
– L(3) = (V(1) + W(3))/2 + R(1)/2


Product Carbon Footprinting
WRI Product Accounting and Reporting Standard

100/0 Method – Recycled input is known, downcycling is likely


Product Carbon Footprinting
WRI Product Accounting and Reporting Standard
0/100 Method – Recycled content unknown, closed loop cycling occurs

Recycled displaces virgin


Process Level Inventory Analysis

• Goal & Scope Definition
• Preparation for data collection
– Data collection sheet M E M E M E M E M E

• Data collection RAW
MATERIALS
MATERIALS
MANU-
FACTURE
PRODUCT
MANU-
FACTURE
USE
FINAL
DISPOSITION

• Validate collected data W W W W W

• Relate the data to the unit process
• Relate the data to the functional unit
– Defining the reference flow
• Data aggregation
• Refine system boundary


Agenda
 Introductions
 Life Cycle Inventory Analysis 15 minute break
 Break
 Interpretation
 Q&A

Definition
analysis
Inventory
Interpretation




Life Cycle Impact Assessment
Elements of Impact Assessment
Selection - Determination of relevant impact categories,
category indicators, and characterization models
Mandatory Elements
Methodology Dependent
Classification - Assignment of Life Cycle Inventory results
(Academic Institutions, Gov’t
Agencies, International NGOs
(IPCC))
Characterization - Calculation of category indicator results

Normalization - Calculation of the magnitude of category
indicator results relative to reference information
Optional Elements
Grouping - Assignment of impact categories to groups of similar Methodology Dependent
impacts
(Academic Institution, Gov’t
Agency, Industry Consortia
Weighting - Assignment of relative values or weights to different
impacts, allowing integration across all impact categories. (USGBC))

Data Quality Check - Analysis of the significance, uncertainty Study Context Dependent
and sensitivity of LCIA results


Necessity of LCIA

Inventory
Emission Amount Share Importance
• Carbon dioxide (CO2) 2,000 kg 98.90 % !
• Nitrous oxide (N2O) 20 kg 0.10 % -
• Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) 2 kg 0.01 % -


Necessity of LCIA

Inventory
Emission Amount Share Importance
• Carbon dioxide (CO2) 2,000 kg 98.90 % !
• Nitrous oxide (N2O) 20 kg 0.10 % -
• Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) 2 kg 0.01 % -
Impact Assessment
Emission Equivalence GWP contribition Share
(FAR CO2-e)
• CO2 1 2,000 3.7 %
• N2O 298 5,960 11.1 %
• SF6 22800 45,600 85.1 %


LCIA Framework

Adapted from Jolliet et al. (2004) The LCIA Midpoint-damage Framework of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, IJLCA 9 (5) 394-
404.


Midpoints vs. Endpoints
Emissions (CFCs, Halons)

Chemical reaction releases Cl- and Br-

Cl-, Br- destroys ozone
MIDPOINT measures ozone depletion potential (ODP)

Less ozone allows increased UVB radiation
which leads to following ENDPOINTS

skin cancer
cataracts

crop damage marine life damage

immune system suppression damage to materials like plastics


In LCIA General Fate and Transport is considered


Toxicity Regionalization
Example: Nested transboundary model for USEtox


Water Consumption Regionalization
Water Stress Index


Regionalization in LCIA

Bulle et al. (2012) World + Impact Assessment Methodology
98

Classification and Characterization of Inputs and Outputs
Multiplication & Addition
Global Warming Potential
Life Cycle Inventory Classification Characterization (CO2-e)

Resources CO2: 1

Copper CO: 1.53

Zinc CH4: 25 Σ GWP
Airborne Emissions N2O: 298

Carbon Dioxide CCl4: 1,800

Carbon Monoxide SF6: 22,800 Human Health Toxicity Why zero?
Characterization (1,4 DCB-e)
Methane
CCl4: 220
Nitrous Oxide
C6H6:1,900
Carbon Tetrachloride (CFC-10)
Sulfur Hexafluoride
C7H8: 0.327 Σ HHTP
C8H10: 0.000
Benzene
C8H10: 0.125
Toluene Abiotic Depletion Potential
C8H10: 0.043 (Sb-e)
Xylenes
C8H10: 0.043 Cu: 1.94 E-3
o-Xylene
Oil, Crude: 2.01E-2
m-Xylene
p-Xylene
Ag: 1.84 E+0 Σ ADP
Zn: 9.92E-4
Waterborne Emissions
XXX
Soil Emissions
XXX


Focus on US EPA and European Commission
LCIA Impact Categories
US EPA TRACI European Commission
• Climate Change Same Method* • Climate Change
• Acidification Diff. Method • Acidification
• Human Health Same Method* • Human Health Particulate
Particulate (Respiratory) (Respiratory)
• Eutrophication Diff. Method • Eutrophication
• Ozone Depletion Diff. Method • Ozone Depletion
• Smog Formation Diff. Method • Smog Formation
• Ecotoxicity Same Method* • Ecotoxicity
• Human Health Toxicity Same Method* • Human Health Toxicity
• Fossil Fuel Use Diff. Method • Resource Depletion – mineral
& fossil
No Equivalent • Resource Depletion – Water
*minor model differences
No Equivalent • Land Transformation

Background on the European Commission (EC)
Product Environmental Footprint
Organization Environmental Footprint

• The EC Environment Directorate General makes sure that EC Member
States correctly apply EU environmental law
• In its Integrated Product Policy, the EC concluded that LCA is the best
framework for assessing impacts of products
• Environment DG is working with the Joint Research Centre (JRC) Institute
for Environment and Sustainability (IES) to develop:
– Product Environmental Footprint and
– Organization Environmental Footprint guidance.
• JRC IES created European Platform on Life Cycle Assessment to
– Build consensus on methodological approach and
– Improve data availability


European Commission Portfolio of LCIA Methodologies
• The CML 2002 or CML or “Dutch” methodology,
– developed by Leiden University, Institute of Environmental Science (CML).
• The Environmental Design of Industrial Products (EDIP) methodology
– developed at the Technical University of Denmark (DTU)
• Impact Assessment of Chemical Toxics (IMPACT) 2002+ and IMPACT World+
methodologies
– created through the collaboration of the Centre Interuniversitaire de recherché sur le
cycle de vie des produits, procédés et services (CIRAIG), Polytechnique Montreal,
University of Michigan, Quantis International, and Ecole Polytechnique de Lausanne
(EPFL);
• The ReCiPe methodology (2008)
– created by Dutch Government National Institute for Public Health and the Environment
(RIVM), Radboud University, CML, and PRé Consultants;
• USEtox method (2008)
– created by Radboud University, University of Michigan, Dutch Government National
Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), UC Berkeley, Technical
University of Denmark (DTU), the Centre Interuniversitaire de recherché sur le cycle de
vie des produits, procédés et services (CIRAIG), Polytechnique Montreal,

European Commission
Portfolio of LCIA Methodologies (Product and Organization)
Impact Category Methodology

Climate Change Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007 (revised 2011)

Ozone Depletion Environmental Design of Industrial Products (EDIP) (based on World Meteorological
Organization (WMO))
Ecotoxicity USEtox model

Human Health Toxicity USEtox model
(cancer and non-cancer)
Particulate Matter RiskPoll model in IMPACT 2002+ (Humbert)

Ionizing Radiation (human health) Human health effects model (Dreicer et al.)

Photochemical Ozone Formation ReCiPe (Radboud University, CML, RIVM, PRe Consultants) (Dutch Method)

Acidification Accumulated Exceedance (Seppällä et al.)

Eutrophication (terrestrial) Accumulated Exceedance (Seppällä et al.)

Eutrophication (aquatic) ReCiPe (Radboud University, CML, RIVM, PRe Consultants) (Dutch Method)

Resource Depletion (water) Swiss Ecoscarcity (Frischknecht et al.)

Resource Depletion (mineral, fossil) Leiden University (CML 2002) (van Oers et al.)

Land Transformation Soil Organic Matter (SOM) model (Milà i Canals et al.)


US EPA TRACI Background
• Developed by US EPA National Risk
Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL)
• Provides US / North American based
characterization factors in response to
European activities in late 1990s.
• Regulatory driven
– Toxicity (Toxics Release Inventory)
– Smog formation
– Criteria Pollutants
– Non-point pollution sources (eutrophication)
– Ozone Depletion
• Strives for comprehensive coverage
• Site specific to the extent possible
– Reduced support in latest version
• Funding is limited, relies on outside developers


USEPA TRACI
Portfolio of Methodologies
Impact Category Methodology

Climate Change Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007 (revised
2011)
Ozone Depletion World Meteorological Organization (WMO) 2003 and the US
EPA 2008
Ecotoxicity USEtox model (2010) and USEPA

Human Health Toxicity USEtox model (2010) and USEPA
(cancer and non-cancer)
Particulate Matter Respiratory Effects Humbert (2009) adjusted for North America

Photochemical Ozone (Smog) Maximum Incremental Reactivity (MIR) method, Carter
Formation (2007/2008)
Acidification USEPA (2003)

Eutrophication USEPA (2003)

Fossil Fuel Depletion USEPA (2003) and Eco-Indicator 99, Institute of
Environmental Sciences (CML) Leiden University and PRe
Consultants (1999)


Climate Change Environmental Mechanism
Emissions to the
atmosphere

Time integrated
concentration

Midpoint
- Direct effects Radiative forcing
- Indirect effects
- temperature changes
- extreme weather
Climate change - increased precipitation
- drought conditions

Effects on Ecosystems Effects on humans

Endpoint
Net Primary Changing Other Infectious
Water stress Wild fires malnutrition Flooding Heat Stress
Production biomes impacts Diseases

Decreasing
biodiversity


LCA – State of the Practice
Water Withdrawal

• Water historically neglected by LCA field
– Not a scarce resource in areas of study
– Renewable
– Limited to water withdrawal vs. net consumption
• Water Withdrawal defined as water lost for a catchment area
by:
– evaporation,
– transpiration,
– product integration, or
– discharge into another river basin or sea water.


Add up all the water withdrawal “flows”


Resource Depletion Environmental Mechanism
Resource Use

Decreased Availability Midpoint

Recovery (urban & waste
Regeneration
mining)

Damage to availability of
resource for human wealth

Future availability & effort
needed

Future provision of needs

Endpoint
Damage to human health Damage to ecosystems


Water Resource Depletion – Swiss Ecoscarcity

• Basic method: a measure of the ratio of current freshwater consumption to critical flow (20% of
available resource)
• The model is relatively complete for water depletion in a regionally-specified way for several
countries.

– Frischknecht, R., Steiner, R., Jungbluth, N. (2009). The Ecological Scarcity Method: Eco-Factors 2006: A
method for impact assessment. Environmental studies no. 0906. Federal Office for the Environment, Bern:
188 pp.
– OECD 2004: Key environmental indicators. OECD Environment Directorate, Paris, retrieved 16.06.2005 from
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/32/20/31558547.pdf.


Human Health Toxicity
Environmental Mechanisms
ground-, fresh-, or marine
agricultural or natural soil outdoor air indoor air
water

algae vegetation crop Fate

Intake Fraction
crustacae animal meat

vertebrates (fish)
Exposure

ingestion
circulatory system inhalation (lung, nose)
(gastrointestinal tract)

Dose-response
target organs

Midpoint
cancer cases non-cancer type cases

overall cancer overall non-cancer
Disease severity
Endpoint

human health damage


Toxicity Factors
Intake Fraction Human Effect Factor

Chemical Fate
Human Dose Incidence of
Exposure Disease

Air
Emissions

Water

Potentially
Concentration Response Affected
Soil Fraction
Fate Factor Ecotox Effect Factor


LCIA Optional Elements
• Normalization: calculation of the
magnitude of each indicator result
relative to reference information
• Grouping: sorting and ranking of
impact categories
• Weighting: conversion and often
aggregation of indicator results across
categories using numerical factors
based on value-choices

2/19/2013 113

Normalization
• Divide the emissions by the total emissions of
the region of concern.
– Global warming  the globe
– Toxicity Regional areas specific to fate and
transport
• Benefit  Relative contribution
• Issues of incongruence
– In practice we use geo-political boundaries


Weights Developed for BEES
(NIST Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability)
Weights by Stakeholder Grouping

50
45
40 Producers
35 Users
30 LCA Experts
Percent

25
20
15
10
5
0

ke
n

ty
se

g
n

n

s

n
y

s
s

n
ct
io

in
tio

lit

nt
ct
tio

io

tio
ci
U

ta
ua

at

ffe

m
fe
at

ta
xi
le

ca

le
In
nd
rm

ar
To

Ef

lu
ic
Sm r Q
ep

E

ep
ifi

er
ph

ol

lW
La
s
Fo

us
id
D

al

D
Ai

ou

rP
at
tr o
Ac

ic

ba
ne

ro

el
W
og
or

er

og

Ai
Eu

ce

Fu

lo
zo

do

nc

ol

ia

G
an
O

il
ca
In

er
Ec

ss
C

rit
on

Fo
C
N

Gloria, Lippiatt, Cooper (2007) Life Cycle Assessment Weights to Support
Environmentally Preferable Purchasing in the US, ES&T, 41 7551-7557.


Agenda
 Introductions
 Break
 Interpretation
 Q&A

Definition
analysis
Inventory
Interpretation





Life cycle assessment framework

Goal and
Scope Identification of Evaluate:
Definition Significant
Completeness
Sensitivity
Issues Consistency

Inventory
Interpretation
Analysis

Conclusions, Limitations, and
Impact Recommendations
Assessment


Sensitivity Analysis


Pedigree Matrix – lognormal distribution
Indicator Score 1 2 3 4 5
Reliability Verified data based Verified data partly Non-verified data Qualified estimate Non-qualified
on measurements based on partly based on (e.g. by industrial estimate
assumptions or non- qualified estimates expert)
verified data based
on measurements
Completeness Representative data Representative data Representative data Representative data Representativeness
from all sites relevant from >50% of the from only some sites from only one site unknown or data
for the market sites relevant for the (<<50%) relevant for relevant for the from a small number
considered, over an market considered, the market market considered or of sites and from
adequate period to over an adequate considered or >50% some sites but from shorter periods
even out normal period to even out of sites but from shorter periods
fluctuations normal fluctuations shorter periods
Temporal Correlation Less than 3 years of Less than 6 years of Less than 10 years of Less than 15 years of Age of data unknown
difference to the difference to the difference to the difference to the or more than 15 years
time period of the time period of the time period of the time period of the of difference to the
dataset dataset dataset dataset time period of the
dataset
Geographical Correlation Data from area under Average data from Data from area with Data from area with Data from unknown
study larger area in which similar production slightly similar or distinctly different
the area under study conditions production area
is included conditions
Technical Correlation Data from Data from processes Data from processes Data on related Data on related
enterprises, and materials under and materials under processes or processes on
processes and study (i.e. identical study but from materials laboratory scale or
materials under study technology) but from different technology from different
different enterprises technology

Geometric Standard Deviation Values
Indicator 1 2 3 4 5
Reliability 1.00 1.05 1.10 1.20 1.50
Completeness 1.00 1.02 1.05 1.10 1.20
Temporal Correlation 1.00 1.03 1.10 1.20 1.50
Ecoinvent Data Quality
Geographical Correlation 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.05 1.10
Technical Correlation 1.00 1.05 1.20 1.50 2.00


Monte Carlo
Uncertainty Analysis
Characterization Climate change

0.065

0.06

0.055

0.05

0.045

0.04
Probability

0.035

0.03

0.025

0.02

0.015

0.01

0.005

0
361 364 367 369 372 374 377 380 382 385 387 390 393 395 398 400 403 406 408 411 413 416 419 421 424 426 429 432 434 437 439 442 445 447 450 452 455 458 460 463 465 468 471 473 476 478 481 484 486 489
kg CO2 eq

MPI 1005 Roll
Uncertainty analysis of 1 p 'MPI 1005 Roll',
method: ReCiPe Midpoint (H) V1.03 / World ReCiPe H, confidence interval: 95 %


Uncertainty Analysis


Agenda
 Introductions
 Break
 Interpretation
 Q&A

Hire or DIY?
• First time through
• Number of assessments
– 10 or more is the tipping point for economy of scale
• Limited resources
– Personnel
– Software
– Data repository
• Complex assessments
• Time limit
• Review or third party verification of conformance.


Data gathering – the black hole of LCA

• There are only two databases:
– GaBi 5 and ecoinvent
• Minimize the data to be collected
– Conduct Goal & Scope carefully
– Examine only areas that are different
• Make your requests clear and concise
– Spreadsheet
– Websheets
– Documentation
• Request early and often
• Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good (finishing).


Report Writing
ISO14040 §6.0 and ISO14044 §5.0

• Introduction
– Summary that could be stand alone
• Goal & Scope
– Captured as part of G&SD exercise
• Life Cycle Inventory
– Process Flow Diagram
– Data sources
– Appendix / Spreadsheet
• LCIA results
– Tables / charts / graphs
• Interpretation
– Results

Software Tools
• SimaPro – PRé Consultants
• GaBi Software & Database – PE International AG
• Umberto
• Quantis Web 2.0 Tool
• Carnegie Mellon - EIO-LCA Tool
• The Ohio State University - Eco-LCA tool
• OpenLCA Software
– Used by USDA for digital commons


LCA for Environmental Labels,
Claims, and Declarations

Type I Type II Type III
Environmental Labels Environmental Product Environmental Declarations
Declarations PCRs and EPDs
Selected criteria as hurdles, Single issues, describing Life Cycle Performance data,
demonstrating environmental specific environmental aiming for continuous
excellence characteristics improvement

Life Cycle Thinking Life Cycle Thinking Life Cycle Assessment
Mandatory Certification Certification possible May include 3rd party
Issued by a private or public, Issued by the manufacturer verification
accredited institution Issued by a private, accredited
institution
Like: Blue Angel, European Eco- Like: water consumption of a Like: UL Environment
label, SCS washing machine, or energy use Earthsure, ASTM, NSF,
of a computer. FPInnovations, Environdec


EPD Areas of Activity
• USGBC V4 LEED Pilot Credit Program
• ISO 21930 / ASTM E60 - EPD for building products
• European Commission product footprinting guidance
• France Grenelle de l’Environnement Law (2007) –omnibus législation
– All high volume consumer products sold in France have an EPD effective
7/1/11
– Anticipate that the program will spread to all of the EU
• The Sustainability Consortium SMRS (Sustainability Measurement &
Reporting Systems) for major product groups – TSC Psuedo Operator
• Sustainable Apparel Coalition – Higg Index and beyond
• Business Institutional Furniture Manufacturers Association (BIFMA) – NSF
Operator


LCA - limitations
• Expensive & Time Consuming
– Cost to value ratio may not tip in the right direction
• LCA is based on averages
– Innovation may be challenging to model
• Cannot address localized impacts
– new developments
• Based on linear modeling
– Less is better
• Focus on physical characteristics
– not market mechanisms or technological development
• Caveat emptor!
– It involves many technical assumptions
• Too much information that leads to catatonia!
– Needs to be integrated into management systems


LCA Applications
 An exhaustive environmental analysis of a product or
process to support DfE
 Science-based analysis
 Brings structure to the investigation
 Highlights tradeoffs
 Challenges conventional wisdom
 Captures the knowledge base
 Allows for ceteris paribus (all things being equal)
assessment – to look at what’s different or new.
 Hot spot identification
 Alignment and Emergence
 Support communication and discourse ( external and internal)
 Establish the ground rules for environmental claims in the
marketplace
 Support / refute new policy

Agenda
 Introductions
 Break
 Interpretation
 Q&A

Thank You and Good Luck!

t.gloria@industrial-ecology.com


Green biz lca workshop

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Green biz lca workshop

Similar to Green biz lca workshop (20)

More from GreenBiz Group

More from GreenBiz Group (20)

Green biz lca workshop