Abstract

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a holistic, cradle-to-grave environmental approach which provides a comprehensive view of the environmental aspects of a product or process throughout its life cycle. A properly conducted LCA identifies and quantifies the potential impacts of an industrial system (aiming to assess products, processes and activities). But more importantly, LCA identifies the potential transfer of environmental impacts from one media to another and/or from one life cycle stage to another. If an LCA were not performed, these trade-offs might not be recognized and properly included in the analysis because it is outside of the typical scope or focus of the decision making process.

This chapter explores why it is important to use a life cycle perspective in environmental management. It outlines the advancement of pollution strategies over the years, moving from end-of-pipe to pollution prevention (cleaner production) strategies and later to life cycle based approaches to meet sustainability goals. The key benefit of LCA, to identify potential transfer of environmental impacts, is demonstrated in a few brief examples. The chapter also presents the basic LCA methodology as described in a series of standards and technical reports produced by the International Standards Organization (ISO).

References from the LCA Handbook

1 Environmental Life Cycle Assessment: Background and Perspective    1–14

2 An Overview of the Life Cycle Assessment Method – Past, Present, and Future    14–41

3.5 Evolution of LCA Practice and Associated Issues    63–65

10.2 Why Develop an Integrated Sustainable Supply Chain Management Program?    235–238

25 Life Cycle Knowledge Informs Greener Products 585–596

Aims of the Chapter

1. Place life cycle thinking in proper context with environmental strategies as they have evolved over the years.
2. Help users understand the basic characteristics of the ISO standard for LCA, from scoping to interpretation.
3. Provide real world examples of LCA applications and how life cycle has been used in industry and government.

1.1 Purpose of the Student Handbook

In recent years, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) practice has evolved from a specialty field practiced by a handful of practitioners with closely guarded databases, to a widely used tool with emphasis on transparency and data sharing. Although LCA practice still requires a high degree of expertise and knowledge, the availability of sophisticated LCA software, such as SimaPro and GaBi, have made LCA-accessible to a much wider user base. The use of computer software for conducting LCA continues to grow. Since 2006, an open source software called openLCA has been available for conducting professional level LCA. The software and its source code is freely available. The software is fully transparent and can be modified by anyone.

It is important for users to fully comprehend what these various products offer. This handbook is not intended to teach any one particular software program. Instead, the basic characteristics of the different LCA software products are covered so that students have a better understanding of what they are and how they operate. This is presented in Chapter 2 along with discussion on life cycle inventory and in Chapter 3 on life cycle impact assessment models.

1.2 Why LCA?

Before jumping into discussing how to conduct an LCA, it is important to first understand the “why.” The following section provides a brief description of the evolution of environmental management and how it has moved from an end-of-pipe focus toward the broader goal of sustainability, of which LCA is an important part. The chapter then presents the stages of LCA as constituted by the International Standards Organization (ISO). This structure lays the foundation for the following chapters in the handbook.

1.3 Evolution of Environmental toward Life Cycle Thinking

Environmental management strategies have evolved through the development of laws and regulations that limit pollutant releases to the environment. For example, since its inception in 1970, the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) has made important progress toward improving the environment in every major category of environmental impact caused by pollutant releases. Levels of emissions across the nation have stayed constant or declined; hundreds of primary and secondary wastewater treatment facilities have been built; land disposal of untreated hazardous waste has largely stopped; hundreds of hazardous waste sites have been identified and targeted for cleanup; and the use of many toxic substances has been banned. Together, these actions have had a positive effect on the nation’s environmental quality and have set an example for other nations. However, despite the combined achievements of the federal government, States and industry in controlling waste emissions which have resulted in a healthier environment, the further improvement of the environment has slowed.

Worldwide, the advancement of environmental protection strategies moving from end-of-pipe to pollution prevention and beyond has been steady. This evolution can be summarized by the following chronology:

This evolution follows a pattern of ever-broadening scope when thinking about environmental management. In the 1980’s, the term “waste minimization”, or “waste reduction,” was defined as “Measures or techniques that reduce the amount of wastes generated during industrial production processes; term is also applied to recycling and other efforts to reduce the amount of waste going into the waste stream.” However, much of the focus remained on recycling and other end-of-life activities. In 1990, it was replaced by the term “pollution prevention” (or “cleaner production” outside the US) in order to give equal emphasis to activities that reduce potential environmental releases at the source of generation (Pollution Prevention Act 1990):

“The term “source reduction” means any practice which –

1. reduces the amount of any hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant entering any waste stream or otherwise released into the environment (including fugitive emissions) prior to recycling, treatment, or disposal; and
2. reduces the hazards to public health and the environment associated with the release of such substances, pollutants, or contaminants. The term includes equipment or technology modifications, process or procedure modifications, reformulation or redesign of products, substitution of raw materials, and improvements in housekeeping, maintenance, training, or inventory control.”

However, the boundaries of a pollution prevention assessment¹ are drawn tightly around the facility or the plant (figure 1.1). This narrow, “gate-to-gate” focus does not allow for the identification of impacts that may occur in the manufacture and supply of materials going into the facility (i.e. the supply chain) or during the use and end-of-life stages of products coming out of the production facility.

Over the years, other federal policies have been developed to address environmental concerns at the various points across the life cycle. Some of these activities include the following:

• US National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA²) for Mining Operations.
• US EPA’s March 1995 Risk Characterization Policy for assessing risk to human and ecological health from exposure to chemicals.
• The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), enacted in 1976, is the principal federal law in the United States governing the disposal of solid waste and hazardous waste.
• Energy Production and Use, for example, the Energy Star program that rates energy consuming products in order to help consumers optimize energy efficiency.
• Vehicles and Transportation, for example, the Renewable Fuels Standard which aims to replace conventional fossil fuels with those derived from bio-feedstock, such as bioethanol.

These examples demonstrate policy actions that focus on specific aspects. Like the fable about the six blind men and the elephant (Figure 1.2).

The conceptual jump to the broader environmental LCAs was made through a series of small steps. The first studies that are now recognized as (partial) LCAs date from the late 1960s and early 1970s, a period in which environmental issues like resource and energy efficiency, pollution control and solid waste became issues of broad public concern (US EPA 1993). One of the first (unfortunately unpublished) studies quantifying the resource requirements, emission loadings and waste flows of different beverage containers was conducted by Midwest Research Institute (MRI) for the Coca Cola Company in 1969 (see box).

A follow-up of this study conducted by the same institute for the US EPA in 1974 (Hunt et al 1974), and a similar study conducted by Basler & Hofman (1974) in Switzerland, marked the beginning of the development of LCA as we know it today. MRI used the term Resource and Environmental Profile Analysis (REPA) for this kind of study, which was based on a system analysis of the production chain of the investigated products “from cradle to grave.” After a period of diminishing public interest in LCA and a number of unpublished studies, there has been rapidly growing interest in the subject from the early 1980s on.

The period 1970-1990 comprised the decades of conception of LCA with widely diverging approaches, terminologies and results. There was a clear lack of international scientific discussion and exchange platforms for LCA. During the 1970s and the 1980s LCAs were performed using different methods and without a common theoretical framework. LCA was repeatedly applied by firms to substantiate market claims. The obtained results differed greatly, even when the objects of the study were the same, which prevented LCA from becoming a more generally accepted and applied analytical tool (Guinée et al 2011).

The 1990s saw a remarkable growth of scientific and coordination activities worldwide, which is reflected in the number of workshops and other forums that have been organized in this decade and in the number LCA guides and handbooks produced:³

• Product Life Assessments: Policy issues and implications; Summary of a Forum on May 14, 1990; World Wildlife Fund and The Conservation Foundation: Washington, DC, 1990.
• Fava, J.A., Denison, R., Jones, B., Curran, M.A., Vigon, B., Selke, S., Barnum, J., Eds. A Technical Framework for Life-Cycle Assessments; Workshop Report Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry; SETAC: Washington, DC, 1991.
• Smet, B. de, Ed. Life-cycle analysis for packaging environmental assessment; Proceedings of the specialised workshop, 24-25 September 1990, Leuven. Procter & Gamble Technical Center: Strombeek-Bever, Belgium, 1990.
• Life-Cycle Assessment; Proceedings of a SETAC-Europe workshop on Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Products December 2-3 1991, Leiden; SETAC-Europe: Brussels, Belgium, 1992.
• Fava, J.A., Consoli, F., Denison, R., Dickson, K., Mohin, T., Vigon, B., Eds. A Conceptual Framework for Life-Cycle Impact Assessment; Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry and SETAC Foundation for Environmental Education, Inc. Workshop Report; SETAC: Pensacola, Florida, 1993.
• Huppes, G., Schneider, F., Eds. Proceedings of the European Workshop on Allocation in LCA under the Auspices of SETAC-Europe, February 24-25, 1994, Leiden; SETAC-Europe: Brussels, Belgium, 1994.
• Umweltprofile von Packstoffen und Packmitteln: Methode; Fraunhofer-Institut für Lebensmitteltechnologie und Verackung: München; Gesellschaft für Verpackungsmarktforschung Wiesbaden und Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung Heidelberg: Germany, 1991.
• Grieshammer, R., Schmincke, E., Fendler, R., Geiler, N., Lütge, E. Entwicklung eines Verfahrens zur ökologischen Beurteilung und zum Vergleich verschiedener Wasch- und Reinigungsmittel; Band 1 und 2. Umweltbundesamt: Berlin, Germany, 1991.
• Product Life Cycle Assessment - Principles and Methodology; Nord 1992:9, Nordic Council of Ministers: Copenhagen, Denmark, 1992.
• Heijungs, R., Guinée, J.B., Huppes, G., Lankreijer, R.M., Udo de Haes, H.A., Wegener Sleeswijk, A., Ansems, A.M.M., Eggels, P.G., Duin, R. van, Goede, H.P. de. Environmental life cycle assessment of products. Guide & Backgrounds – October 1992; Centre of Environmental Science, Leiden University: Leiden, The Netherlands, 1992.
• Vigon, B.W., Tolle, D.A., Cornaby, B.W., Latham, H.C., Harrison, C.L., Boguski, T.L., Hunt, R.G., Sellers, J.D. Life-Cycle Assessment: Inventory Guidelines and Principles; EPA/600/R-92/245; Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, 1993.
• Lindfors, L.-G., Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V., Hanssen, O.J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T., Finnveden, G. Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle Assessment, Nord 1995:20; Nordic Council of Ministers: Copenhagen, Denmark, 1995.
• Curran, M.A. Environmental Life-Cycle Assessment; McGraw-Hill: New York, 1996.
• Hauschild, M., Wenzel, H. Environmental Assessment of products. Volume 1: Methodology, tools and case studies in product development - Volume 2: Scientific background; Chapman & Hall: London, U.K., 1998.

Also, the first scientific journal papers started to appear in the Journal of Cleaner Production, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, the International Journal of Life cycle Assessment, Environmental Science & Technology, the Journal of Industrial Ecology, and other journals.

Through its North American and European branches, the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) started playing a leading and coordinating role in bringing LCA practitioners, users and scientists together to collaborate on the continuous improvement and harmonization of the LCA framework, terminology and methodology. The SETAC “Code of Practice” (Consoli et al 1993) was one of the key results of this coordination process. Next to SETAC, the International Standards Organization (ISO) has been involved in LCA since 1994. Whereas SETAC working groups focused at development and harmonization of methods, ISO adopted the formal task of standardizing methods and procedures.

The period of 1990-2000 can, therefore, be characterized as a period of convergence through SETAC’s coordination and ISO’s standardization activities, providing a standardized framework and terminology, and platform for debate and harmonization of LCA methods. In other words, the 1990s was a decade of standardization. Note, however, that ISO never aimed to standardize LCA methods in detail: “there is no single method for conducting LCA.” During this period, LCA also became part of policy documents and legislation, with the main focus on packaging legislation, for example, in the European Union (EC 1994) and the 1995 Packaging Law in Japan (Hunkeler et al 1998).

1.4 Examples of Environmental Impact Trade-Offs

LCA identifies the potential transfer of environmental impacts from one medium to another (e.g., eliminating air emissions by creating a wastewater effluent instead) and/or from one life cycle stage to another (e.g., from use and reuse of the product to the raw material acquisition stage). If an LCA were not performed, the transfer might not be recognized and properly included in the analysis because it is outside of the typical scope or focus of product selection processes. By broadening the study boundaries, LCA can help decision-makers select the product or process that causes the least impact to the environment. This information can be used with other factors, such as cost and performance data, in the selection process.

In connecting the different parts of the system, many LCAs lead to unexpected and non-intuitive results. For example, in the US in the 1980s, there was a perceived landfill crisis with many predicting the country running out of landfill space in the near future (NY Times 1986). Disposable (also called single-use) diapers (nappies) were caught up in the scare and perceived as a bad environmental choice because they end up in landfills by the millions, taking up valuable space, and take an estimated 500 years to decompose. Additionally, they are made using valuable non-renewable and renewable resources including wood pulp and plastic during their manufacture. But consumers often prefer the convenience and ease of disposable diapers.

Cloth diapers differ from disposables in that they are intended to be reused, thus cloth diapers are viewed as the more environmentally conscious alternative. While made of a renewable, natural material (cotton), cloth diapers require hot water (energy use) and detergents for washing. In order to determine the environmental superiority of cloth diapers, if any, multiple LCAs of disposable and cloth diapers were developed by P&G, the trade association EDANA, the UK Environment Agency, and others. However, when additional studies showed that cloth diapers also have meaningful environmental impacts due to use and heating water for washing, it became unclear which product was actually better. These studies found that most environmental impacts are linked to the energy, water, and detergents needed for cleaning cloth diapers, while the largest impacts, in addition to postconsumer waste, were related to raw material production for disposable diapers (Fava et al 1991, Krause et al 2009).

We learned that, depending upon the impact in question and where it occurs, different and equally valid interpretations can result. What these early studies revealed was that all products have impacts on the environment and that LCA tools enable decision makers to use new and additional information to make better-informed decisions.

Over the years, the instances in which one problem was solved but caused another are numerous. Compact fluorescent bulbs reduce electricity consumption by 75% but come with a dash of mercury. Biobased fuels reduce greenhouse gas emissions but contribute to air, water and soil quality impacts in the agricultural stage.

Tools are needed that can help us to evaluate the comparative potential cradle-to-grave impacts of our actions in order to help us to prevent such wide-ranging effects. While LCA can provide assistance in the decision-making process, it has limited applicability in that it can only help us to evaluate the data that are available at the time. That is, it is not a predictive tool but can only model activities for which data are available. However, it has become increasingly evident that we must look much more holistically at our actions in order to more effectively protect human health and the environment in the short and long-term and to therefore, contribute to the development of more sustainable societies.

As manufacturing operations become increasingly diverse, both technically and geographically, producers and the service industry are realizing the need to be fully aware of the potential environmental impacts in the sourcing of resources, manufacturing and assembly operations, usage, and final disposal. Many companies have found it advantageous to explore ways of moving beyond compliance using pollution prevention strategies and environmental management systems to improve their environmental performance. Society, in general, is becoming increasingly more aware of the fact that human activity can have far reaching impact.

This expanded view of interactions between human activity and the environment is prompting environmental managers and policy makers to look at products and services from cradle to grave. Out of this need came Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). What started as an approach to compare the environmental goodness (greenness) of products has developed into a standardized method for providing a sound scientific basis for environmental sustainability in industry and government. LCA provides a comprehensive view of the environmental aspects of product or process alteration or selection and presents an accurate picture of potential environmental trade-offs. LCA is useful in addressing cross-media problems and avoiding the transfer of a problem from one medium to another or from one place to another. Figure 1.6 presents a cradle- to-grave system of a generic product to depict the broad scope covered by LCA.