Irradiating the environment: Radiological impacts in life cycle assessment

One of the main shortcomings of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) when applied to the Nuclear Fuel Cycle, is that there is currently no recognised procedure to deal with radionuclide emissions in the Impact Assessment stage. A framework which considers both human and environmental impacts is required and a methodology which is compatible with the other impact assessment approaches in LCA must be developed. It is important that the discussion is not only restricted to concepts, but that a working methodology is developed which can be readily applied by LCA practitioners. A provisional method is available for assessing radiological impacts on human health, but no consideration has been given to potential effects on the environment. A methodology is proposed in this paper which assesses irradiation of the environment using Environmental Increments (EI) as the quality standard. This approach is based on the same principles as for the Ecotoxicity classification group, and it represents a working methodology which can be continuously improved as knowledge in the area increases.     

Integrating life cycle costs and environmental impacts of composite rail car-bodies for a Korean train

Background, aim, and scope  A coupled Life Cycle Costing and life cycle assessment has been performed for car-bodies of the Korean Tilting Train eXpress (TTX) project using European and Korean databases, with the objective of assessing environmental and cost performance to aid materials and process selection. More specifically, the potential of polymer composite car-body structures for the Korean Tilting Train eXpress (TTX) has been investigated. Materials and methods  This assessment includes the cost of both carriage manufacturing and use phases, coupled with the life cycle environmental impacts of all stages from raw material production, through carriage manufacture and use, to end-of-life scenarios. Metallic carriages were compared with two composite options: hybrid steel-composite and full-composite carriages. The total planned production for this regional Korean train was 440 cars, with an annual production volume of 80 cars. Results and discussion  The coupled analyses were used to generate plots of cost versus energy consumption and environmental impacts. The results show that the raw material and manufacturing phase costs are approximately half of the total life cycle costs, whilst their environmental impact is relatively insignificant (3–8%). The use phase of the car-body has the largest environmental impact for all scenarios, with near negligible contributions from the other phases. Since steel rail carriages weigh more (27–51%), the use phase cost is correspondingly higher, resulting in both the greatest environmental impact and the highest life cycle cost. Compared to the steel scenario, the hybrid composite variant has a lower life cycle cost (16%) and a lower environmental impact (26%). Though the full composite rail carriage may have the highest manufacturing cost, it results in the lowest total life cycle costs and lowest environmental impacts. Conclusions and recommendations  This coupled cost and life cycle assessment showed that the full composite variant was the optimum solution. This case study showed that coupling of technical cost models with life cycle assessment offers an efficient route to accurately evaluate economic and environmental performance in a consistent way.     

On the limitations of life cycle assessment and environmental systems analysis tools in general

The potential and limitations of life cycle assessment and environmental systems analysis tools in general are evaluated. More specifically this is done by exploring the limits of what can be shown by LCA and other tools. This is done from several perspectives. First, experiences from current LCAs and methodology discussions are used including a discussion on the type of impacts typically included, quality of inventory data, methodological choices in relation to time aspects, allocation, characterisation and weighting methods and uncertainties in describing the real world. Second, conclusions from the theory of science are practised. It is concluded that it can in general not be shown that one product is environmentally preferable to another one, even if this happens to be the case. This conclusion has important policy implications. If policy changes require that it must be shown that one product is more (or less) environmentally preferable before any action can be taken, then it is likely that no action is ever going to take place. If we want changes to be made, decisions must be taken on a less rigid basis. It is expected that in this decision making process, LCA can be a useful input. Since it is the only tool that can be used for product comparisons over the whole life cycle, it can not be replaced by any other tool and should be used. Increased harmonisation of LCA methodology may increase the acceptability of chosen methods and increase the usefulness of the tool.     

Current issues in the characterisation of toxicological impacts

Fate, exposure and effect measures provide a basis for the calculation of characterisation factors in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). Such characterisation factors provide insights into the relative concern of chemical emissions within and across life cycle inventories, in the context of toxicological stress to humans and to ecosystems. A brief overview is presented in this paper of the available options for toxicological characterisation and of associated issues that will need to be addressed in future consensus-building initiatives. An introduction is provided to issues such as: (1) the benefit of measures calculated at midpoints versus at endpoints in the toxicological cause-effect chains (sometimes termed environmental mechanisms); (2) the need to use multimedia models with spatial resolution; (3) the political consequences of accounting for variations in population density; (4) uncertainties in the toxicological potency measures; and (5) the different options for the toxicological endpoint measure(s). These issues are addressed under the headings of Fate and Exposure, Human Health and (aquatic) Ecosystem Health.     

Application of life cycle assessment in environmental labelling

The present state of worldwide discussions of how to apply LCA in environmental labelling, taking into account the current ISO 14 020 and ISO 14 024 works, is described. There is a consensus to use LCA as a tool for more scientific environmental labelling. The examples presented verify some practical possibilities to realise this approach. As a background to different stages of practical labelling, results from LCA studies are already used in the German “Blue Angel” scheme, e.g. for the definition of the scope in one product category, for the priorisation of specific life cycle phases and criteria, as a basis to establish a scoring system or to emphasise the importance of information on how to use environmentally sound products. Practical examples are presented in detail for hand-drying systems, paper products, milk packages, household equipment, televisions and detergents. Some future perspectives are mentioned. Presentation at “The Second International Conference on EcoBalance - The New Stage of LCA as a Common Language”, Nov. 18, 19 and 20, 1996 Tsukuba, Japan     

Evaluating options in LCA: The emergence of conflicting paradigms for impact assessment and evaluation

LCA aims to help direct decisions in an environmentally sustainable direction. It indicates the environmental effects of choices and evaluates these against this background. Approaches to evaluation in LCA differ substantially, related to the way of modelling environmental effects and to the way these effects are combined into an overall judgement on alternative options. Several approaches are now operational, which are linked to different paradigms in decision making. It is shown that the choice of paradigm is quite decisive on the outcome of the analysis. Also within similar paradigms, different methods now operational may lead to different outcomes. These latter differences may be alleviated more easily than those related to paradigmatic choices, as they are partly a matter of refinement, and they partly result from legitimate differences in subjective priorities. The more basic paradigmatic differences can hardly be bridged. The practical relevancy of the subject is proven by applying different operational methods to one case, showing widely differing outcomes. The paradigm behind evaluating environmental effects is either values based, directly or through policy decisions, or economics based, as individual preferences measured in the monetary terms of willingness-to-pay. Accordingly, the different methods are “policy-oriented” or “monetary”. It may be doubted if the differences between these can be overcome in standardisation.