understanding the validity of a lca

Changing the way we look at natural resourcesEarthEarthShiftShiftChanging the way we look at natural resources

Understanding the gValidity of a LCA

S i bili i P k iSustainability in PackagingMarch 15, 2010

L l M ELaurel [email protected] 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

Changing the way we look at natural resourcesEarthEarthShiftShift

The Functional UnitThe Functional Unit

• The basis for comparisonThe basis for comparison– Consider:

• Function defined as closely as ypossible to end-use

• Performance quality• Performance duration• If necessary, physical or spatial

concernsconcerns

• Must reflect differences in functionality between twomaterials or products


p1 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 the y p

same? Ceramic Disposable100 uses 1 useNo sleeve 100 sleeves99 washes 0 washes1 disposal 100 disposals


p p1 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 plastic g p16 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 ExerciseGoal: 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 diPeanuts T

Sugar T

Grinding

T

Distribution Center

MixingOil T

Glass T Jar Mfg T

Center

T Municipal Waste

Paper T

PP T

Printer T

Lid Mfg TRetailer

T

User Storage T

Recycling

IndividualPackagingInk T

Paper T

Box Forming/Printing T

Recycling Carton

Packaging


Cardboard T

Film TShrink

Wrapping

CartonPackaging T

Printing T

Plastic GlassPeanut Butter 16 oz. 16 oz.Jar 1.3 oz PET 6.2 oz GlassJar 1.3 oz PET 6.2 oz GlassLid .3 oz PP .5 oz SteelSeal 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 in transport 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 without p g grefrigeration……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 PET PET

Recycling

7% PET recycled at end of life


100% PET recycled at end of life

Sensitivity Glass Glass

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 14044ISO 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 studyWHAT 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

InternationalISO 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 LabelsAn 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 LabelsEnvironmental 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

EPD EPD Example


EPD InfrastructureGEDnet

Potential US Program/repository

ProgramOperator

Product Forum Product Category Rules (PCR)

Independent Verifier

Life CycleAssessment

LCIData


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) – PassedSets forth provisions concerning clean energy, energy efficiency, reducing global warming pollution, transitioning to a clean energy economy, and g g p g gy yproviding 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

Documents