Life Cycle Assessment Of Newly Manufactured And Reconditioned .
Life Cycle Assessment of NewlyManufactured and ReconditionedIndustrial Packaging
January 2014Rotterdam, The NetherlandsClientReusable Industrial Packaging AssociationPaul W. RankinStudy performed byErnst & Young Accountants LLPEelco RietveldSander Hegger
Table of contents1.2.Introduction . 3Goal and scope . 42.1Goal. 42.2Functional unit . 42.3The product systems . 42.4System boundary . 52.5Impact assessment method . 63.Life cycle inventory . 83.1Inbound transport . 83.2Manufacturing . 83.3Reconditioning . 93.4Inbound transport . 93.5End of life. 94.Results . 104.1Carbon footprint: Open head steel drum . 104.2Carbon footprint: Tight head steel drum . 114.3Carbon footprint: Tight head plastic drum . 124.4Carbon footprint: IBC . 134.5Carbon footprint - results overview . 154.6Environmental footprints . 165.Conclusions . 22Appendix A Inventory data . 23Appendix BData overview reconditioning . 26Appendix CData overview newly manufactured packaging . 27Appendix D Traci 2.1. 28
1.IntroductionFor nearly three-quarters of a century, the Reusable Industrial Packaging Association (RIPA) hasbeen the trade association representing North American reconditioners, manufacturers anddistributors of reusable industrial packaging. RIPA represents over 90% of the industrial packagingreconditioning industry in North America including many of the world’s leading manufacturers ofsteel, plastic and fiber drums, as well as intermediate bulk containers. The RIPA membership alsoincludes many of the leading suppliers of packaging parts and accessories.As a condition of membership, all RIPA members agree to conform to a Code of Operating Practice,which sets forth specific guiding principles for operations, packaging reuse and recycling. Theseguidelines are intended to improve the industry’s performance in the areas of regulatorycompliance, environmental management, waste reduction and recycling.RIPA is the industry’s information clearinghouse. The association sponsors workshops and meetingsthat provide information about issues of importance to the industry’s wellbeing and continuedsuccess. The group’s Annual Conference, Technical Conference and compliance workshops helpensure that members understand key issues affecting their businesses, and can learn abouttechnical and business developments. The association publishes an industry newsletter, “ReusablePackaging Today,” and distributes Special Bulletins on issues of immediate concern to members.RIPA has requested EY to analyze the environmental performance of industrial packaging. What arethe ecological impact differences of reconditioning as compared with manufacturing a drum or IBCfrom raw materials? This report presents the goal and scope of the study performed (chapter 2), theresults (chapter 3) and conclusions of the study (chapter 4).
2.Goal and scopeThis chapter of the report discusses the goal and scope of the study. The functional unit and thespecific products are involved as well. It also discusses the choices concerning allocation, systemboundaries and assessment method.2.1GoalThe primary goal of the study is a head to head comparison between a new packaging and areconditioned packaging of similar technical specifications, resulting from a single trip and multi-tripindustrial packaging solution.2.2Functional unitThe functional unit of the comparison are packaging units with capacities of 55, 275 or 330 gallons,which are used to transport chemicals or other substances. The packaging content of 55 gallons isused for drums and the packaging of 275 gallons and 330 gallons are used for IBCs. The production,transport to customer and the end of life are included in the functional unit. The functional flow isone unit of packaging.2.3The product systemsThe following product systems are part of the scope of the project:Packaging typeContentNewReconditionedIBC275 US Gal330 US GalSteel palletSteel palletSteel drum55 US GalTight headOpen headTight headOpen headPlastic drum55 US GalTight head (virgin plastic)Tight head (Post consumer resin)Tight headIBCAn IBC has a 275 or 330 gallon volume polyethylene bottle which will contain the product duringuse. The bottle is inside a steel tube cage. The analyzed systems have a steel pallet.Steel drumA steel drum is completely made out of steel sheet, with an outside coating applied later in theprocess. The drum is manufactured as an open - or tight head. The top of the tight head is seamedto the body and only two small openings remain for filling and emptying the drum. The lid of theopen head can be removed from the rest of the drum for filling. Lid and drum body are assembledwith a bolt or clamp ring. Open head steel drums also utilize a plasticized gasket to facilitate properclosure.Plastic drumA plastic drum is made out of high density polyethylene (HDPE), either out of virgin resin or out ofpost-consumer resin (PCR). The tight head plastics drum is one piece blow molded. It has two smallopenings for filling and emptying the drum.
Collection processIt is normal practice to collect drums and IBCs from users who have emptied the packaging. Thedrums and IBC’s are collected by truck and transported to a reconditioning facility. There, they arereconditioned as explained above and sold to customers again.2.4System boundaryThe system boundary determines the unit processes included or excluded in each life cycle of theproduct system. One life cycle has connections with other life cycles. This is for instance the casewith the life cycle of a packaging and the life cycle of the content of the packaging. Another exampleis the use of recycled materials that originate from another life cycle. It is important to determineand show which processes will be included, how they are included and also which will be excluded.This is essential for the interpretation of the results and conclusions of the study.Below a process flow diagram is presented, which provides an overview of the flow of the processesin the system. The boxes with the dotted lines are not included in the life cycles of the productsystems.Upstream ProcessesRecyclingProduction rawmaterials/ energyProduction processmaterials / energy*Inbound transportCoreProcessesProduction ofdrum/IBCReconditioningFilling ofpackagingDownstreamProcessesOutbound transportUse ofpackagingEnd of lifeFigure 1 Schematic representation of the system boundary of the life cycle assessment* Upstream processes involved in the reconditioning only reflect materials needed for washing (like e.g. caustic soda) and nothing ofthe packaging materials themselves.
Allocation and recyclingSystem boundaries are also set in the life cycle to determine the allocation of burdens and benefitsregarding recycling. For instance, scrap is the output from the life cycle of steel drums and is used inanother life cycle of perhaps a steel clamp ring of a drum. The boundary between the two life cyclesshould be set and be consistent throughout the whole study. The benefit of recycling should not beclaimed twice. This happens if a benefit is provided to the drum that is scrapped and to the clampring that uses the scrap. The system boundary is set before the use of the recycled material byproducts downstream that has been provided by the products in this study. The benefits of providingmaterials for recycling are therefore not deducted from the burdens but also the burdens of therecycling process (for instance the scrapping process) are not taken into account here.The recycled content of steel is set at the amount of steel that is recycled at the end of life. Thereason of this choice is that steel is a closed loop material: it is possible to recycle steel an indefinitenumber of times. The limit is the steel that is kept in the loop and is recycled in the end of life phase.Some recycling plants, as in energy recovery facilities, generate electricity and heat. This benefit isincluded in the national electricity mixes. This benefit is therefore allocated to the use of electricityand not to the material and product generating the energy when incinerated.Drums and IBCs for collectionEach reconditioned drum or IBC was once newly manufactured. The drums and IBCs are collectedafter use by the reconditioning party. The impact of the newly manufactured drum is not included inany way in the life cycle of the reconditioned drum.2.5Impact assessment methodThe focus of the study is on the emission of greenhouse gasses (GHG), which influences globalwarming. There are many different gasses that have this potential for global warming, but thispotential is different for each gas. To be able to add up all these potentials, the global warmingpotential (GWP) of a substance is related to the GWP of carbon dioxide. Methane, for instance has a25 time higher GWP than carbon dioxide, its conversion factor is therefore 25. To add up 1 kg ofmethane and 1 kg of carbon dioxide the amount of methane emitted is multiplied with 25 and thenadded to the amount of carbon dioxide emitted. This results in a total GWP equivalent to 26 kgcarbon dioxide or CO2e in this case.Besides global warming there are other environment issues, for instance ozone depletion, toxicity,resource depletion. The results of this study will therefore be complemented with the results ofseveral other impact categories as well. The impact potentials are calculated in these impactcategories in a similar way as the GWP of the climate change calculated as explained above.There are different impact assessment methods that have determined conversion factors for theimpact categories. In this study the method Traci 2.1 is used. This is a method that is developedspecifically for the North American continent. More information about this method can be found inAppendix D. The impact categories in Table 1 are included in the analysis.
Table 1 Impact categories of Traci 2.1Impact categoryUnitClimate changeLbs CO2eOzone depletionLbs CFC-11eAcidificationLbs SO2eEutrophicationLbs NeSmogLbs O3eCarcinogenicsCTUhNon carcinogenicsCTUhRespiratory effectsLbs PM 2.5eEcotoxicityCTUeFossil fuel depletionMJ surplusThe main focus is on climate change, the other impact categories are discussed more briefly.
3.Life cycle inventoryThe inventory data can be divided in foreground and background data. The foreground data are thecore processes of the figures in and concerns processes like energy use of production and materialuse. This data is collected using questionnaires send to members of RIPA.The background data are the upstream and downstream processes of the figures in 3.4.1 andconcerns processes like energy production, raw material production, resource extraction etc. Aspecific database for the US will be used: USLCI database1. This database contains processesspecific for the production processes and circumstances in the USA. Data gaps are filled with datafrom the database Ecoinvent 32, the most up-to-date and large LCA database available.3.1Inbound transportThe raw materials and the drums and IBC to be reconditioned need to be transported to themanufacturing or reconditioning facility. The inbound transport is set at 100 miles, these materialsare typically purchased within this distance from the facility. The transport of drums and IBCs to bereconditioned is dependent on the size of the packaging, the size of the truck, the distance to theclient and the number of drums or IBCs to be delivered. The number of 55 gallon drums per truckload is set at 250, the number of 275 gallon IBCs per truckload is set at 60, the number of 330gallon IBCs per truckload is set at 50. The transport distance is set at 200 miles. These are typicalvalues for this kind of transport.3.2ManufacturingTen manufacturers of drums and IBCs have responded to a request to provide data about theproduction of the manufacturing of both drums and IBCs. This resulted in data from sixteen differentproduction lines, some manufacturers provided data of multiple lines. The database processes usedand the assumptions used are presented in Appendix A. The inventory per manufacturer isconfidential information, only the averages per packaging type are presented, see Appendix CThe main dimensions of the different packaging types are presented below.Steel drumSteel sheet thickness (mm)Top/body/bottomTight head Steelweight (lbs.)Open head Steelweight 81.0/0.8/1.032.935.50.8/0.8/0.831.033.3IBC – composite, steel palletIBC typeSteel weight(lbs.)Virgin plastic weight(lbs.)Recycled plasticweight (lbs.)275 gallon IBC80.3366330 gallon IBC100446
Plastic drum – tight headIBC typeVirgin plastic weight (lbs.)55 gallon virgin plastic55 gallon recycled plastic3.3Recycled plasticweight (lbs.)210021ReconditioningSixteen reconditioning facilities responded to a request to provide data about the production of thereconditioning of both drums and IBCs. This resulted in data from nineteen different reconditioninglines, some reconditioners provided data of multiple lines. The aggregated data of thereconditioning is presented in Appendix B.3.4Inbound transportThe manufactured (both new and reconditioned) drums and IBC need to be transported to the client.The outbound transport is set at 200 miles, the truck load is set equal to the truckload of theinbound transport.3.5End of lifeNo direct data of the end of life statistics of industrial packaging is available. The statistics ofMunicipal solid waste (MSW) are used as proxy data. The recycling percentage of the plastic andsteel is obtained from the EPA3. The remaining waste is either incinerated or landfilled. This ratio isalso based on EPA as included in the end of life scenario of the USA.abRecycling percentage of Plastics: 12.9% . Recycling percentage of steel: 72% .abFrom MSW category: Total Plastics in Cont. & PackagingFrom MSW category: Containers and Pack aging – Total steel packaging
4.ResultsThis chapter presents the results of the life cycle assessment. The results of the analysis of thecarbon footprint of the open head steel drum, tight head steel drum, tight head plastic drum and IBCare discussed in the first four paragraphs and an overview of the results is presented in the fifthparagraph. The sixth paragraph discusses other impact categories like ozone depletion andecotoxicity.Carbon footprint: Open head steel drumFigure 2 shows the head to head comparison of the life cycle of a newly manufactured drum and areconditioned drum. The outbound transport and end of life of both systems is assumed to be thesame. The differences are in the raw materials, inbound transport and the production/reconditioningprocess. The raw materials of the reconditioning process concern materials like steel shot that areused in the process but it also includes inner lining and coatings. The figure shows that the GHGemissions of the life cycle of a reconditioned drum are less than half the GHG-emissions of a newlymanufactured open head steel drum.Open head steel drum1.2/0.9/1.290,0080,00GHG-emission (lbs CO2e)4.1End of life70,0060,00Outbound s30,00Inbound transport20,00Raw materials10,000,00NewReconditionedFigure 2 Comparison of carbon footprint between newly manufactured open head steel drums with the reconditioned open head steeldrumOpen head steel drum – 1.2/0.9/1.2 – carbon footprint (lbs 2.52.90.762.9Production/reconditioning process10.721.0OutboundtransportEnd of lifeTotal(lbs CO2e)2.92.90.380.3877.330.1Open head steel drums are manufactured with steel sheet of different thicknesses, from 0.8 to 1.2mm. Figure 3 shows an overview of the GHG-emission of the different open head steel drums.
GHG-emissions (lbs CO2e)Open head steel drum100908070605040302010067708174777789Figure 3 Comparison of the carbon footprint between open head steel drums with different thickness steel sheet. The codes refer to thethickness of the steel sheet: bottom/body/topFigure 3 shows the expected results that the drums with the thinner sheet have lower GHGemissions than the drums with thicker steel sheet. It should be stressed that the drums with thickersheet can be reconditioned and can be reconditioned more often. The comparison with thereconditioned drum shows that the possibility of reconditioning the drums with thicker steel sheetsoutweighs the reduced impact of the drums with thinner steel sheet.Carbon footprint: Tight head steel drumFigure 4 shows a head to head comparison between a newly manufactured tight head drum(1.2/0.9/1.2 mm) and a reconditioned tight head drum.Tight head steel drum1.2/0.9/1.280,0End of life70,0GHG-emission (lbs CO2e)4.260,0Outbound 0,0Inbound transport20,010,0Raw materials0,0NewReconditionedFigure 4 Comparison of carbon footprint between newly manufactured tight head steel drums with the reconditioned tight head steeldrum.
Tight head steel drum – 1.2/0.9/1.2 – carbon footprint (lbs .210.40.722.91Production/reconditioning process10.529.6OutboundtransportEnd of life2.912.91Total(lbs CO2e)0.330.3371.646.1The above figure shows that the GHG-emissions of the reconditioned drum are about 65% of theGHG-emissions of a newly manufactured drum. The advantage of reconditioning a tight head drum issmaller than reconditioning an open head drum. This is mainly caused by the higher energy use ofreconditioning a tight head drum. Figure 5 shows a comparison of tight head steel drums withdifferent steel sheet thickness.Tight head steel drumGHG-emissions (lbs CO2e)908070605040306366738467707220100Figure 5 Comparison of the carbon footprint between tight head steel drums with different thickness steel sheet. The codes refer to thethickness of the steel sheet: bottom/body/top.The figure above shows a difference of 25% in GHG-emission between the lightest and heaviestdrum.4.3Carbon footprint: Tight head plastic drumFigure 6 shows a comparison between the life cycle of a newly manufactured tight head plastic drumand a reconditioned drum. The new drum can be manufactured using virgin plastic or post-consumerresin (PCR). There is a clear advantage of using PCR instead of virgin plastic. The reconditioneddrum has similar carbon footprint. It appears that the GHG-emissions related to scrapping of plasticand producing a drum from this scrapped plastic are similar to the washing of a whole drum. Theemissions related to the scrapping process are from the US LCI database. Further analysis isrequired to back this findings.
Tight head plastic drum7060GHG-emission (lbs CO2e)End of life50Outbound nd transport20Raw materials100Virgin plasticPCRReconditionedFigure 6 Comparison of carbon footprint between newly manufactured drums made from virgin plastic and PCR and the reconditioneddrumTight head plastic drum – carbon footprint (lbs CO2)RawmaterialsVirgin 0.40.42.9Production/reconditioning process15.115.121.0Outboundtransport2.92.92.9End of life12.812.812.8Total(lbs CO2e)62.644.146.0What would have happened if the plastic drum was not reconditioned? Or if the PCR was notrecycled? Would the plastic have been incinerated? Reconditioning and recycling avoid emissionsthat would have been caused by the disposal. These avoided emissions are not taken into accountbut are a benefit of reconditioning and recycling.4.4Carbon footprint: IBCFigure 7 shows a comparison between the life cycles of newly manufactured IBCs and reconditionedIBCs. The benefit of reconditioning an IBC is substantial. The GHG-emissions of reconditioned IBCsare about a third of the GHG-emissions of newly manufactured IBCs.
IBC Steel pallet275 and 330350,0GHG-emission (lbs CO2e)300,0End of life250,0Outbound s100,0Inbound transport50,0Raw materials0,0IBC 275IBC 330IBC 275IBC 330reconditioned reconditionedFigure 7 Comparison of carbon footprint between newly manufactured IBCs and the reconditioned IBCs with the sizes 275 and 330 lbs.Intermediate bulk container (IBC) – carbon footprint (lbs tioningprocessOutboundtransportEnd of lifeTotal(lbs CO2e)IBC 275171.12.457.112.125.6268.3IBC 21.514.636.814.630.597.9IBC 275reconditionedIBC 330reconditioned
4.5Carbon footprint - results overviewOverview of carbon footprint resultsCategoryTypeSteel drumPlastic drumIBCNew(lbs CO2e)Reconditioned(lbs CO2e)Open head77.330.1Tight head71.646.1Tight headVirgin plastic62.646.0Tight headPCR44.1-275 gallon268.388.2330 gallon316.097.9
4.6Environmental footprintsThe emission of greenhouse gasses is not the only environmental issue. A comparison between newly manufactured industrial packagingnewly manufactured industrial packaging and reconditioned packaging with more environmental topics are shown in the figures fromtopics are shown in the figures fromIBC 275 lbs.120%100%80%60%40%New20%Reconditioned0%Figure 8 to Figure 12.IBC 275 lbs.120%100%80%60%40%20%NewReconditioned0%Figure 8 Comparison on multiple environmental issues between newly manufactured IBC and reconditioned IBC of 275 lbs.
IBC 330 lbs.120%100%80%60%40%20%NewReconditioned0%Figure 9 Comparison on multiple environmental issues between newly manufactured IBC and reconditioned IBC of 330 lbs.
Intermediate bulk container (IBC)UnitOzone depletionGlobal il fueldepletionLbs CFC-11eqLbs CO2 eqLbs O3 eqLbs SO2 eqLbs N eqCTUhNew IBC 275New IBC 330ReconditionedIBC 275ReconditionedIBC 3309.03E-062.68E 021.68E 012.34E 001.51E-012.51E-051.10E-053.16E 021.97E 012.77E 001.85E-013.11E-054.98E-066.25E 017.58E 004.58E-014.68E-021.19E-075.95E-066.74E 018.69E 004.94E-015.02E-021.23E-07CTUhLbs 14.33E 023.32E-015.32E 022.53E-021.70E 012.74E-021.81E 01MJ surplus2.29E 022.76E 023.73E 014.15E 01IBC 275 lbs.120%100%80%60%40%20%NewReconditioned0%Figure 8 and Figure 9 show that the reconditioned IBCs have a lower score than newly manufacturedIBCs on all analyzed impact categories.
Open head steel drumEnvironmental impact (%)120%100%80%60%40%New20%Reconditioned0%Figure 10 Comparison on multiple environmental issues between newly manufactured open head steel drum and the reconditioned drum.
Steel drum open head – 1.2/0.9/1.2Ozone depletionGlobal sNon carcinogenicsRespiratory effectsEcotoxicityFossil fuel depletionUnitLbs CFC-11 eqLbs CO2 eqLbs O3 eqLbs SO2 eqLbs N eqCTUhCTUhLbs PM2.5 eqCTUeMJ surplusNew drum3.74E-067.73E 015.25E 004.61E-017.01E-021.24E-053.47E-051.00E-011.57E 023.30E 01Reconditioned drum1.81E-063.36E 012.48E 002.68E-013.56E-024.22E-077.45E-071.74E-022.74E 012.70E 01Figure 10 shows that the reconditioned open head steel drum scores better on all analyzedenvironmental issues.Environmental impact (%)Tight head steel drum120%100%80%60%40%New20%Reconditioned0%Figure 11 Comparison on multiple environmental issues between newly manufactured tight head steel drum and the reconditioned drumSteel drum tight head – 1.2/0.9/1.2Ozone depletionGlobal sNon carcinogenicsRespiratory effectsEcotoxicityFossil fuel depletionUnitLbs CFC-11 eqLbs CO2 eqLbs O3 eqLbs SO2 eqLbs N eqCTUhCTUhLbs PM2.5 eqCTUeMJ surplusNew drum3.46E-067.16E 014.88E 004.29E-016.35E-021.14E-053.19E-059.23E-021.44E 023.07E 01Reconditioned drum2.32E-064.61E 013.39E 003.71E-014.86E-026.92E-071.59E-062.61E-023.55E 013.20E 01Figure 11 shows that the reconditioned tight head steel drum scores better on most analysesenvironmental issues, except fossil fuel depletion. The slightly higher score on fossil fuel depletion is
mainly caused by the higher energy use of the reconditioning process compared with the productionof newly manufactured drums.Environmental impact (%)Plastic tight head drum160%140%120%100%80%60%40%20%0%Virgin newPCR newReconditionedFigure 12 Comparison on multiple environmental issues between newly manufactured drums made from virgin plastic and PCR and thereconditioned drumPlastic drum tight headUnitOzone depletionGlobal sNon carcinogenicsRespiratory effectsEcotoxicityFossil fuel depletionLbs CFC-11 eqLbs CO2 eqLbs O3 eqLbs SO2 eqLbs N eqCTUhCTUhLbs PM2.5 eqCTUeMJ surplusVirgin new drum8.06E-076.26E 013.14E 008.41E-011.27E-023.14E-073.58E-064.87E-027.75E 011.06E 02PCR new drum7.64E-074.41E 012.85E 002.63E-017.71E-036.19E-087.03E-071.38E-021.22E 011.45E 01Reconditioneddrum1.22E-064.64E 012.70E 002.81E-018.06E-035.31E-086.99E-071.53E-021.40E 012.34E 01The reconditioned plastic drum scores lower on most environmental issues than the newlymanufactured drum and similar to the newly manufactured drum based on PCR. The exception isozone depletion, which is mainly caused by the higher inbound transport of the drums to bereconditioned.
5.ConclusionsReconditioning industrial packaging has environmental benefits compared with newly manufacturedones. The conclusions are discussed per packaging type below.Open head steel drumReconditioning an open head steel drum instead of newly manufacturing it cuts the carbon footprintmore than in half. The impact of energy during the reconditioning process is the main contributor tothe carbon footprint.Tight head steel drumThe reconditioning process of a tight head steel drum requires more energy, caustic and acid thanopen head steel drums. Reconditioning has still a clear benefit on the carbon footprint comparedwith newly manufacturing this drum. Also other impact categories have a lower score forreconditioned drums than newly manufactured drums, with the exception of fossil fuel depletion.Tight head plastic drumReconditioning a tight head plastic drum reduces the carbon footprint about 25% if compared with anewly manufactured plastic drum. A drum made from PCR has a similar carbon footprint as thereconditioned drum. A reconditioned drum scores about five times better than a newlymanufactured drum on several impact categories. The exception is ozone depletion because of thehigher inbound transport of a reconditioned drum.IBCReconditioning an IBC has a substantial benefit on the carbon footprint, it is lowered by a factorthree. It has also a clear benefit on the other analyzed impact categories.ReductionThe environmental burden of the reconditioning process can be further reduced by energy reductionprograms as the use of energy is the main contributor to the scores of the different impactcategories analyzed. The depletion of fossil fuel of the reconditioned drum is higher than of a newlymanufactured tight head steel drum.Green Packaging CalculatorThe inventory data is integrated in an Excel based calculator. The Green Packaging Calculator offersa three-step process by which the environmental impact of industrial packaging solutions, expressedin carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalents, may be determined. Calculated impacts enables RIPA membersto select containers and understand the impact on the environment of such selections.
Appendix AInventory dataTable XX: Comparable companies’ XYZProcessDatabaseDatabase processNotesCarbon steel barsEcoinvent 3 72% isassumed to befrom electricsteel and 28 %is assumed tobe fromconvertersteel.72% isassumed to befrom electricsteel and 28 %is assumed tobe fromconvertersteel.
The system boundary determines the unit processes included or excluded in each life cycle of the product system. One life cycle has connections with other life cycles. This is for instance the case with the life cycle of a packaging and the life cycle of the content of the packaging. Another example is the use of recycled materials that .
2.1 Life cycle techniques in life cycle sustainability assessment 5 2.2 (Environmental) life cycle assessment 6 2.3 Life cycle costing 14 2.4 Social life cycle assessment 22 3 Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment in Practice 34 3.1 Conducting a step-by-step life cycle sustainability assessment 34 3.2 Additional LCSA issues 41 4 A Way Forward 46
Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) "Phase of life cycle assessment aimed at understanding and evaluating the magnitude and significance of the potential environmental impacts for a product system throughout the life cycle of the product" (ISO 14040:2006, section 3.4) Life Cycle Interpretation "Phase of life cycle assessment in which the .
life cycles. Table of Contents Apple Chain Apple Story Chicken Life Cycle Cotton Life Cycle Life Cycle of a Pea Pumpkin Life Cycle Tomato Life Cycle Totally Tomatoes Watermelon Life Cycle . The Apple Chain . Standards of Learning . Science: K.7, K.9, 2.4, 3.4, 3.8, 4.4 .
Life Cycle Impact Assessment—phase of life cycle assessment aimed at understanding and evaluating the magnitude and significance of the potential environmental impacts for a product system throughout the life cycle of the product. Life Cycle Interpretation—phase of life cycle assessment in which the findings of either the
4.UNEP/SETAC (2011). Global Guidance Principles for Life Cycle Assessment Databases. UNEP/SETAC Life-Cycle Initiative. ISBN: 978-92-807-3021-. 5.UNEP (2003). Evaluation of environmental impacts in Life Cycle Assessment, Division of Technology, Industry and Economics (DTIE), Production and Consumption Unit, Paris. 6.ISO 14040 (2006).
3.1 life cycle 3.2 life cycle assessment 3.3 life cycle inventory analysis 3.4 life cycle impact assessment 3.5 life cycle interpretation 3.6 comparative assertion 3.7 transparency 3.8 environmental aspect 3.9 product 3.10 co-product 3.11 process 3.12 elementary flow 3.13 energy flow 3.14 feedstock energy 3.15 raw material LCA MODULE A1 18
2.0 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) 5 2.1 Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) 7 2.2 Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) 11 2.3 Framework 13 2.4 System Boundaries 16 2.5 Limitation and Problems 19 3.0 Life Cycle Cost Assessment (LCCA) 20 3.1 Life Cycle Cost (LCC) 20 3.2 Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) 22 3.3 Financial Supplementary Measures 23
Organizations have to face many challenges in modern era. The same is the position in schools and collages as they are also organizations. To meet the challenges like competition, efficient and economical uses of sources and maximum output, knowledge of management and theories of management is basic requirement. Among Management Theories, Classical Management Theories are very important as .
