Life-Cycle Assessment in the Service Industries

Despite the dominant role service industries play in modern society, those industries have by and large not been involved in the strong efforts underway to create environmentally responsible operations. Part of the reason is that the role of these industries as driving factors in resource flows has not been recognized. Perhaps more important, no common framework for assessing the environmental responsibility of service industries has been established. This article provides such a framework and applies it to a generic service industry: automotive repair. Among the results are that evaluation must take different forms for different types of services, and that the approaches of service industries to the use of buildings and equipment will require innovative solutions quite unlike those advocated for the "greening" of manufacturing operations.     

Using Life-Cycle Assessment in Process Design

This article presents the application of life-cycle assessment in early phases of process design in the context of technology that employs a bio-based material. The goal is to identify hot spots in the process chains with regard to environmental impacts by performing a dominance analysis. By focusing his activities on the hot spots identified, the designer is given the opportunity to efficiently improve environmental performance. This approach is illustrated for the case of supercritical water gasification, a novel technology for the treatment of organic feedstock with high moisture content. In the reactor under supercritical conditions, organic components are converted into a high-caloric synthesis gas, with hydrogen, methane, and carbon dioxide as the main products. The data used for the assessment are obtained from laboratory tests and the literature, completed by assumptions for missing data. The scope of assessment ranges from the extraction of raw materials to the product, that is, hydrogen (cradle to gate) with sewage sludge of a municipal wastewater treatment plant used as feedstock. The assessment identifies the main sources of environmental impacts. The predominant process step in terms of global warming potential is the supply of the gasification process with additional heat. The production of a blending agent in the dewatering step is the main source of the impact category of acidification, whereas the wastewater treatment plant is the origin of emissions that lead to eutrophication. The revealed sources are analyzed further and options for reducing the environmental impacts are discussed.     

Avoiding Co-Product Allocation in Life-Cycle Assessment

Abstract: In a life‐cycle assessment (LCA) involving only one of several products from the same process, how are the resource consumption and the emissions associated with this process to be partitioned and distributed over these co‐products? This is the central question in co‐product allocation, which has been one of the most controversial issues in the development of the methodology for life‐cycle assessment, as it may significantly influence or even determine the result of the assessments. In this article, it is shown that in prospective life‐cycle assessments, co‐product allocation can always be avoided by system expansion. Through a number of examples, it is demonstrated how system expansion is performed, with special emphasis on issues that earlier have been a focus of the allocation debate, such as joint production (e.g., of chlorine and sodium hydroxide, zinc and heavy metals, and electricity and heat), the handling of “near‐to‐waste” by‐products, processes simultaneously supplying services to multiple product systems, and credits for material recycling and downcycling. It is shown that all the different co‐product situations can be covered by the same theoretical model and the same practical procedure, and that it is also possible to include the traditional co‐product allocation as a special case of the presented procedure. The uncertainty aspects of the presented procedure are discussed. A comparison is made with the procedure of ISO 14041, “Life‐cycle assessment—Goal and scope definition and inventory analysis,” the international standard.     

Life-Cycle Assessment of Biosolids Processing Options

Biosolids, also known as sewage sludge, are reusable organic materials separated from sewage during treatment. They can be managed in a variety of ways. Different options for biosolids handling in Sydney, Australia, are compared in this study using life-cycle assessment. Two key comparisons are made: of system scenarios (scenario 1 is local dewatering and lime amendment; scenario 2 is a centralized drying system) and of technologies (thermal drying versus lime amendment). The environmental issues addressed are energy consumption, global warming potential (GWP), and human toxicity potential (HTP).
Scenario 2 would consume 24% more energy than scenario 1. This is due to the additional electricity for pumping and particularly the petrochemical methane that supplements biogas in the drier. A centralized system using the same technologies as scenario 1 has approximately the same impacts. The GWP and HTP of the different scenarios do not differ significantly.
The assessment of technology choices shows significant differences. The ample supply of endogenous biogas at North Head sewage treatment plant for the drying option allows reductions, relative to the lime-amendment option, of 68% in energy consumption, 45% in GWP, and 23% in HTP.
Technology choices have more significant influence on the environmental profile of biosolids processing than does the choice of system configurations. Controlling variables for environmental improvement are the selection of biogas fuel, avoidance of coalsourced electrical energy, minimization of trucking distances, and raising the solids content of biosolids products.     

A Theoretical Foundation for Life-Cycle Assessment

The presence of value judgments in life-cycle impact assessment (LCIA) has been a constant source of controversy. According to a common interpretation, the international standard on LCIA requires that the assessment methods used in published comparisons be "value free." Epistemologists argue that even natural science rests on "constitutive" and "contextual" value judgments. The example of the equivalency potential for climate change, the global warming potential (GWP), demonstrates that any impact assessment method inevitably contains not only constitutive and contextual values, but also preference values. Hence, neither life-cycle assessment (LCA) as a whole nor any of its steps can be "value free." As a result, we suggest a more comprehensive definition of objectivity in LCA that allows arguments about values and their relationship to facts. We distinguish three types of truth claims: factual claims, which are based on natural science; normative claims, which refer to preference values; and relational claims, which address the proper relation between factual knowledge and values. Every assessment method, even the GWP, requires each type of claim. Rational arguments can be made about each type of claim. Factual truth claims can be assessed using the scientific method. Normative claims can be based on ethical arguments. The values of individuals or groups can be elicited using various social science methods. Relational claims must follow the rules of logic. Relational claims are most important for the development of impact assessment methods. Because LCAs are conducted to satisfy the need of decision makers to consider environmental impacts, relational claims about impact assessment methods should refer to this goal. This article introduces conditions that affect environmental decision making and discusses how LCA—values and all—can be defended as a rational response to the challenge of moving uncertain scientific information into the policy arena.     

Site-Dependent Life-Cycle Impact Assessment of Acidification

The lack of spatial differentiation in current life-cycle impact assessment (LCIA) affects the relevance of the assessed impact. This article first describes a framework for constructing factors relating the region of emission to the acidifying impact on its deposition areas. Next, these factors are established for 44 European regions with the help of the RAINS model, an integrated assessment model that combines information on regional emission levels with information on long-range atmospheric transport to estimate patterns of deposition and concentration for comparison with critical loads and thresholds for acidification, eutrophication via air; and tropospheric ozone formation. The application of the acidification factors in LCIA is very straightforward. The only additional data required, the geographical site of the emission, is generally provided by current life-cycle inventory analysis. The acidification factors add resolving power of a factor of 1,000 difference between the highest and lowest ratings, while the combined uncertainties in the RAINS model are canceled out to a large extent in the acidification factors as a result of the large number of ecosystems they cover The framework presented is also suitable for establishing similar factors for eutrophication and tropospheric ozone formation for regions outside Europe as well.     

Product Environmental Life-Cycle Assessment Using Input-Output Techniques

Life-cycle assessment (LCA) facilitates a systems view in environmental evaluation of products, materials, and processes. Life-cycle assessment attempts to quantify environmental burdens over the entire life-cycle of a product from raw material extraction, manufacturing, and use to ultimate disposal. However, current methods for LCA suffer from problems of subjective boundary definition, inflexibility, high cost, data confidentiality, and aggregation.
This paper proposes alternative models to conduct quick, cost effective, and yet comprehensive life-cycle assessments. The core of the analytical model consists of the 498 sector economic input-output tables for the U.S. economy augmented with various sector-level environmental impact vectors. The environmental impacts covered include global warming, acidification, energy use, non-renewable ores consumption, eutrophication, conventional pollutant emissions and toxic releases to the environment. Alternative models are proposed for environmental assessment of individual products, processes, and life-cycle stages by selective disaggregation of aggregate input-output data or by creation of hypothetical new commodity sectors. To demonstrate the method, a case study comparing the life-cycle environmental performance of steel and plastic automobile fuel tank systems is presented.     

Decision Analysis Frameworks for Life-Cycle Impact Assessment

Life‐cycle impact assessments (LCIAs) are complex because they almost always involve uncertain consequences relative to multiple criteria. Several authors have noticed that this is precisely the sort of problem addressed by methods of decision analysis. Despite several experiences of using multipleattribute decision analysis (MADA) methods in LCIA, the possibilities of MADA methods in LCIA are rather poorly elaborated in the field of life‐cycle assessment. In this article we provide an overview of the commonly used MADA methods and discuss LCIA in relation to them. The article also presents how different frames and tools developed by the MADA community can be applied in conducting LCIAs. Although the exact framing of LCIA using decision analysis still merits debate, we show that the similarities between generic decision analysis steps and their LCIA counterparts are clear. Structuring of an assessment problem according to a value tree offers a basis for the definition of impact categories and classification. Value trees can thus be used to ensure that all relevant impact categories and interventions are taken into account in the appropriate manner. The similarities between multiattribute value theory (MAVT) and the current calculation rule applied in LCIA mean that techniques, knowledge, and experiences derived from MAVT can be applied to LCIA. For example, MAVT offers a general solution for the calculation of overall impact values and it can be applied to help discern sound from unsound approaches to value measurement, normalization, weighting, and aggregation in the LCIA model. In addition, the MAVT framework can assist in the methodological development of LCIA because of its well‐established theoretical foundation. The relationship between MAVT and the current LCIA methodology does not preclude application of other MADA methods in the context of LCIA. A need exists to analyze the weaknesses and the strengths of different multiple‐criteria decision analysis methods in order to identify those methods most appropriate for different LCIA applications.     

Bottom-Up Life-Cycle:Assessment of Product Consumption in Belgium

The present study shows the results and methodology applied to the study of the identification of priority product categories for Belgian product and environmental policy. The main goal of the study was to gather insight into the consumption of products in Belgium and their related life-cycle environmental impacts. The conclusions of this project on the product categories with major environmental contributions can be used to start up working groups involving stakeholders and initiate detailed product studies on the impact reduction potential that could be achieved by means of implementing product policy measures. Several ways of assessing product category environmental impacts and the effects of policy measures have been developed; 'bottom-up' or 'market-life-cycle assessment' is one of these, and we tried this approach for the situation in Belgium. Simplified life-cycle assessment (LCA) studies were conducted for representative average products within each function-based product category and the results were multiplied with market statistics. Using this approach, we found that building construction, building occupancy, and personal transport are among the major categories for Belgium. The major drawbacks of this approach are the system-level limitations and the existence of a broad spectrum of nonharmonized methods and datasets from which a sound preliminary selection had to be made. Consequently, the retrieval and selection of data was very time consuming and due to this we had to accept some major limitations in the study design. Nevertheless, the study has contributed to the development of a methodology for market-LCA and elements that can be picked up in currently ongoing and future work. The study concludes that to improve the feasibility and acceptance of this type of study there is a need for the development of a harmonized methodology on market-LCA, policy-relevant impact indicators as well as a harmonized and stakeholder-agreed-upon LCA databases.